Expanded Fetal Growth Restriction Definition Identifies High Proportion of Umbilical Artery Doppler Anomalies

Abstract

Objective Fetal growth restriction (FGR) increases the risk for perinatal morbidity and mortality. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine expanded the definition of FGR to independently include abdominal circumference (AC) < 10th percentile for gestational age (GA), regardless of estimated fetal weight (EFW). While studies have shown increased detection of small for GA neonates with expanded definition, no studies have evaluated the likelihood of abnormal umbilical artery Dopplers (UAD) detection with expanded definition. The objective of this study was to compare the likelihood of identifying UAD abnormalities in fetuses with normal EFW and restricted AC versus those by EFW alone.

Study Design Single-institution retrospective cohort study of fetal growth ultrasounds meeting criteria for FGR either by EFW < 10th percentile or AC < 10th percentile with normal EFW. Those with FGR by AC alone were compared with those with FGR by EFW. Primary outcome was prevalence of UAD abnormalities, including elevated systolic/diastolic ratio, and absent and/or reversed end diastolic velocity. Receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to compare predictive value of UAD abnormalities by FGR definition.

Results A total of 619 scans met criteria for FGR between November 2020 and June 2021, with 441 (71%) meeting definition by EFW and 178 (29%) by AC criteria alone. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. FGR by AC alone was identified earlier (30.4 ± 3.3 vs. 35.4 ± 3.0 weeks' gestation, p < 0.001) with higher proportion identified before 32 weeks (70 vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Proportion of abnormal UAD were similar between groups (15 vs. 15%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 0.61–2.23). Use of EFW alone would have failed to identify 29% of abnormal UAD. A combined definition of FGR had the highest detection of abnormal UAD (area under curve: 0.78 vs. AC alone 0.73 vs. EFW alone 0.69).

Conclusion A definition of FGR that considers both EFW and AC improves detection of abnormal UAD.

Key Points

• Fetuses with restricted AC are equally likely to exhibit abnormal UAD indices compared with those that meet criteria by EFW.

• Earlier GA of FGR detection and improved detection of abnormal UAD with expanded growth definition.

• Expanded definition of FGR significantly improves detection of abnormal UAD as compared with those diagnosed with EFW criteria alone.

• Expanded growth restriction definition improves Doppler identification.

Keywords

fetal growth restriction - abnormal umbilical artery Doppler - estimated fetal weight - abdominal circumference - umbilical artery systolic to diastolic ratio

Publication History

Received: 09 July 2024

Accepted: 05 October 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 October 2024

Article published online:
29 October 2024

• References

• 1 Pels A, Beune IM, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, Limpens J, Ganzevoort W. Early-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review on mortality and morbidity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 99 (02) 153-166
• 2 Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: [e-mail]. 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
• 3 Maulik D, Figueroa R. Doppler Velocimetry for Fetal Surveillance: Randomized Clinical Trials and Implications for Practice [Internet]. Heidelberg: Springer; 2005
• 4 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Dowswell T. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6 (06) CD007529
• 5 Berkley E, Chauhan SP, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee. Doppler assessment of the fetus with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (04) 300-308
• 6 Bricker L, Neilson JP. Routine Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2 (02) CD001450
• 7 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181 (01) 129-133
• 8 Blue NR, Savabi M, Beddow ME. et al. The Hadlock method is superior to newer methods for the prediction of the birth weight percentile. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38 (03) 587-596
• 9 Strassberg ER, Schuster M, Rajaram AM. et al. Comparing diagnosis of fetal growth restriction and the potential impact on management and outcomes using different growth curves. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38 (12) 3273-3281
• 10 Caradeux J, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Peguero A, Sotiriadis A, Figueras F. Diagnostic performance of third-trimester ultrasound for the prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (05) 449-459.e19
• 11 David C, Tagliavini G, Pilu G, Rudenholz A, Bovicelli L. Receiver-operator characteristic curves for the ultrasonographic prediction of small-for-gestational-age fetuses in low-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174 (03) 1037-1042
• 12 Blue NR, Yordan JMP, Holbrook BD, Nirgudkar PA, Mozurkewich EL. Abdominal circumference alone versus estimated fetal weight after 24 weeks to predict small or large for gestational age at birth: a meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol 2017; 34 (11) 1115-1124
• 13 Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (02) 163-168
• 14 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (03) 333-337
• 15 Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, Maltau JM, Kiserud T. Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (03) 937-944
• 16 Blue NR, Beddow ME, Savabi M, Katukuri VR, Mozurkewich EL, Chao CR. A comparison of methods for the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction between the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (05) 835-841
• 17 The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria. The R foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Accessed at: https://www.R-project.org/
• 18 Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A. et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 77
• 19 Long M, Nakahara A, Elmayan A, Tivis R, Biggio J, Frank W. Fetal growth restriction defined by abdominal circumference along predicts perinatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226: S179
• 20 Chauhan SP, Cole J, Sanderson M, Magann EF, Scardo JA. Suspicion of intrauterine growth restriction: use of abdominal circumference alone or estimated fetal weight below 10%. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19 (09) 557-562
• 21 Mayer C, Joseph KS. Fetal growth: a review of terms, concepts and issues relevant to obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (02) 136-145
• 22 Grantz KL. Fetal growth curves: is there a universal reference?. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2021; 48 (02) 281-296
• 23 Oros D, Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R, Meler E, Munmany M, Gratacos E. Longitudinal changes in uterine, umbilical and fetal cerebral Doppler indices in late-onset small-for-gestational age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37 (02) 191-195