Third-Trimester Fetal Biometry and Neonatal Outcomes in Term and Preterm Deliveries

Fetal growth restriction with abnormal individual biometric parameters at second trimester ultrasound is associated with small for gestational age neonate at delivery

OBJECTIVES

To determine if early-onset fetal growth restriction with abnormal individual biometric parameters, defined as head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length less than the 10th percentile, is associated with adverse neonatal outcomes compared to fetal growth restriction with normal biometric parameters.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study including women diagnosed with fetal growth restriction between 16 and 24 weeks gestation who delivered a singleton, non-anomalous neonate at Mount Sinai Hospital from 2013 to 2019. The primary outcome was rate of small for gestational age neonate at delivery. Maternal, obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared using multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients diagnosed with fetal growth restriction with abnormal biometric parameters were more likely to be nulliparous, diagnosed with severe growth restriction and to receive antenatal corticosteroids than those with normal biometric parameters. The rate of small for gestational age neonate at delivery was higher in those with abnormal parameters (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.7-9.2, p < 0.01) when compared to normal parameters. The rate of resolution of fetal growth restriction was higher in the normal biometric parameter group compared to those with abnormal parameters (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-8.1, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Fetal growth restriction and normal biometric parameters diagnosed at second trimester ultrasound is associated with an increased likelihood of resolution of growth restriction and decreased likelihood of delivering a small for gestational age neonate.

Sleep Apnea and Fetal Growth Restriction (SAFER) study: protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial of positive airway pressure as an antenatal therapy for fetal growth restriction in maternal obstructive sleep apnoea

INTRODUCTION

Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a major contributor to fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality with intrauterine, neonatal and lifelong complications. This study explores maternal obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) as a potentially modifiable risk factor for FGR. We hypothesise that, in pregnancies complicated by FGR, treating mothers who have OSA using positive airway pressure (PAP) will improve birth weight and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Sleep Apnea and Fetal Growth Restriction study is a prospective, block-randomised, single-blinded, multicentre, pragmatic controlled trial. We enrol pregnant women aged 18-50, between 22 and 31 weeks of gestation, with established FGR based on second trimester ultrasound, who do not have other prespecified known causes of FGR (such as congenital anomalies or intrauterine infection). In stage 1, participants are screened by questionnaire for OSA risk. If OSA risk is identified, participants proceed to stage 2, where they undergo home sleep apnoea testing. Participants are determined to have OSA if they have an apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥5 (if the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) is also ≥5) or if they have an AHI ≥10 (even if the ODI is <5). These participants proceed to stage 3, where they are randomised to nightly treatment with PAP or no PAP (standard care control), which is maintained until delivery. The primary outcome is unadjusted birth weight; secondary outcomes include fetal growth velocity on ultrasound, enrolment-to-delivery interval, gestational age at delivery, birth weight corrected for gestational age, stillbirth, Apgar score, rate of admission to higher levels of care (neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery) and length of neonatal stay. These outcomes are compared between PAP and control using intention-to-treat analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri; Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem; and the University of Rochester, New York. Recruitment began in Washington University in November 2019 but stopped from March to November 2020 due to COVID-19. Recruitment began in Hadassah Hebrew University in March 2021, and in the University of Rochester in May 2021. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences and scientific publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04084990.

Can a Difference in Gestational Age According to Biparietal Diameter and Abdominal Circumference Predict Intrapartum Placental Abruption?

This study aimed to investigate whether a difference in gestational age according to biparietal diameter (BPD) and abdominal circumference (AC) could be a clinically useful predictor of placental abruption during the intrapartum period. This retrospective cohort study was based on singletons who were delivered after 32 + 0 weeks between July 2015 and July 2020. We only included cases with at least two antepartum sonographies available within 4 weeks of delivery (n = 2790). We divided the study population into two groups according to the presence or absence of placental abruption and compared the clinical variables. The incidence of placental abruption was 2.0% (56/2790) and was associated with an older maternal age, a higher rate of preeclampsia, and being small for the gestational age. A difference of >2 weeks in gestational age according to BPD and AC occurred at a higher rate in the placental abruption group compared to the no abruption group (>2 weeks, 21.4% (12/56) vs. 7.5% (205/2734), p < 0.001; >3 weeks, 12.5% (7/56) vs. 2.0% (56/2734), p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the differences of >2 weeks and >3 weeks were both independent risk factors for placental abruption (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval), 2.289 (1.140-4.600) and 3.918 (1.517-9.771), respectively) after adjusting for maternal age, preeclampsia, and small for gestational age births. We identified that a difference in gestational age of >2 weeks between BPD and AC could be an independent predictor of placental abruption.

Comparison of automated vs. manual measurement to estimate fetal weight in isolated polyhydramnios

Objective To understand the impact of the measurement method to predict actual birthweight in pregnancies complicated with isolated polyhydramnios in the third trimester. Methods A prospective study was conducted with 60 pregnant women between the 37th and 40th weeks of gestation. Routine biometric measurements were obtained by two-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography. When a satisfactory image was obtained, the image was frozen to get two measurements. First, calipers were placed to get the manual measurement. Then automated measurement was captured by the ultrasonography machine in the same image. The fetal weight was estimated by using the Hadlock II formula. Results The mean difference was found to be 0.03, -0.77, -0.02 and 0.17 for biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL), respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient between automated and manual estimated fetal weights (EFWs) and the actual birthweight was 0.919 and 0.796, respectively. The mean difference between actual and manual EFW measurement values was 46.16 ± 363.81 g (range between -745 g and 685 g) (P = 0.330). Also, the mean difference between actual and automated EFW measurement values was found to be 31.98 ± 218.65 g (range between -378 g and 742 g) (P = 0.262). The Bland-Altman test results have shown that, 666 g lower or 759 g higher values were obtained when the measurement was performed manually. On the other hand, EFW results were 396 g lower or 460 g higher than the actual birthweight with automated measurement tools. Conclusion The accuracy rate of fetal weight estimation with ultrasonography is high for both automated and manual measurements. Automated tools have a higher success to predict the EFW.

Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth affects 2.6 million pregnancies worldwide each year. Whilst the majority of cases occur in low- and middle-income countries, stillbirth remains an important clinical issue for high-income countries (HICs) - with both the UK and the USA reporting rates above the mean for HICs. In HICs, the most frequently reported association with stillbirth is placental dysfunction. Placental dysfunction may be evident clinically as fetal growth restriction (FGR) and small-for-dates infants. It can be caused by placental abruption or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and many other disorders and factorsPlacental abnormalities are noted in 11% to 65% of stillbirths. Identification of FGA is difficult in utero. Small-for-gestational age (SGA), as assessed after birth, is the most commonly used surrogate measure for this outcome. The degree of SGA is associated with the likelihood of FGR; 30% of infants with a birthweight < 10th centile are thought to be FGR, while 70% of infants with a birthweight < 3rd centile are thought to be FGR. Critically, SGA is the most significant antenatal risk factor for a stillborn infant. Correct identification of SGA infants is associated with a reduction in the perinatal mortality rate. However, currently used tests, such as measurement of symphysis-fundal height, have a low reported sensitivity and specificity for the identification of SGA infants.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound assessment of fetal growth by estimated fetal weight (EFW) and placental biomarkers alone and in any combination used after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the identification of placental dysfunction as evidenced by either stillbirth, or birth of a SGA infant. Secondary objectives were to investigate the effect of clinical and methodological factors on test performance.

SEARCH METHODS

We developed full search strategies with no language or date restrictions. The following sources were searched: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane (Wiley) CENTRAL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCO) with search strategies adapted for each database as required; ISRCTN Registry, UK Clinical Trials Gateway, WHO International Clinical Trials Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies; specialist abstract and conference proceeding resources (British Library's ZETOC and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index). Search last conducted in Ocober 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of pregnant women of any age with a gestation of at least 24 weeks if relevant outcomes of pregnancy (live birth/stillbirth; SGA infant) were assessed. Studies were included irrespective of whether pregnant women were deemed to be low or high risk for complications or were of mixed populations (low and high risk). Pregnancies complicated by fetal abnormalities and multi-fetal pregnancies were excluded as they have a higher risk of stillbirth from non-placental causes. With regard to biochemical tests, we included assays performed using any technique and at any threshold used to determine test positivity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the numbers of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative test results from each study. We assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 91 studies that evaluated seven tests - blood tests for human placental lactogen (hPL), oestriol, placental growth factor (PlGF) and uric acid, ultrasound EFW and placental grading and urinary oestriol - in a total of 175,426 pregnant women, in which 15,471 pregnancies ended in the birth of a small baby and 740 pregnancies which ended in stillbirth. The quality of included studies was variable with most domains at low risk of bias although 59% of studies were deemed to be of unclear risk of bias for the reference standard domain. Fifty-three per cent of studies were of high concern for applicability due to inclusion of only high- or low-risk women.Using all available data for SGA (86 studies; 159,490 pregnancies involving 15,471 SGA infants), there was evidence of a difference in accuracy (P < 0.0001) between the seven tests for detecting pregnancies that are SGA at birth. Ultrasound EFW was the most accurate test for detecting SGA at birth with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 21.3 (95% CI 13.1 to 34.6); hPL was the most accurate biochemical test with a DOR of 4.78 (95% CI 3.21 to 7.13). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.88 and median prevalence of 19%, EFW, hPL, oestriol, urinary oestriol, uric acid, PlGF and placental grading will miss 50 (95% CI 32 to 68), 116 (97 to 133), 124 (108 to 137), 127 (95 to 152), 139 (118 to 154), 144 (118 to 161), and 144 (122 to 161) SGA infants, respectively. For the detection of pregnancies ending in stillbirth (21 studies; 100,687 pregnancies involving 740 stillbirths), in an indirect comparison of the four biochemical tests, PlGF was the most accurate test with a DOR of 49.2 (95% CI 12.7 to 191). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, at the median specificity of 0.78 and median prevalence of 1.7%, PlGF, hPL, urinary oestriol and uric acid will miss 2 (95% CI 0 to 4), 4 (2 to 8), 6 (6 to 7) and 8 (3 to 13) stillbirths, respectively. No studies assessed the accuracy of ultrasound EFW for detection of pregnancy ending in stillbirth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone have insufficient accuracy to identify pregnancies ending in SGA or stillbirth. Studies combining U and placental biomarkers are needed to determine whether this approach improves diagnostic accuracy over the use of ultrasound estimation of fetal size or biochemical markers of placental dysfunction used alone. Many of the studies included in this review were carried out between 1974 and 2016. Studies of placental substances were mostly carried out before 1991 and after 2013; earlier studies may not reflect developments in test technology.

Differences in fetal growth patterns between twins and singletons

Objective: Twin fetus growth is delayed during the third trimester compared to singletons. Whether this phenomenon should be considered a normal physiologic characteristic of twins or a pathologic process inherent to twin pregnancies is currently unclear. Information on the growth rate of the individual fetal biometric indices may provide more insight into the mechanisms underlying these differences between twins and singletons. Our aim was to compare fetal growth pattern between twin and singleton fetuses.Methods: This was a retrospective study of women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy who underwent sonographic fetal weight estimation between 16 and 38 weeks' gestation in a single referral center. Twins-specific regression models were generated for biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL) and fetal weight as a function of gestational age and were compared to published singletons-based curves.Results: Overall 543 women were eligible for the study and underwent a total of 3401 sonographic weight estimations. Estimated weight of twin fetus emerged as lower than that of singletons starting at 26 weeks of gestation, and these differences increased with gestational age, reaching a mean difference of 300-350 g or of ∼10% at term. The growth of all four biometric indices was slower in twins compared to singletons, but the differences were most pronounced for AC which had the largest relative contribution to the lower fetal weight in twins (51.7 ± 7.3%), while the relative contribution of FL, HC, and BPD was smaller (26.4 ± 10.7, 15.5 ± 3.0, and 6.4%±5.7%, respectively). This was also reflected by a higher HC/AC ratio in twins compared with singletons starting at 22 weeks of gestation. The likelihood of a twin fetus being diagnosed as small for gestational age (fetal weight <10th percentile) was significantly lower when the newly developed twins-based curves (rather than singletons-based curves) were used (OR: 0.39, 95%-CI: 0.34-0.44).Conclusion: Twin fetus experience slowing of growth beginning at ∼26 weeks of gestation and a greater degree of asymmetric growth pattern compared with singletons. These findings suggest that the slower growth of twins may reflect a state of "relative growth restriction" compared with singleton gestations.