Search

Objectives: Large‐for‐gestational age (LGA) is associated with several adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although many studies have found that early induction of labor (IOL) in case of a LGA fetus reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia, no current guidelines recommend this particular clinical strategy, owing to concerns about increased rates of Cesarean delivery (CD) and neonatal complications. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the timing of IOL in LGA fetuses affected maternal and neonatal outcomes in a single center, and to combine these results with evidence reported in the literature. Methods: This study comprised two parts. The first part was a retrospective cohort study that included consecutive patients with a singleton pregnancy and an estimated fetal weight ≥ 90th percentile on ultrasound between 35 + 0 and 39 + 0 weeks' gestation, who were eligible for normal vaginal delivery. The second part of the study was a systematic review of the literature and meta‐analysis, including the results of our cohort study as well as those of previous studies that compared IOL with expectant management in patients with a LGA fetus. The perinatal outcomes of the study were CD, operative vaginal delivery, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus palsy, anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score, umbilical artery pH, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, use of continuous positive airway pressure, intracranial hemorrhage, need for phototherapy and bone fracture. Results: Of the 547 patients included in this retrospective cohort study, 329 (60.1%) underwent IOL and 218 (39.9%) experienced spontaneous labor. Following covariate balancing, the odds of CD were significantly higher in the IOL group compared with the spontaneous‐labor group. This difference only became apparent beyond 40 weeks' gestation (hazard ratio, 1.90; P = 0.030). The difference between the IOL and spontaneous‐labor groups for the rate of shoulder dystocia was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.57; P = 0.200). Seventeen studies, in addition to our own results, were included in the systematic review and meta‐analysis, giving a total population of 111 300 participants. Although there was no significant difference in the rate of CD between IOL and expectant management after pooling the results of included studies, the risk for shoulder dystocia was significantly lower in the IOL group (odds ratio (OR), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42–0.98); I2 = 19% from 12 studies) when considering only IOL performed before 40 + 0 weeks. When the studies in which IOL was carried out exclusively before 40 + 0 weeks were removed from the analysis, the risk for CD in the remaining studies was significantly higher in the IOL group (OR, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.02–2.09); I2 = 56%). There were no statistically significant differences between the IOL and expectant‐management groups for the remaining perinatal outcomes. Nulliparity, history of CD and low Bishop score, but not method of induction, were independent risk factors for intrapartum CD in patients that underwent IOL for LGA. Conclusions: The timing of IOL in patients with suspected macrosomia significantly impacts on perinatal adverse outcomes. IOL has no impact on rates of shoulder dystocia but increases the odds of CD when considered irrespective of gestational age; in contrast, IOL may decrease the risk of shoulder dystocia without increasing the risk of other adverse maternal outcomes, in particular CD, when performed before 40 + 0 weeks (GRADE: low/very low). © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the performance of two‐dimensional ultrasound (2D‐US), three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 36 weeks' gestation in predicting the delivery of a large‐for‐gestational‐age (LGA) neonate, defined as birth weight ≥ 95th percentile, in patients at high and low risk for macrosomia. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between January 2017 and February 2019. Women with a singleton pregnancy at 36 weeks' gestation underwent 2D‐US, 3D‐US and MRI within 15 min for estimation of fetal weight. Weight estimations and birth weight were plotted on a growth curve to obtain percentiles for comparison. Participants were considered high risk if they had at least one of the following risk factors: diabetes mellitus, estimated fetal weight ≥ 90th percentile at the routine third‐trimester ultrasound examination, obesity (prepregnancy body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) or excessive weight gain during pregnancy. The outcome was the diagnostic performance of each modality in the prediction of birth weight ≥ 95th percentile, expressed as the area under the receiver‐operating‐characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. Results: A total of 965 women were included, of whom 533 (55.23%) were high risk and 432 (44.77%) were low risk. In the low‐risk group, the AUCs for birth weight ≥ 95th percentile were 0.982 for MRI, 0.964 for 2D‐US and 0.962 for 3D‐US; pairwise comparisons were non‐significant. In the high‐risk group, the AUCs were 0.959 for MRI, 0.909 for 2D‐US and 0.894 for 3D‐US. A statistically significant difference was noted between MRI and both 2D‐US (P = 0.002) and 3D‐US (P = 0.002), but not between 2D‐US and 3D‐US (P = 0.503). In the high‐risk group, MRI had the highest sensitivity (65.79%) compared with 2D‐US (36.84%, P = 0.002) and 3D‐US (21.05%, P < 0.001), whereas 3D‐US had the highest specificity (98.99%) compared with 2D‐US (96.77%, P = 0.005) and MRI (96.97%, P = 0.004). Conclusions: At 36 weeks' gestation, MRI has better performance compared with 2D‐US and 3D‐US in predicting birth weight ≥ 95th percentile in patients at high risk for macrosomia, whereas the performance of 2D‐US and 3D‐US is comparable. For low‐risk patients, the three modalities perform similarly. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of and risk factors for failure of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to maternal claustrophobia or malaise. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included pregnant women who underwent fetal MRI for clinical indications or research purposes between January 2012 and December 2019 at a single center. One group included patients who completed the entire examination and the other group inlcuded patients who interrupted their MRI examination due to claustrophobia/malaise. We estimated the rate of MRI failure due to maternal claustrophobia/malaise and compared maternal and clinical variables between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for claustrophobia/malaise during MRI examination in pregnancy. Results: Among 3413 patients who agreed to undergo fetal MRI, the prevalence of failure because of claustrophobia or malaise was 2.1%. The rate of claustrophobia/malaise in patients who underwent MRI for a clinical indication was lower compared to that in patients who underwent MRI for research purposes only (0.6% (4/696) vs 2.4% (65/2678); P = 0.003). Fetal MRI performed for research purposes only (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01–0.48); P = 0.003), higher maternal age (aOR, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02–1.12); P = 0.003) and later gestational age at the time of fetal MRI (aOR, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.16–2.04); P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for claustrophobia/malaise. Shorter fetal MRI duration (aOR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63–0.88); P = 0.001) was also associated with claustrophobia/malaise during the procedure. Body mass index, ethnic origin, multiple pregnancy, being parous and size of the magnetic bore were not associated with MRI failure due to claustrophobia/malaise. Conclusion: The rate of fetal MRI failure due to claustrophobia or malaise was found to be low, particularly when the examination was performed for a clinical indication, and should not be considered a common problem in the pregnant population. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the performance of a simple semi-automated method for estimation of fetal weight (EFW) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as compared with two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US) for the prediction of large-for-dates neonates.Methods: Data of two groups of women with singleton pregnancy between March 2011 and May 2016 were retrieved from our database and evaluated retrospectively: the first group included women who underwent US-EFW and MRI-EFW within 48 h before delivery and the second group included women who had these evaluations between 35 + 0 weeks and 37 + 6 weeks of gestation, more than 48 h before delivery. US-EFW was based on Hadlock et al. and MRI-EFW on the formula described by Baker et al. For MRI-EFW, planimetric measurement of the fetal body volume (FBV) was performed using a semi-automated method and the time required for measurement was noted. Outcome measure was the performance of MRI-EFW vs US-EFW in the prediction of large-for-dates neonates, both ≤ 48 h and > 48 h before delivery. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves for each method were compared using the DeLong method.Results: Of the 270 women included in the first group, 48 (17.8%) newborns had birth weight ≥ 90th centile and 30 (11.1%) ≥ 95th centile. The second group included 83 women, and nine (10.8%) newborns had birth weight ≥ 95th centile. Median time needed for FBV planimetric measurements in all 353 fetuses was 3.5 (range, 1.5-5.5) min. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for prediction of large-for-dates neonates by prenatal MRI performed within 48 h before delivery was significantly higher than that by US (for birth weight ≥ 90th centile, difference between AUCs = 0.085, standard error (SE) = 0.020, P < 0.001; for birth weight ≥ 95th centile, difference between AUCs = 0.036, SE = 0.014, P = 0.01). Similarly, MRI-EFW was better than US-EFW in predicting birth weight ≥ 95th centile when both examinations were performed > 48 h prior to delivery (difference between AUCs = 0.077, SE = 0.039, P = 0.045).Conclusion: MRI planimetry using our purpose-designed semi-automated method is not time-consuming. The predictive performance of MRI-EFW performed immediately prior to or remote from delivery is significantly better than that of US-EFW for the prediction of large-for-dates neonates. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]