Reduced fetal movements at term, low-risk pregnancies: is it associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes? Ten years of experience from a single tertiary center.
Delivery outcome
Low-risk pregnancies
Reduced fetal movements
Term
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
21
01
2020
accepted:
12
03
2020
pubmed:
22
3
2020
medline:
1
9
2020
entrez:
22
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to assess the outcomes of low-risk pregnancies complicated by isolated reduced fetal movements (RFM) at term. The study population were patients at term, with singleton, low-risk, pregnancies who presented to our obstetric-triage and delivered during the subsequent 2 weeks. The study group included patients with an isolated complaint of RFM (RFM group). The control group included patients without history of RFM (control group). The pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes were compared between the groups. Severe and mild composites of adverse neonatal outcomes were defined. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify independent association with adverse neonatal outcomes. Among the 13,338 pregnant women, 2762 (20.7%) were included in the RFM group and 10,576 (79.3%) in the control group. The RFM group had higher rates of nulliparity (p < 0.001), and smoking (p < 0.001). At admission, the RFM group had higher rates of IUFD (p < 0.001). The RFM group had higher rates of Cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal monitor (p < 0.001), and mild adverse neonatal outcomes (p = 0.001). RFM was associated with mild adverse outcome independent of background confounders (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p < 0.001). Patients presented with isolated RFM at term had higher rates of IUFD at presentation and significant adverse outcomes at delivery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32198623
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05516-3
pii: 10.1007/s00404-020-05516-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
987-993Références
Froen JF (2004) A kick from within—fetal movement counting and the cancelled progress in antenatal care. J Perinat Med 32:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2004.003
doi: 10.1515/JPM.2004.003
pubmed: 15008381
Mangesi L, Hofmeyr GJ, Smith V, Smyth RMD (2015) Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004909.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004909.pub3
pubmed: 26467769
Grant A, Hepburn M (1984) Merits of an individualized approach to fetal movement counting compared with fixed-time and fixed-number methods. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 91:1087–1090
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1984.tb15081.x
Smith CV, Davis SA, Rayburn WF (1992) Patients’ acceptance of monitoring fetal movement. A randomized comparison of charting techniques. J Reprod Med 37:144–146
pubmed: 1538359
Christensen FC, Olson K, Rayburn WF (2003) Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 14:118–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122
doi: 10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122
pubmed: 14629093
Gomez LM, De la Vega G, Padilla L, Bautista F, Villar A (2007) Compliance with a fetal movement chart by high-risk obstetric patients in a Peruvian hospital. Am J Perinatol 24:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-958160
doi: 10.1055/s-2006-958160
pubmed: 17268946
Sadovsky E, Ohel G, Simon A, Aboulafia Y (1986) Decreased fetal activity in complications of pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 24:443–446
doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(86)90036-6
Sadovsky E, Polishuk WZ (1977) Fetal movements in utero: nature, assessment, prognostic value, timing of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 50:49–55
pubmed: 876522
Stacey T, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA, Med D, Ekeroma A, Zuccollo J, Mccowan LME (2011) Maternal perception of fetal activity and late stillbirth risk: findings from the Auckland stillbirth study. Birth 38:311–316
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00490.x
Heazell AEP, Froen JF (2008) Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610801912618
doi: 10.1080/01443610801912618
pubmed: 18393008
Sadovsky E, Yaffe H (1973) Daily fetal movement recording and fetal prognosis. Obstet Gynecol 41:845–850
pubmed: 4196643
Sadovsky E, Mahler Y, Polishuk WZ, Malkin A (1973) Correlation between electromagnetic recording and maternal assessment of fetal movement. Lancet 301:1141–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(73)91144-6
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(73)91144-6
Rayburn WF (1980) Clinical significance of perceptible fetal motion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 138:210–212
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(80)90037-X
Timor-Tritsch I, Zador I, Hertz RH, Rosen MG (1976) Classification of human fetal movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 126:70–77
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(76)90467-1
Holm Tveit JV, Saastad E, Stray-Pedersen B, Børdahl PE, Frøen JF (2009) Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in women presenting with decreased fetal movements in late pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88:1345–1351. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903348375
doi: 10.3109/00016340903348375
pubmed: 19878088
O’Sullivan O, Stephen G, Martindale E, Heazell AEP (2009) Predicting poor perinatal outcome in women who present with decreased fetal movements. J Obstet Gynaecol 29:705–710. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903229598
doi: 10.3109/01443610903229598
pubmed: 19821662
Sinha D, Sharma A, Nallaswamy V, Jayagopal N, Bhatti N (2007) Obstetric outcome in women complaining of reduced fetal movements. J Obstet Gynaecol 27:41–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610601016909
doi: 10.1080/01443610601016909
pubmed: 17365457
Tveit JVH, Saastad E, Stray-Pedersen B, Bordahl PE, Froen JF (2010) Concerns for decreased foetal movements in uncomplicated pregnancies—increased risk of foetal growth restriction and stillbirth among women being overweight, advanced age or smoking. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23:1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903511578
doi: 10.3109/14767050903511578
pubmed: 20476880
Sival DA, Visser GH, Prechtl HF (1992) The relationship between the quantity and quality of prenatal movements in pregnancies complicated by intra-uterine growth retardation and premature rupture of the membranes. Early Hum Dev 30:193–209
doi: 10.1016/0378-3782(92)90069-S
Bradford BF, Thompson JMD, Heazell AEP, Mccowan LME, McKinlay CJD (2018) Understanding the associations and significance of fetal movements in overweight or obese pregnant women: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13250
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13250
pubmed: 29068467
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2011 118: antiphospholipid syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 117:192–199. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820a61f9
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820a61f9
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2013 138: inherited thrombophilias in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122:706–717. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000433981.36184.4e
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000433981.36184.4e
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2009 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113:451–461. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819930b0
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819930b0
American Diabetes Association (2003) Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26(Suppl 1):S5–S20. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.2007.s5
doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.2007.s5
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists’ task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122:1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000437382.03963.88
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000437382.03963.88
Kehl S, Schelkle A, Thomas A, Puhl A, Meqdad K, Tuschy B, Berlit S, Weiss C, Bayer C, Heimrich J, Dammer U, Raabe E, Winkler M, Faschingbauer F, Beckmann MW, Sutterlin M (2016) Single deepest vertical pocket or amniotic fluid index as evaluation test for predicting adverse pregnancy outcome (SAFE trial): a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:674–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14924
doi: 10.1002/uog.14924
pubmed: 26094600
Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES (2005) Birthweight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7:311–314
pubmed: 15909464
Harrington K, Thompson O, Jordan L, Page J, Harrington K (1998) Obstetric outcome in women who present with a reduction in fetal movements in the third trimester of pregnancy. J Perinat Med 26:77–82
doi: 10.1515/jpme.1998.26.2.77
Whitty JE, Garfinkel DA, Divon MY (1991) Maternal perception of decreased fetal movement as an indication for antepartum testing in a low-risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:1084–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(91)90476-8
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)90476-8
pubmed: 1951519
Bhatia M, Mitsi V, Court L, Thampi P, El-Nasharty M, Hesham S, Randall W, Davies R, Impey L (2019) The outcomes of pregnancies with reduced fetal movements: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 98:1450–1454. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13671
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13671
pubmed: 31148156
Heazell AEP, Sumathi GM, Bhatti NR (2005) What investigation is appropriate following maternal perception of reduced fetal movements? J Obstet Gynaecol 25:648–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610500278303
doi: 10.1080/01443610500278303
pubmed: 16263536