Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e1470-e1477
DOI: 10.1055/a-2051-3859
Original Article

Outcomes among Neonates after a Diagnosis of Persistent or Transient Fetal Growth Restriction Delivered at Term

Sebastian Z. Ramos 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Phinnara Has
2   Lifespan Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD), Rhode Island Hospital, Lifespan Healthcare System, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Alexis C. Gimovsky 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Valery A. Danilack 
3   Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
David A. Savitz
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
4   Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Adam K. Lewkowitz
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “Effect of Iatrogenic Delivery at 34-38 Weeks' Gestation on Pregnancy Outcome” (grant no.: 1R01HD077592; PI: D.A.S.). This work was also supported by the NIH/Office of Research on Women's Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (grant no.: 5K12HD092535) scholar funds to S.Z.R. Dr. Ramos was supported by the NIH/Office of Research on Women's Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (Grant number: 5K12HD092535). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Corrigendum: Outcomes among Neonates after a Diagnosis of Persistent or Transient Fetal Growth Restriction Delivered at TermAm J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e1478-e1478
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786526

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether transient fetal growth restriction (FGR) that resolves prior to delivery confers a similar risk of neonatal morbidity as uncomplicated FGR that persists at term.

Study Design This is a secondary analysis of a medical record abstraction study of singleton live-born pregnancies delivered at a tertiary care center between 2002 and 2013. Patients with fetuses that had either persistent or transient FGR and delivered at 38 weeks or later were included. Patients with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler studies were excluded. Persistent FGR was defined as estimated fetal weight (EFW) <10th percentile by gestational age from diagnosis through delivery. Transient FGR was defined as EFW <10th percentile on at least one ultrasound, but not on the last ultrasound prior to delivery. The primary outcome was a composite of neonatal morbidity: neonatal intensive care unit admission, Apgar's score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal resuscitation, arterial cord pH <7.1, respiratory distress syndrome, transient tachypnea of the newborn, hypoglycemia, sepsis, or death. Baseline characteristics and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared using Wilcoxon's rank-sum and Fisher's exact test. Log binomial regression was used to adjust for confounders.

Results Of 777 patients studied, 686 (88%) had persistent FGR and 91 (12%) had transient FGR. Patients with transient FGR were more likely to have a higher body mass index, gestational diabetes, diagnosed with FGR earlier in pregnancy, have spontaneous labor, and deliver at later gestational ages. There was no difference in the composite neonatal outcome (relative risk = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.47) for transient versus persistent FGR after adjusting for confounders (adjusted relative risk = 0.79, 95% CI 0.54, 1.17). There were no differences in cesarean delivery or delivery complications between groups.

Conclusion Neonates born at term after transient FGR do not appear to have differences in composite morbidity compared with those where uncomplicated FGR persists at term.

Key Points

  • No differences in neonatal outcomes in uncomplicated persistent versus transient FGR at term.

  • Transient FGR pregnancies more likely to deliver at later gestational ages.

  • No differences in mode of delivery or obstetric complications in persistent versus transient FGR at term.

Keywords

fetal growth restriction - antepartum surveillance - neonatal outcomes - small for gestational age - composite neonatal morbidity

Note

This abstract was presented at the 41st Annual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine virtually on January 25 to 30, 2021, and received the Best Poster Award for its session.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 06 June 2022

Accepted: 24 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
09 March 2023

Article published online:
10 April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Reddy UM. Prediction and prevention of recurrent stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (05) 1151-1164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 204: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (02) e97-e109
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Mendez-Figueroa H, Truong VT, Pedroza C, Chauhan SP. Morbidity and mortality in small-for-gestational-age infants: a secondary analysis of nine MFMU network studies. Am J Perinatol 2017; 34 (04) 323-332
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Strauss RS. Adult functional outcome of those born small for gestational age: twenty-six-year follow-up of the 1970 British Birth Cohort. JAMA 2000; 283 (05) 625-632
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Taine M, Charles MA, Beltrand J. et al. Early postnatal growth and neurodevelopment in children born moderately preterm or small for gestational age at term: a systematic review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2018; 32 (03) 268-280
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Unterscheider J, O'Donoghue K, Daly S. et al. Fetal growth restriction and the risk of perinatal mortality-case studies from the multicentre PORTO study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (06) 715-723
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Owen P, Maharaj S, Khan KS, Howie PW. Interval between fetal measurements in predicting growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97 (04) 499-504
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 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 (2S): S855-S868
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries. Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 818. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137 (02) e29-e33
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181 (01) 129-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Todd S, Bowen J, Ibiebele I. et al. A composite neonatal adverse outcome indicator using population-based data: an update. Int J Popul Data Sci 2020; 5 (01) 1337
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Bernstein IM, Horbar JD, Badger GJ, Ohlsson A, Golan A. The Vermont Oxford Network. Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth-weight neonates with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182 (1 pt 1): 198-206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Madden JV, Flatley CJ, Kumar S. Term small-for-gestational-age infants from low-risk women are at significantly greater risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (05) 525.e1-525.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gilbert WM, Danielsen B. Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (06) 1596-1599 , discussion 1599–1601
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Brodsky D, Christou H. Current concepts in intrauterine growth restriction. J Intensive Care Med 2004; 19 (06) 307-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brett KE, Ferraro ZM, Yockell-Lelievre J, Gruslin A, Adamo KB. Maternal-fetal nutrient transport in pregnancy pathologies: the role of the placenta. Int J Mol Sci 2014; 15 (09) 16153-16185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Manzanares S, Gonzalez-Escudero A, Gonzalez-Peran E, López-Criado M, Pineda A. Influence of maternal obesity on the accuracy of ultrasonography birth weight prediction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33 (18) 3056-3061
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Field NT, Piper JM, Langer O. The effect of maternal obesity on the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86 (01) 102-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Francis JH, Permezel M, Davey MA. Perinatal mortality by birthweight centile. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54 (04) 354-359
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Hendrix MLE, van Kuijk SMJ, Gavilanes AWD, Kramer D, Spaanderman MEA, Al Nasiry S. Reduced fetal growth velocities and the association with neonatal outcomes in appropriate-for-gestational-age neonates: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19 (01) 31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Fox NS, Huang M, Chasen ST. Second-trimester fetal growth and the risk of poor obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32 (01) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar