Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction matter?

Pregnancy Humans Female Fetal Growth Retardation / diagnosis Birth Weight Fetal Weight Ultrasonography, Doppler
Doppler brain sparing cerebral redistribution cerebroplacental ratio chart fetal growth restriction intrauterine growth restriction middle cerebral artery reference small for gestational age standard umbilical-cerebral ratio

Journal

American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM
ISSN: 2589-9333
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101746609

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2023
Historique:
received: 18 05 2023
revised: 26 07 2023
accepted: 01 08 2023
medline: 6 11 2023
pubmed: 7 8 2023
entrez: 6 8 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. From the TRUFFLE 2 feasibility study (856 women with singleton pregnancy at 32 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 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.

Sections du résumé

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
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
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.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101117 PMID: 37544409
pubmed: 37544409
pii: S2589-9333(23)00259-8
doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101117
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101117

Investigateurs

B Arabin (B)
A Berger (A)
E Bergman (E)
A Bhide (A)
C M Bilardo (CM)
A C Breeze (AC)
J Brodszki (J)
P Calda (P)
E Cesari (E)
I Cetin (I)
J Derks (J)
C Ebbing (C)
E Ferrazzi (E)
T Frusca (T)
W Ganzevoort (W)
W Gyselaers (W)
K Hecher (K)
P Klaritsch (P)
L Krofta (L)
P Lindgren (P)
S M Lobmaier (SM)
N Marlow (N)
G M Maruotti (GM)
F Mecacci (F)
K Myklestad (K)
F Prefumo (F)
L Raio (L)
J Richter (J)
R K Sande (RK)
H Valensise (H)
G H A Visser (GHA)
L Wee (L)

Informations de copyright

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

Auteurs

Bronacha Mylrea-Foley (B)

Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom (Drs Mylrea-Foley and Lees); Department of Fetal Medicine, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom (Drs Mylrea-Foley and Lees).

Raffaele Napolitano (R)

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom (Dr Napolitano); Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom (Dr Napolitano).

Sanne Gordijn (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands (Dr Gordijn).

Hans Wolf (H)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Dr Wolf).

Christoph C Lees (CC)

Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom (Drs Mylrea-Foley and Lees); Department of Fetal Medicine, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom (Drs Mylrea-Foley and Lees). Electronic address: c.lees@imperial.ac.uk.

Tamara Stampalija (T)

Unit of Fetal Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy (Dr Stampalija); Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy (Dr Stampalija).

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes physiologiques des appareils urinaire et reproducteur › Phénomènes physiologiques de la reproduction › Reproduction › Grossesse › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...
questionsmedicales.fr › États, signes et symptômes pathologiques › Processus pathologiques › Troubles de la croissance › Retard de croissance intra-utérin › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...
questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes physiologiques › Croissance et développement › Croissance › Mensurations corporelles › Poids › Poids de naissance › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...
questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes physiologiques des appareils urinaire et reproducteur › Phénomènes physiologiques de la reproduction › Poids du foetus › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...
questionsmedicales.fr › Diagnostic › Techniques et procédures diagnostiques › Imagerie diagnostique › Échographie › Échographie-doppler › Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late...