Impact of a Hybrid Model of Prenatal Care on the Diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction

Marti D. Soffer; Colleen Sinnott; Mark A. Clapp; Sarah N. Bernstein

doi:10.1055/a-1877-8478

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(15): 1605-1613
DOI: 10.1055/a-1877-8478

SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Impact of a Hybrid Model of Prenatal Care on the Diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction

Marti D. Soffer

¹Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Colleen Sinnott

²Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Mark A. Clapp

¹Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Sarah N. Bernstein

¹Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is associated with poor neonatal outcomes and stillbirth, and screening via fundal height or ultrasound is routinely performed. During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we developed a hybrid model of prenatal care which decreased the frequency of in-person visits and incorporated telemedicine visits. We sought to determine if prenatal FGR diagnoses decreased with this hybrid model compared with routine prenatal care.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton nonanomalous neonates with birth weights <10th percentile at term. The “routine care” group was consisted of those who born between April and July 2019 with in-person prenatal care, and the “hybrid care” group was consisted of those who born between April and July 2020 with both in-person and telemedicine prenatal cares at a collaborative academic practice. The primary outcome was the rate of diagnosis of small for gestational age (SGA) as defined as infant birth weight <10th percentile without a prenatal diagnosis of FGR. The secondary outcome was timing of diagnosis of FGR.

Results Overall, 1,345 and 1,296 women gave birth in the routine and hybrid groups, respectively. The number of in-person prenatal care visits decreased from 15,024 in the routine period to 7,727 in the hybrid period; 3,265 telemedicine visits occurred during the hybrid period. The total number of prenatal patients remained relatively stable at 3,993 and 3,753 between periods. Third trimester ultrasounds decreased from 2,929 to 2,014 between periods. Birth weights <10 percentile occurred in 115 (8.6%) births during the routine period and 79 (6.1%) births during the hybrid period. Of 115, 44 (38.3%) cases were prenatally diagnosed with FGR in the routine versus 28 of 79 (35.4%) in the hybrid group (p = 0.76). Median gestational age at diagnosis did not vary between groups (36 vs. 37 weeks, p = 0.44).

Conclusion A hybrid prenatal care model did not alter the detection of FGR. Future efforts should further explore the benefits of incorporating telemedicine into prenatal care.

Key Points

Telemedicine visits can provide comprehensive prenatal care.
FGR was diagnosed equally with hybrid versus routine prenatal care.
FGR diagnosis was not delayed with hybrid care.

Keywords

fetal growth restriction - telemedicine - prenatal care - prenatal diagnosis

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (04) B2-B17
2 Getahun D, Ananth CV, Kinzler WL. Risk factors for antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196 (06) 499-507
3 Belizán JM, Villar J, Nardin JC, Malamud J, De Vicurna LS. Diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation by a simple clinical method: measurement of uterine height. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 131 (06) 643-646
4 Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, Pasupathy D, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2015; 386 (10008): 2089-2097
5 Ashimi Balogun O, Sibai BM, Pedroza C, Blackwell SC, Barrett TL, Chauhan SP. Serial third-trimester ultrasonography compared with routine care in uncomplicated pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (06) 1358-1367
6 Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (06) CD001451
7 Figueras F, Caradeux J, Crispi F, Eixarch E, Peguero A, Gratacos E. Diagnosis and surveillance of late-onset fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (2S): S790-802.e1
8 Triunfo S, Crovetto F, Scazzocchio E, Parra-Saavedra M, Gratacos E, Figueras F. Contingent versus routine third-trimester screening for late fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47 (01) 81-88
9 American Academy of Pediatrics. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Guidelines for perinatal care. Eighth edition. Accessed July 2, 2022, at: https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/physician-faqs/-/media/3a22e153b67446a6b31fb051e469187c.ashx
10 Krans EE, Davis MM. Preventing low birthweight: 25 years, prenatal risk, and the failure to reinvent prenatal care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (05) 398-403
11 Carter EB, Tuuli MG, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Number of prenatal visits and pregnancy outcomes in low-risk women. J Perinatol 2016; 36 (03) 178-181
12 Klerman LV, Ramey SL, Goldenberg RL, Marbury S, Hou J, Cliver SP. A randomized trial of augmented prenatal care for multiple-risk, Medicaid-eligible African American women. Am J Public Health 2001; 91 (01) 105-111
13 Abraham C. Rethinking the traditional prenatal care model. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (05) 1024-1026
14 Peahl AF, Novara A, Heisler M, Dalton VK, Moniz MH, Smith RD. Patient preferences for prenatal and postpartum care delivery: a survey of postpartum women. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (05) 1038-1046
15 McDuffie Jr. RS, Beck A, Bischoff K, Cross J, Orleans M. Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996; 275 (11) 847-851
16 Kern-Goldberger AR, Srinivas SK. Telemedicine in obstetrics. Clin Perinatol 2020; 47 (04) 743-757
17 Whittington JR, Ramseyer AM, Taylor CB. Telemedicine in low-risk obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2020; 47 (02) 241-247
18 Magann EF, McKelvey SS, Hitt WC, Smith MV, Azam GA, Lowery CL. The use of telemedicine in obstetrics: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2011; 66 (03) 170-178
19 Long MC, Angtuaco T, Lowery C. Ultrasound in telemedicine: its impact in high-risk obstetric health care delivery. Ultrasound Q 2014; 30 (03) 167-172
20 Oken E, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards J, Gillman MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC Pediatr 2003; 3 (01) 6
21 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
22 Gregory KD, Johnson CT, Johnson TRB, Entman SS. The content of prenatal care. Update 2005. Womens Health Issues 2006; 16 (04) 198-215
23 Aziz A, Zork N, Aubey JJ. et al. Telehealth for high-risk pregnancies in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (08) 800-808
24 Barton JR, Saade GR, Sibai BM. A proposed plan for prenatal care to minimize risks of COVID-19 to patients and providers: focus on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (08) 837-844
25 Implementing Telehealth in Practice. Implementing telehealth in practice: ACOG Committee Opinion Summary, number 798. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (02) 493-494
26 Fratelli N, Valcamonico A, Prefumo F, Pagani G, Guarneri T, Frusca T. Effects of antenatal recognition and follow-up on perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational age infants delivered after 36 weeks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92 (02) 223-229
27 Monier I, Blondel B, Ego A, Kaminiski M, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG 2015; 122 (04) 518-527
28 Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr 2013; 13: 59
29 WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO child growth standards based on length/height, weight and age. Acta Paediatr Suppl 2006; 450: 76-85
30 Pilliod RA, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Doss AE, Caughey AB. The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (04) 318.e1-318.e6
31 ACOG practice bulletin no. 202: gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (01) e1-e25
32 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 203: chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (01) e26-e50
33 Fingar KR, Mabry-Hernandez I, Ngo-Metzger Q, Wolff T, Steiner CA, Elixhauser A. Delivery hospitalizations involving preeclampsia and eclampsia, 2005–2014: statistical brief #222. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet]. Rockville MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006
34 Todros T, Masturzo B, De Francia S. COVID-19 infection: ACE2, pregnancy and preeclampsia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 253: 330

Zusatzmaterial

Supplementary Material