51 research outputs found
Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction matter?
Background: Criteria for diagnosis of fetal growth restriction differ widely according to national and international guidelines, and further heterogeneity arises from the use of different biometric and Doppler reference charts, making the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction highly variable. Objective: This study aimed to compare fetal growth restriction definitions between Delphi consensus and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definitions, using different standards/charts for fetal biometry and different reference ranges for Doppler velocimetry parameters. Study design: From the TRUFFLE 2 feasibility study (856 women with singleton pregnancy at 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation and at risk of fetal growth restriction), we selected 564 women with available mid-pregnancy biometry. For the comparison, we used standards/charts for estimated fetal weight and abdominal circumference from Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, and GROW and Chitty. Percentiles for umbilical artery pulsatility index and its ratios with middle cerebral artery pulsatility index were calculated using Arduini and Ebbing reference charts. Sensitivity and specificity for low birthweight and adverse perinatal outcome were evaluated. Results: Different combinations of definitions and reference charts identified substantially different proportions of fetuses within our population as having fetal growth restriction, varying from 38% (with Delphi consensus definition, INTERGROWTH-21st biometric standards, and Arduini Doppler reference ranges) to 93% (with Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition and Hadlock biometric standards). None of the different combinations tested appeared effective, with relative risk for birthweight <10th percentile between 1.4 and 2.1. Birthweight <10th percentile was observed most frequently when selection was made with the GROW/Chitty charts, slightly less with the Hadlock standard, and least frequently with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. Using the Ebbing Doppler reference ranges resulted in a far higher proportion identified as having fetal growth restriction compared with the Arduini Doppler reference ranges, whereas Delphi consensus definition with Ebbing Doppler reference ranges produced similar results to those of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition. Application of Delphi consensus definition with Arduini Doppler reference ranges was significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome, with any biometric standards/charts. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition could not accurately detect adverse perinatal outcome irrespective of estimated fetal weight standard/chart used. Conclusion: Different combinations of fetal growth restriction definitions, biometry standards/charts, and Doppler reference ranges identify different proportions of fetuses with fetal growth restriction. The difference in adverse perinatal outcome may be modest, but can have a significant impact in terms of rate of intervention
Reduced fetal growth velocity and weight loss are associated with adverse perinatal outcome in fetuses at risk of growth restriction
BACKGROUND: Although fetal size is associated with adverse perinatal outcome, the relationship between fetal growth velocity and adverse perinatal outcome is unclear.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between fetal growth velocity and signs of cerebral blood flow redistribution, and their association with birthweight and adverse perinatal outcome.STUDY DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of the TRUFFLE 2 multicenter observational prospective feasibility study of fetuses at risk of fetal growth restriction between 32(+0) and 36(+6) weeks of gestation (n=856), evaluated by ultrasound biometry and umbilical and middle cerebral artery Doppler. Individual fetal growth velocity was calculated from the difference of birthweight and estimated fetal weight at 3, 2, and 1 week before delivery, and by linear regression of all available estimated fetal weight measurements. Fetal estimated weight and birthweight were expressed as absolute value and as multiple of the median for statistical calculation. The coefficients of the individual linear regression of estimated fetal weight measurements (growth velocity; g/wk) were plotted against the last umbilical-cerebral ratio with subclassification for perinatal outcome. The association of these measurements with adverse perinatal outcome was assessed. The adverse perinatal outcome was a composite of abnormal condition at birth or major neonatal morbidity.RESULTS: Adverse perinatal outcome was more frequent among fetuses whose antenatal growth was < 100 g/wk, irrespective of signs of cerebral blood flow redistribution. Infants with birthweight < 0.65 multiple of the median were enrolled earlier, had the lowest fetal growth velocity, higher umbilical-cerebral ratio, and were more likely to have adverse perinatal outcome. A decreasing fetal growth velocity was observed in 163 (19%) women in whom the estimated fetal weight multiple of the median regression coefficient was <-0.025, and who had higher umbilical-cerebral ratio values and more frequent adverse perinatal outcome; 67 (41%; 8% of total group) of these women had negative growth velocity. Estimated fetal weight and umbilical-cerebral ratio at admission and fetal growth velocity combined by logistic regression had a higher association with adverse perinatal outcome than any of those parameters separately (relative risk, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-4.8). CONCLUSION: In fetuses at risk of late preterm fetal growth restriction, reduced growth velocity is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome, irrespective of signs of cerebral blood flow redistribution. Some fetuses showed negative growth velocity, suggesting catabolic metabolism
Perinatal and 2-year neurodevelopmental outcome in late preterm fetal compromise: The TRUFFLE 2 randomised trial protocol
Introduction Following the detection of fetal growth restriction, there is no consensus about the criteria that should trigger delivery in the late preterm period. The consequences of inappropriate early or late delivery are potentially important yet practice varies widely around the world, with abnormal findings from fetal heart rate monitoring invariably leading to delivery. Indices derived from fetal cerebral Doppler examination may guide such decisions although there are few studies in this area. We propose a randomised, controlled trial to establish the optimum method of timing delivery between 32 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation. We hypothesise that delivery on evidence of cerebral blood flow redistribution reduces a composite of perinatal poor outcome, death and short-term hypoxia-related morbidity, with no worsening of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years. Methods and analysis Women with non-anomalous singleton pregnancies 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation in whom the estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference is <10th percentile or has decreased by 50 percentiles since 18-32 weeks will be included for observational data collection. Participants will be randomised if cerebral blood flow redistribution is identified, based on umbilical to middle cerebral artery pulsatility index ratio values. Computerised cardiotocography (cCTG) must show normal fetal heart rate short term variation (≥4.5 msec) and absence of decelerations at randomisation. Randomisation will be 1:1 to immediate delivery or delayed delivery (based on cCTG abnormalities or other worsening fetal condition). The primary outcome is poor condition at birth and/or fetal or neonatal death and/or major neonatal morbidity, the secondary non-inferiority outcome is 2-year infant general health and neurodevelopmental outcome based on the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. Ethics and dissemination The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from London-Riverside Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Regulatory Authority (HRA). Publication will be in line with NIHR Open Access policy. Trial registration number Main sponsor: Imperial College London, Reference: 19QC5491. Funders: NIHR HTA, Reference: 127 976. Study coordination centre: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS with Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical & Life Sciences, Cardiff University. IRAS Project ID: 266 400. REC reference: 20/LO/0031. ISRCTN registry: 76 016 200
Perinatal and 2-year neurodevelopmental outcome in late preterm fetal compromise: the TRUFFLE 2 randomised trial protocol
Introduction Following the detection of fetal growth restriction, there is no consensus about the criteria that should trigger delivery in the late preterm period. The consequences of inappropriate early or late delivery are potentially important yet practice varies widely around the world, with abnormal findings from fetal heart rate monitoring invariably leading to delivery. Indices derived from fetal cerebral Doppler examination may guide such decisions although there are few studies in this area. We propose a randomised, controlled trial to establish the optimum method of timing delivery between 32 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation. We hypothesise that delivery on evidence of cerebral blood flow redistribution reduces a composite of perinatal poor outcome, death and short-term hypoxia-related morbidity, with no worsening of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years. Methods and analysis Women with non-anomalous singleton pregnancies 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation in whom the estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference is <10th percentile or has decreased by 50 percentiles since 18–32 weeks will be included for observational data collection. Participants will be randomised if cerebral blood flow redistribution is identified, based on umbilical to middle cerebral artery pulsatility index ratio values. Computerised cardiotocography (cCTG) must show normal fetal heart rate short term variation (≥4.5 msec) and absence of decelerations at randomisation. Randomisation will be 1:1 to immediate delivery or delayed delivery (based on cCTG abnormalities or other worsening fetal condition). The primary outcome is poor condition at birth and/or fetal or neonatal death and/or major neonatal morbidity, the secondary non-inferiority outcome is 2-year infant general health and neurodevelopmental outcome based on the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities-Revised questionnaire. Ethics and dissemination The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from London-Riverside Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Regulatory Authority (HRA). Publication will be in line with NIHR Open Access policy. Trial registration number Main sponsor: Imperial College London, Reference: 19QC5491. Funders: NIHR HTA, Reference: 127 976. Study coordination centre: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS with Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical & Life Sciences, Cardiff University. IRAS Project ID: 266 400. REC reference: 20/LO/0031. ISRCTN registry: 76 016 200
- …