Use of the Renal Artery Doppler to Identify Small for Gestational Age Fetuses at Risk for Adverse Neonatal Outcomes.
Doppler
cerebral–placental ratio
pulsatility index
renal artery
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Apr 2021
23 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
revised:
18
04
2021
accepted:
19
04
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
1
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To measure the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for an adverse neonatal outcome among growth-restricted fetuses (FGR) comparing the cerebral-placental ratio (CPR) with the cerebral-renal ratio (CRR). Retrospective analysis of 92 women who underwent prenatal ultrasound at the University of Maryland and the University of Padua. Renal, middle cerebral and umbilical artery Doppler waveforms were recorded for all scans during the third trimester. The last scan prior to delivery was included for analysis. We calculated the test characteristics of the pulsatility indices (PI) of the umbilical and renal arteries in addition to the derived CPR and CRR to detect a composite adverse neonatal outcome. The test characteristics of the four Doppler ratios to detect increased risk for the composite neonatal outcome demonstrated that the umbilical artery pulsatility index had the best test performance (sensitivity 64% (95% CI: 47-82%), PPV 24% (95% CI: 21-27), and positive likelihood ratio 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4-5.2)). There was no benefit to using the CRR compared with the CPR. The agreement between tests was moderate to poor (Kappa value CPR compared with CRR: 0.5 (95%CI 0.4-0.70), renal artery PI:-0.1 (95% CI -0.2-0.0), umbilical artery PI: 0.5 (95% CI 0.4-0.7)). Only the umbilical artery had an area under the receiver operating curve that was significantly better compared with the CPR as a reference ( The data that we present do not support the use of renal artery Doppler as a useful clinical test to identify a fetus at risk for an adverse neonatal outcome. Within the various indices applied to this population, umbilical artery Doppler performed the best in identifying the fetuses at risk for an adverse perinatal outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33922550
pii: jcm10091835
doi: 10.3390/jcm10091835
pmc: PMC8122939
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Lancet. 1994 Dec 17;344(8938):1664-8
pubmed: 7996959
BMJ. 1988 Oct 22;297(6655):1026-7
pubmed: 3142596
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Jul;161(1):168-72
pubmed: 2665495
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;18(6):571-7
pubmed: 11844191
Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Apr;81(4):560-4
pubmed: 8459967
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Aug;32(15):2554-2560
pubmed: 29447050
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;128(6):e241-e256
pubmed: 27875472
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;42(4):400-8
pubmed: 24078432
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug;32(2):160-7
pubmed: 18634130
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972 Apr 15;112(8):1114-21
pubmed: 5017642
Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Mar;77(3):370-3
pubmed: 1992401
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):74-80
pubmed: 26327300
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):45-8
pubmed: 26187540
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2016;122:151-5
pubmed: 27165897
Circulation. 2003 Jul 22;108(3):331-5
pubmed: 12835209
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;24(2):141-6
pubmed: 15287050
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;192(1):272-9
pubmed: 15672036
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May 15;152(2):155-63
pubmed: 3890544
J Dev Physiol. 1992 Feb;17(2):75-86
pubmed: 1500636
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Mar;84(3):230-7
pubmed: 15715530
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;21(2):124-7
pubmed: 12601831
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Mar;15(3):209-12
pubmed: 10846776
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79(3):416-20
pubmed: 1738525
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977 Dec 1;129(7):748-59
pubmed: 24341
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2005 Mar-Apr;20(2):86-90
pubmed: 15692199
J Perinat Med. 2010 May;38(3):239-46
pubmed: 20205623
Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1977 Oct;55(5):1001-6
pubmed: 922579
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Jan;92(1):31-8
pubmed: 3966988
Biol Neonate. 1978;33(3-4):135-43
pubmed: 28158
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Dec;1092:293-6
pubmed: 17308153
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Sep;211(3):288.e1-5
pubmed: 24813969
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;37(2):191-5
pubmed: 20617509
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2001 Mar;280(3):R678-85
pubmed: 11171645
J Physiol. 2002 Apr 1;540(Pt 1):351-66
pubmed: 11927692
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006 Dec;291(6):H3023-34
pubmed: 16861695
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Circ Res. 1985 Dec;57(6):811-21
pubmed: 3905044
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):17-26
pubmed: 31351061
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Feb;34(4):532-540
pubmed: 31060397
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;192(3):937-44
pubmed: 15746695
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Dec;165(2):141-55
pubmed: 22901972
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;18(2):141-5
pubmed: 11529994
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;45(3):273-8
pubmed: 25346413
Circulation. 2002 Oct 22;106(17):2278-83
pubmed: 12390960
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;50(4):514-519
pubmed: 27873370
Biol Neonate. 1982;41(3-4):115-22
pubmed: 7066443
J Physiol. 2016 Mar 1;594(5):1215-30
pubmed: 26496004
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;117(3):618-626
pubmed: 21343765
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Sep;30(3):287-96
pubmed: 17721916
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;41(2):233-39
pubmed: 23371348
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(4):274-80
pubmed: 21346314
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Apr;39(4):414-20
pubmed: 21674659
J Dev Physiol. 1987 Feb;9(1):41-55
pubmed: 3559064
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):5-15
pubmed: 26113227
Am J Physiol. 1989 Mar;256(3 Pt 2):H613-20
pubmed: 2923229