PDF herunterladen
Ultraschall Med 2023; 44(01): 56-67
DOI: 10.1055/a-1511-8293
Original Article

Longitudinal Doppler Assessments in Late Preterm Fetal Growth Restriction

Longitudinale Doppler-Bewertungen bei später fetaler Wachstumsrestriktion
Bronacha Mylrea-Foley
1   Institute for Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, UK
2   Queen Charlotteʼs and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W12 0HS
,
Hans Wolf   *
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Tamara Stampalija
4   Unit of Fetal Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy
5   Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
,
Christoph Lees   *
1   Institute for Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, UK
2   Queen Charlotteʼs and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W12 0HS
33   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven and Department of Regeneration and Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
On behalf of the Truffle-2 Group, TRUFFLE 2 Authors:,
B. Arabin
6   Department of Obstetrics Charite, Humboldt University Berlin and Clara Angela Foundation, Berlin, Germany
,
A. Berger
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
,
E. Bergman
8   Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
,
A. Bhide
9   Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
,
C. M. Bilardo
10   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
A. C. Breeze
11   Fetal Medicine Unit, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
,
J. Brodszki
12   Department of Pediatric Surgery and Neonatology, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
,
P. Calda
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General University Hospital and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
,
I. Cetin
14   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vittore Buzzi Children’s Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
E. Cesari
14   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vittore Buzzi Children’s Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
J. Derks
15   Department of Perinatal Medicine, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
C. Ebbing
16   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
,
E. Ferrazzi
17   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
,
W. Ganzevoort
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
T. Frusca
18   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
,
S. J. Gordijn
19   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
,
W. Gyselaers
20   Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan, Diepenbeek, Belgium, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk and Department Physiology, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
,
K. Hecher
21   Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
P. Klaritsch
22   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
,
L. Krofta
23   Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic and Third Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
,
P. Lindgren
24   Center for Fetal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
S. M. Lobmaier
25   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
,
N. Marlow
26   UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
,
G. M. Maruotti
27   Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Dentistry Sciences, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy
,
F. Mecacci
28   Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
,
K. Myklestad
29   St Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
,
R. Napolitano
26   UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
30   Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
,
F. Prefumo
31   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia and University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
L. Raio
32   Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
,
J. Richter
33   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven and Department of Regeneration and Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
R. K. Sande
34   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger and Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
,
J. Thornton
35   School of Clinical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maternity Department, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
,
H. Valensise
36   Department of Surgery, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tor Vergata, University, Policlinico Casilino Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
G. H. A. Visser
16   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
,
L. Wee
37   The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
,
TRUFFLE-2 GROUP AND COLLABORATING AUTHORS, C. Brezinka, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, D. Casagrandi, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, A. Cerny, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GeneralUniversity Hospital and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, A. Dall’Asta, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy, R. DeVlieger, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven, Leuven and Department of Regeneration and Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, J. Duvekot, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus Academic Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, T. M. Eggebo, St Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim, Norway, I. Fantasia, Unit of Fetal Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy, F. Ferrari, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Policlinico University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy, N. Fratelli, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia and University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, T. Ghi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy, O. Graupner, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, P. Greimel, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria, C. Hofstaetter, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, D. Lo Presti, Department of Surgery, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tor Vergata University, Policlinico Casilino Hospital, Rome, Italy, M. Georg, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, F. Macsali, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, K. Marsal, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, P. Martinelli, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Dentistry Sciences, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy, E. Ostermayer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, A. Papageorghiou, Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, UK, R. Peasley, Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, A. Ramoni, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, L. Sarno, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Dentistry Sciences, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy, L. Seikku, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, S. Simeone, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, B. Thilaganathan, Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, UK, G. Tiralongo, Department of Surgery, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tor Vergata University, Policlinico Casilino Hospital, Rome, Italy, A. Valcamonico, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia and University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, C. Van Holsbeke, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, A. Vietheer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway › InstitutsangabenGefördert durch: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose To assess the longitudinal variation of the ratio of umbilical and cerebral artery pulsatility index (UCR) in late preterm fetal growth restriction (FGR).

Materials and Methods A prospective European multicenter observational study included women with a singleton pregnancy, 32+ 0–36+ 6, at risk of FGR (estimated fetal weight [EFW] or abdominal circumference [AC] < 10th percentile, abnormal arterial Doppler or fall in AC from 20-week scan of > 40 percentile points). The primary outcome was a composite of abnormal condition at birth or major neonatal morbidity. UCR was categorized as normal (< 0.9) or abnormal (≥ 0.9). UCR was assessed by gestational age at measurement interval to delivery, and by individual linear regression coefficient in women with two or more measurements.

Results 856 women had 2770 measurements; 696 (81 %) had more than one measurement (median 3 (IQR 2–4). At inclusion, 63 (7 %) a UCR ≥ 0.9. These delivered earlier and had a lower birth weight and higher incidence of adverse outcome (30 % vs. 9 %, relative risk 3.2; 95 %CI 2.1–5.0) than women with a normal UCR at inclusion. Repeated measurements after an abnormal UCR at inclusion were abnormal again in 67 % (95 %CI 55–80), but after a normal UCR the chance of finding an abnormal UCR was 6 % (95 %CI 5–7 %). The risk of composite adverse outcome was similar using the first or subsequent UCR values.

Conclusion An abnormal UCR is likely to be abnormal again at a later measurement, while after a normal UCR the chance of an abnormal UCR is 5–7 % when repeated weekly. Repeated measurements do not predict outcome better than the first measurement, most likely due to the most compromised fetuses being delivered after an abnormal UCR.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Beurteilung der longitudinalen Variation der umbilikozerebralen Ratio (UCR) der Pulsatilitätsindizes bei später fetaler Wachstumsrestriktion (FGR).

Material und Methoden Eine prospektive europäische multizentrische Beobachtungsstudie schloss Frauen mit Einlingsschwangerschaft (32+ 0–36+ 6) und Risiko für FGR ein (geschätztes fetales Gewicht (EFW) oder Abdomenumfang (AU) < 10. Perzentile, abnormaler arterieller Doppler oder Absinken der AU-Perzentile um > 40 Punkte im US in der 20. SSW). Der primäre Outcome war kombiniert aus auffälligen Geburtsparametern oder schwerer neonataler Morbidität. Die UCR wurde als normal (< 0,9) oder abnormal (≥ 0,9) eingestuft. Die UCR wurde im Messintervall bis zur Entbindung mittels SSW und mittels individuellen linearen Regressionskoeffizienten bei Frauen mit 2 oder mehr Messungen bewertet.

Ergebnisse 856 Frauen hatten 2770 Messungen; 696 (81 %) hatten mehr als eine Messung (Median 3, IQR 2–4). Bei Einschluss hatten 63 (7 %) eine UCR ≥ 0,9. Diese entbanden früher und hatten ein niedrigeres Geburtsgewicht und eine höhere Inzidenz für einen unerwünschten Outcome (30 % vs. 9 %, relatives Risiko 3,2; 95 %-KI 2,1–5,0) im Vergleich zu Frauen mit normaler UCR bei Einschluss. Wiederholte Messungen nach abnormaler UCR bei Einschluss waren in 67 % (95 %-KI 55–80) erneut abnormal, aber nach einer normalen UCR betrug die Wahrscheinlichkeit, eine abnormale UCR zu finden, 6 % (95 %-KI 5–7 %). Das Risiko für einen kombinierten unerwünschten Outcome war ähnlich, wenn man den ersten oder den nachfolgenden UCR-Wert verwendete.

Schlussfolgerung Eine abnormale UCR ist wahrscheinlich bei einer späteren Messung wieder abnormal, während nach einer normalen UCR die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer abnormalen UCR bei wöchentlicher Wiederholung 5–7 % beträgt. Wiederholte Messungen sagen das Ergebnis nicht besser voraus als die erste Messung, was höchstwahrscheinlich darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass die am stärksten gefährdeten Föten nach einer abnormalen UCR entbunden werden.

Key words

late fetal growth restriction - Doppler - middle cerebral artery - brain sparing - adverse outcome

* joint corresponding authors & guarantors




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. Februar 2021

Angenommen: 05. Mai 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Baschat AA. Fetal growth restriction – From observation to intervention. J Perinat Med 2010; 38: 239-246 DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2010.041.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arcangeli T, Thilaganathan B, Hooper R. et al. Neurodevelopmental delay in small babies at term: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 267-275 DOI: 10.1002/uog.11112.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Leitner Y, Harel S, Geva R. et al. The neurocognitive outcome of IUGR children born to mothers with and without preeclampsia. J Matern Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 2206-2208 DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2012.684164.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat AA. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: diagnosis and management of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 298-312 DOI: 10.1002/uog.22134.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McCowan LM, Figueras F, Anderson NH. Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218: S855-S868 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.004.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 RCOG. Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus, Investigation and Management (Green-top Guideline No. 31). 2013 Im Internet (Stand: 09.10.2020): https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg31/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harrington K, Thompson MO, Carpenter RG. et al. Doppler fetal circulation in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia or delivery of a small for gestational age baby: 2. Longitudinal analysis. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 453-466 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08299.x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Harman CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 571-577 DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00591.x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hecher K, Bilardo CM, Stigter RH. et al. Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 564-570 DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00590.x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Turan OM, Turan S, Gungor S. et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 160-167 DOI: 10.1002/uog.5386.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Oros D, Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R. et al. Longitudinal changes in uterine, umbilical and fetal cerebral Doppler indices in late-onset small-for-gestational age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 191-195 DOI: 10.1002/uog.7738.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kalafat E, Ozturk E, Sivanathan J. et al. Longitudinal change in cerebroplacental ratio in small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses and risk of stillbirth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 492-499 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20193.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Flatley C, Greer RM, Kumar S. Magnitude of change in fetal cerebroplacental ratio in third trimester and risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 514-519 DOI: 10.1002/uog.17371.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stampalija T, Thornton J, Marlow N. et al. Fetal cerebral Doppler changes and outcome in late preterm fetal growth restriction: prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 173-181 DOI: 10.1002/uog.22125.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tranquilli AL. Early and late-onset pre-eclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens An Int J Women’s Cardiovasc Heal 2014; 4: 241 DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2014.04.007.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wolf H, Stampalija T, Lees C. et al Fetal cerebral blood flow redistribution: an analysis of Doppler reference charts and the association of different thresholds with adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: A sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181: 129-133 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.181.1.1887021.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Kalafat E, Khalil A. Umbilicocerebral ratio: potential implications of inversing the cerebroplacental ratio. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 159-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kalafat E, Ozturk E, Kalaylioglu Z. et al. Ratio of umbilical and cerebral artery pulsatility indices in assessment of fetal risk: numerator and denominator matter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 290-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wolf H, Stampalija T, Monasta L. et al. Ratio of umbilical and cerebral artery pulsatility indices in assessment of fetal risk: numerator and denominator matter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 163-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wolf H, Stampalija T, Monasta L. et al. Reply. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 292-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stampalija T, Arabin B, Wolf H. et al Is middle cerebral artery Doppler related to neonatal and 2-year infant outcome in early fetal growth restriction?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216: 521.e1-521.e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar