Search

This article, titled "EP12.12: Agreement between two different devices for maternal hemodynamic evaluation," examines the agreement between two devices used for measuring maternal hemodynamics. The study included 172 patients, including healthy controls and those with small for gestational age fetuses and fetal growth restriction. The results showed poor correlation between the measurements from the two devices, except for heart rate. The authors emphasize the need for standardization when comparing data from different devices. [Extracted from the article]

This article, published in the journal Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, examines the association between adverse neonatal outcomes and maternal hemodynamics and biomarkers in small for gestational age (SGA) and fetal growth restriction (FGR). The study included pregnant individuals with a singleton non-anomalous SGA fetus between 32 and 36+6 weeks gestational age. The researchers found that estimated fetal weight (EFW) at inclusion, stroke volume, and sFlt-1 (a biomarker) were significantly associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. The addition of maternal biomarkers and hemodynamic variables improved the prediction of adverse neonatal outcomes. Overall, EFW was the strongest predictor of adverse neonatal outcomes in SGA and FGR pregnancies. [Extracted from the article]

Methods From the TRUFFLE 2 feasibility study of 856 women with a singleton pregnancy 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation with suspicion of FGR (Stampalija 2017), we selected 564 women with mid-pregnancy biometry. To compare fetal growth restriction (FGR) definitions by Delphi consensus criteria (Gordijn 2016) and SMFM definition (Martins 2020), using different reference charts for fetal weight and Doppler. For the comparison we used reference charts for EFW, BW and AC from Hadlock (Hadlock 1991, 1982, 1985), Intergrowth (EFW and BW: INTERGROWTH EFW calculator 1.0, AC: Stirnemann 2017) and Gardosi/Chitty (EFW and BW: GROW v8.0.4, Gardosi 2019; AC: Chitty 1994). [Extracted from the article]

Indices of cerebral flow distribution are widely used in the diagnosis and management in late FGR, while maternal biomarkers and hemodynamics are less frequently used. Conclusions The diagnosis and management of FGR is fairly homogeneous among different countries and levels of practice. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the current practice of early and late fetal growth restriction (FGR) among obstetrics practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

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-21 st , 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-21 st 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-21 st 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., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose:  To assess the longitudinal variation of the ratio of umbilical and cerebral artery pulsatility index (UCR) in late preterm fetal growth restriction (FGR)., Materials and Methods:  A prospective European multicenter observational study included women with a singleton pregnancy, 32 + 0 -36 + 6 , at risk of FGR (estimated fetal weight [EFW] or abdominal circumference [AC] < 10 th percentile, abnormal arterial Doppler or fall in AC from 20-week scan of > 40 percentile points). The primary outcome was a composite of abnormal condition at birth or major neonatal morbidity. UCR was categorized as normal (< 0.9) or abnormal (≥ 0.9). UCR was assessed by gestational age at measurement interval to delivery, and by individual linear regression coefficient in women with two or more measurements., Results:  856 women had 2770 measurements; 696 (81 %) had more than one measurement (median 3 (IQR 2-4). At inclusion, 63 (7 %) a UCR ≥ 0.9. These delivered earlier and had a lower birth weight and higher incidence of adverse outcome (30 % vs. 9 %, relative risk 3.2; 95 %CI 2.1-5.0) than women with a normal UCR at inclusion. Repeated measurements after an abnormal UCR at inclusion were abnormal again in 67 % (95 %CI 55-80), but after a normal UCR the chance of finding an abnormal UCR was 6 % (95 %CI 5-7 %). The risk of composite adverse outcome was similar using the first or subsequent UCR values., Conclusion:  An abnormal UCR is likely to be abnormal again at a later measurement, while after a normal UCR the chance of an abnormal UCR is 5-7 % when repeated weekly. Repeated measurements do not predict outcome better than the first measurement, most likely due to the most compromised fetuses being delivered after an abnormal UCR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the current practice in respect of diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction among obstetricians in different countries., Material and Methods: An e-questionnaire was sent via REDCap with "click thru" links in emails and newsletters to obstetric practitioners in different countries and settings with different levels of expertise. Clinical scenarios in early and late fetal growth restriction were given, followed by structured questions/response pairings., Results: A total of 275 participants replied to the survey with 87% of responses complete. Participants were obstetrician/gynecologists (54%; 148/275) and fetal medicine specialists (43%; 117/275), and the majority practiced in a tertiary teaching hospital (56%; 153/275). Delphi consensus criteria for fetal growth restriction diagnosis were used by 81% of participants (223/275) and 82% (225/274) included a drop in fetal growth velocity in their diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction. For early fetal growth restriction, TRUFFLE criteria were used for fetal monitoring and delivery timing by 81% (223/275). For late fetal growth restriction, indices of cerebral blood flow redistribution were used by 99% (250/252), most commonly cerebroplacental ratio (54%, 134/250). Delivery timing was informed by cerebral blood flow redistribution in 72% (176/244), used from ≥32 weeks of gestation. Maternal biomarkers and hemodynamics, as additional tools in the context of early-onset fetal growth restriction (≤32 weeks of gestation), were used by 22% (51/232) and 46% (106/230), respectively., Conclusions: The diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction are fairly homogeneous among different countries and levels of practice, particularly for early fetal growth restriction. Indices of cerebral flow distribution are widely used in the diagnosis and management of late fetal growth restriction, whereas maternal biomarkers and hemodynamics are less frequently assessed but more so in early rather than late fetal growth restriction. Further standardization is needed for the definition of cerebral blood flow redistribution., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coidisclosure.pdfanddeclare: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Late fetal growth restriction (FGR) poses its own challenges in respect of diagnosis, surveillance and delivery timing. Perinatal morbidity is relatively rare, and mortality extremely unusual, but given that late FGR is much more frequent than early FGR, the burden on neonatal services must not be underestimated. Doppler findings are more subtle than in early FGR, and growth rate rather than absolute fetal size may be important in defining the condition. Though umbilical artery Doppler changes form the basis for triggering delivery: reversed end diastolic flow at 32 weeks, absent at 34 weeks and raised PI at 36 weeks, other modalities of monitoring - for example cardiotocography and cerebral Doppler - are important in surveillance and timing follow up of the condition.

Introduction: Data on the outcomes of early-onset twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), diagnosed before 18 weeks gestational age (GA), are sparse. We aimed to review the diagnosis, management and outcomes of early-onset TTTS., Material and Methods: Pregnancy records at a single referral unit 2010-6 were reviewed. In early-onset TTTS cases, data for pregnancy characteristics, interventions and outcomes were collected. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies including pregnant women with early-onset TTTS. The primary outcome measure was livebirths., Results: Case series: 58 cases of early-onset TTTS 2010-6, with full outcome data in 44. Diagnostic criteria were variable. Median GA at intervention was 17 +4 (range 15 +0 -28 +1 ); 67% of patients had laser therapy (39/58). Overall survival: 60% (53/88). At least one livebirth: 86% (38/44), Two livebirths: 34% (15/44); No survivors: 14% (6/44). GA at delivery was 32 +1.5 (range 16 +2 -37 +4 ). Systematic review: 16 studies included (n = 171 pregnancies). Diagnostic criteria varied widely: 79% of studies used Quintero staging. Most offered laser (89%) at median 17 +0  weeks (range 16 +0 -21 +6 ). GA at delivery was 23 +0 -39 +5  weeks. Overall survival: 69% (129/186). At least one livebirth: 74% (127/171). Two livebirths: 59% (55/93). No survivors: 26% (44/171)., Conclusions: In comparison with the commonly accepted overall survival for TTTS treated after 18 weeks of 60-90%, outcomes in early-onset TTTS were at the lower bound of this range. Gestational age at intervention is similar to that of later onset TTTS, indicating a lack of therapeutic options when a diagnosis is made before 18 weeks., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests, financial or otherwise., (© 2019 Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine.)