Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcomes Among Women With Decreased Fetal Movements.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2021
01 04 2021
Historique:
entrez:
8
4
2021
pubmed:
9
4
2021
medline:
20
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stillbirth is a devastating pregnancy outcome with far-reaching economic and psychosocial consequences, but despite significant investment, a screening tool for identifying those fetuses at risk for stillbirth remains elusive. Maternal reporting of decreased fetal movements (DFM) has been found to be associated with stillbirth and other adverse perinatal outcomes. To examine pregnancy outcomes of women presenting with DFM in the third trimester at a tertiary Australian center with a clear clinical management algorithm. This cohort study used data on all births meeting the inclusion criteria from 2009 through 2019 at Mater Mothers' Hospital in Brisbane, Australia. This is a tertiary center and Australia's largest maternity hospital. All singleton births without a known congenital anomaly after 28 weeks' gestation were included. Among 203 071 potential participants identified from the hospital database, 101 597 individuals met the eligibility criteria. Data analysis was performed from May through September 2020. Presentation to hospital with DFM after 28 weeks gestation. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of stillbirth. Multivariate analysis was undertaken to determine the association between DFM and stillbirth, obstetric intervention, and other adverse outcomes, including being born small for gestational age (SGA) and a composite adverse perinatal outcome (at least 1 of the following: neonatal intensive care unit admission, severe acidosis [ie, umbilical artery pH <7.0 or base excess -12.0 mmol/L or less], 5-minute Apgar score <4, or stillbirth or neonatal death). The hypothesis being tested was formulated prior to data collection. Among 101 597 women with pregnancies that met the inclusion criteria, 8821 (8.7%) presented at least once with DFM and 92 776 women (91.3%) did not present with DFM (ie, the control population). Women presenting with DFM, compared with those presenting without DFM, were younger (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [5.4] years vs 31.5 [5.2] years; P < .001), more likely to be nulliparous (4845 women [54.9%] vs 42 210 women [45.5%]; P < .001) and have a previous stillbirth (189 women [2.1%] vs 1156 women [1.2%]; P < .001), and less likely to have a previous cesarean delivery (1199 women [13.6%] vs 17 444 women [18.8%]; P < .001). During the study period, the stillbirth rate was 2.0 per 1000 births after 28 weeks' gestation. Presenting with DFM was not associated with higher odds of stillbirth (9 women [0.1%] vs 185 women [0.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.23-1.26, P = .16). However, presenting with DFM was associated with higher odds of a fetus being born SGA (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27; P = .01) and the composite adverse perinatal outcome (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27; P = .02). Presenting with DFM was also associated with higher odds of planned early term birth (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.38; P < .001), induction of labor (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.53-1.74; P < .001), and emergency cesarean delivery (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .001). The presence of DFM is a marker associated with increased risk for a fetus. This study's findings of a nonsignificantly lower rate of stillbirth among women with DFM may be reflective of increased community awareness of timely presentation to their obstetric care clinician when concerned about fetal movements and the benefits of tertiary level care guided by a clear clinical management protocol. However, DFM was associated with increased odds of an infant being born SGA, obstetric intervention, early term birth, and a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33830228
pii: 2778239
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5071
pmc: PMC8033440
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e215071Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Neonatology. 2012;102(3):212-21
pubmed: 22814228
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(12):1345-51
pubmed: 19878088
Birth. 2011 Dec;38(4):311-6
pubmed: 22112331
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):430
pubmed: 31752771
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39784
pubmed: 22808059
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1629-1638
pubmed: 30269876
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;219(3):296.e1-296.e8
pubmed: 29800541
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991 May 10;39(3):165-7
pubmed: 2032586
BJOG. 2001 Aug;108(8):830-4
pubmed: 11510708
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct;207(4):292.e1-4
pubmed: 22902075
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Aug;99(8):1014-1021
pubmed: 32072616
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jul;99(7):884-890
pubmed: 31960411
Klin Wochenschr. 1957 Jun 15;35(12):637-8
pubmed: 13450287
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;124(1):182-192
pubmed: 24945455
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Nov;29(8):705-10
pubmed: 19821662
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Sep;211(3):265.e1-265.e11
pubmed: 24631438
Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Jun;41(6):845-50
pubmed: 4196643
Med J Aust. 2012 Sep 3;197(5):291-4
pubmed: 22938128
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;216(6):606.e1-606.e10
pubmed: 28189607
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Sep;83(9):801-7
pubmed: 15315590
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Apr;301(4):987-993
pubmed: 32198623
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Mar;246:165-168
pubmed: 32032929
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Nov;98(11):1450-1454
pubmed: 31148156
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1596-9; discussion 1599-601
pubmed: 12824998
Birth. 2016 Mar;43(1):42-8
pubmed: 26643600
Lancet. 2011 Apr 16;377(9774):1331-40
pubmed: 21496916
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Dec;177(6):1395-401
pubmed: 9423741
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Nov;167(11):1053-9
pubmed: 24080985
BMJ. 2013 Jan 24;346:f108
pubmed: 23349424
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 15;(10):CD004909
pubmed: 26467769
Thromb Haemost. 2005 Jul;94(1):230-1; author reply 231-2
pubmed: 16116698
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S745-S761
pubmed: 29422210
Semin Perinatol. 2008 Aug;32(4):243-6
pubmed: 18652921
Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1703-17
pubmed: 21496907
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-468
pubmed: 29355899
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Feb;28(2):147-54
pubmed: 18393008
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):17-26
pubmed: 31351061
Women Birth. 2017 Dec;30(6):468-471
pubmed: 28506686
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-462
pubmed: 31923063
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018 Apr;40(4):e251-e271
pubmed: 29680082
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;46(4):460-4
pubmed: 25487285
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;160(5 Pt 1):1075-80
pubmed: 2729383
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):74-80
pubmed: 26327300
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Dec;243:72-82
pubmed: 31677496
Clin Perinatol. 2011 Sep;38(3):493-516
pubmed: 21890021