An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the <it>InfoKeep </it>rating; the ease of use according to the <it>Ease </it>rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>InfoKeep </it>scores were significantly different across the classifications (<it>p </it>≤ 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While <it>Ease </it>scores were different (<it>p </it>≤ 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system.</p

Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (2 of 7): discovery science

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Normal and abnormal processes of pregnancy and childbirth are poorly understood. This second article in a global report explains what is known about the etiologies of preterm births and stillbirths and identifies critical gaps in knowledge. Two important concepts emerge: the continuum of pregnancy, beginning at implantation and ending with uterine involution following birth; and the multifactorial etiologies of preterm birth and stillbirth. Improved tools and data will enable discovery scientists to identify causal pathways and cost-effective interventions.</p> <p>Pregnancy and parturition continuum</p> <p>The biological process of pregnancy and childbirth begins with implantation and, after birth, ends with the return of the uterus to its previous state. The majority of pregnancy is characterized by rapid uterine and fetal growth without contractions. Yet most research has addressed only uterine stimulation (labor) that accounts for <0.5% of pregnancy.</p> <p>Etiologies</p> <p>The etiologies of preterm birth and stillbirth differ by gestational age, genetics, and environmental factors. Approximately 30% of all preterm births are indicated for either maternal or fetal complications, such as maternal illness or fetal growth restriction. Commonly recognized pathways leading to preterm birth occur most often during the gestational ages indicated: (1) inflammation caused by infection (22-32 weeks); (2) decidual hemorrhage caused by uteroplacental thrombosis (early or late preterm birth); (3) stress (32-36 weeks); and (4) uterine overdistention, often caused by multiple fetuses (32-36 weeks). Other contributors include cervical insufficiency, smoking, and systemic infections. Many stillbirths have similar causes and mechanisms. About two-thirds of late fetal deaths occur during the antepartum period; the other third occur during childbirth. Intrapartum asphyxia is a leading cause of stillbirths in low- and middle-income countries.</p> <p>Recommendations</p> <p>Utilizing new systems biology tools, opportunities now exist for researchers to investigate various pathways important to normal and abnormal pregnancies. Improved access to quality data and biological specimens are critical to advancing discovery science. Phenotypes, standardized definitions, and uniform criteria for assessing preterm birth and stillbirth outcomes are other immediate research needs.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Preterm birth and stillbirth have multifactorial etiologies. More resources must be directed toward accelerating our understanding of these complex processes, and identifying upstream and cost-effective solutions that will improve these pregnancy outcomes.</p

Reduced fetal growth velocity precedes antepartum fetal death

ObjectivesTo determine whether decreased fetal growth velocity precedes antepartum fetal death and to evaluate whether fetal growth velocity is a better predictor of antepartum fetal death compared to a single fetal biometric measurement at the last available ultrasound scan prior to diagnosis of demise.MethodsThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study of 4285 singleton pregnancies in African- American women who underwent at least two fetal ultrasound examinations between 14 and 32- weeks of gestation and delivered a liveborn neonate (controls; n- =- 4262) or experienced antepartum fetal death (cases; n- =- 23). Fetal death was defined as death diagnosed at - ¥- 20- weeks of gestation and confirmed by ultrasound examination. Exclusion criteria included congenital anomaly, birth at <- 20- weeks of gestation, multiple gestation and intrapartum fetal death. The ultrasound examination performed at the time of fetal demise was not included in the analysis. Percentiles for estimated fetal weight (EFW) and individual biometric parameters were determined according to the Hadlock and Perinatology Research Branch/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (PRB/NICHD) fetal growth standards. Fetal growth velocity was defined as the slope of the regression line of the measurement percentiles as a function of gestational age based on two or more measurements in each pregnancy.ResultsCases had significantly lower growth velocities of EFW (P- <- 0.001) and of fetal head circumference, biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length (all P- <- 0.05) compared to controls, according to the PRB/NICHD and Hadlock growth standards. Fetuses with EFW growth velocity <- 10th percentile of the controls had a 9.4- fold and an 11.2- fold increased risk of antepartum death, based on the Hadlock and customized PRB/NICHD standards, respectively. At a 10% false- positive rate, the sensitivity of EFW growth velocity for predicting antepartum fetal death was 56.5%, compared to 26.1% for a single EFW percentile evaluation at the last available ultrasound examination, according to the customized PRB/NICHD standard.ConclusionsGiven that 74% of antepartum fetal death cases were not diagnosed as small- for- gestational age (EFW <- 10th percentile) at the last ultrasound examination when the fetuses were alive, alternative approaches are needed to improve detection of fetuses at risk of fetal death. Longitudinal sonographic evaluation to determine growth velocity doubles the sensitivity for prediction of antepartum fetal death compared to a single EFW measurement at the last available ultrasound examination, yet the performance is still suboptimal. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168272/1/uog23111_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168272/2/uog23111.pd