Value of Cerebroplacental Ratio and Uterine Artery Doppler as Predictors of Adverse Perinatal Outcome in Very Small for Gestational Age at Term Fetuses.

adverse perinatal outcome cerebroplacental ratio small for gestational age uterine artery Doppler

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 25 05 2022
revised: 23 06 2022
accepted: 29 06 2022
entrez: 9 7 2022
pubmed: 10 7 2022
medline: 10 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), mean uterine artery (mUtA) Doppler and adverse perinatal outcome (APO) and their predictive performance in fetuses with birth weight (BW) <3rd centile (very small for gestational age, VSGA) in comparison with fetuses with BW 3rd−10th centile (small for gestational age, SGA). This was a retrospective cohort study including singleton pregnancies delivered at term (37 + 0−41 + 6) in a single tertiary referral center over a six-year period. APO was defined as a composite of cesarean section for intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC), umbilical artery pH < 7.20, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for >24 h. The characteristics of the study population according to BW (VSGA and SGA) as well as the presence of composite APO were assessed. The prognostic performance of CPR and mUtA-PI was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In total, 203 pregnancies were included. Of these, 55 (27%) had CPR <10th centile, 25 (12%) mUtA-PI >95th centile, 65 (32%) VSGA fetuses, and 93 (46%) composite APO. VSGA showed a non-significantly higher rate of composite APO in comparison to SGA (52% vs. 43%; p = 0.202). The composite APO rate was significantly higher in SGA with CPR <10th centile (36% vs. 13%; p = 0.001), while in VSGA with CPR <10th centile was not (38% vs. 35%; p = 0.818). The composite APO rate was non-significantly higher both in VSGA (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.081) and SGA (14% vs. 6%; p = 0.742) with mUtA-PI >95th centile. The ROC analysis showed a significantly predictive value of CPR for composite APO in SGA only (AUC 0.612; p = 0.025). A low CPR was associated with composite APO in SGA fetuses. VSGA fetuses were more frequently affected by composite APO regardless of Doppler values. The predictive performance of CPR and uterine artery Doppler was poor.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35807137
pii: jcm11133852
doi: 10.3390/jcm11133852
pmc: PMC9267630
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

J Pediatr. 2018 May;196:71-76.e1
pubmed: 29499988
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;24(6):647-53
pubmed: 15517536
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Sep;44(3):330-7
pubmed: 24615982
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;45(3):279-85
pubmed: 25358519
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;21(2):124-7
pubmed: 12601831
BMJ. 2013 Jan 24;346:f108
pubmed: 23349424
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;57(1):62-69
pubmed: 33159370
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):13-24
pubmed: 26433401
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;39(3):299-303
pubmed: 22102177
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4 Suppl):S115-22
pubmed: 26428489
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):575-585
pubmed: 31785172
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;46(4):385-8
pubmed: 26224656
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):5-15
pubmed: 26113227
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;52(3):340-346
pubmed: 28594099
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Sep;37(9):2243-2249
pubmed: 29476559
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2021 Jun;24:37-43
pubmed: 33647841
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):613-620
pubmed: 31364201
Am J Perinatol. 2013 Jun;30(6):505-12
pubmed: 23254384
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Aug;33(16):2775-2784
pubmed: 30563383
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):793-798
pubmed: 31343783
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2021;48(6):448-456
pubmed: 34130275
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2020 Oct;22:160-166
pubmed: 32992124
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;48(3):333-9
pubmed: 26909664
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Oct;100(10):1910-1916
pubmed: 34212368
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Feb;301(2):375-385
pubmed: 31734756
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;54(1):79-86
pubmed: 31100188
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Ultraschall Med. 2021 Jun 08;:
pubmed: 34102686
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):17-26
pubmed: 31351061
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug;58(2):264-277
pubmed: 32672406
Horm Res Paediatr. 2016;86(5):357-360
pubmed: 27685026
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;45(3):273-8
pubmed: 25346413
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;127(4):667-673
pubmed: 26959213
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;43(5):533-40
pubmed: 24203115
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;51(6):714-717
pubmed: 29870088
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;52(4):430-441
pubmed: 29920817
BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):515-26
pubmed: 24397731
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):74-80
pubmed: 26327300
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;50(4):492-495
pubmed: 28741785
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;41(2):233-39
pubmed: 23371348
Acta Paediatr. 1996 Jul;85(7):843-8
pubmed: 8819552

Auteurs

Anne Karge (A)

Division of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Silvia M Lobmaier (SM)

Division of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Bernhard Haller (B)

Institute of AI Medical Informatics in Medicine, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Bettina Kuschel (B)

Division of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Javier U Ortiz (JU)

Division of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Classifications MeSH