Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(07): 711-717
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759706
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Implementing American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Outpatient Antepartum Testing Recommendations: Can Your Clinic Handle It?

Michelle N. Lende 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Bruce A. Morris
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Tara A. Lynch 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study was conducted to determine the difference in the number of pregnancies that would qualify for outpatient fetal testing between our current academic practice and that of the 2021 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) antepartum recommendations.

Study Design We performed a retrospective study of all pregnancies that delivered and received prenatal care at our institution between January 1, 2019, and May 31, 2021. The timing and amount of outpatient antepartum testing was determined for each patient. Our current antepartum testing guidelines (clinic protocol) were compared with the 2021 ACOG recommendations (ACOG protocol). Statistical analysis was performed with descriptive statistics and z scoring to compare the total amount of antepartum testing utilized with each protocol.

Results A total of 1,335 pregnancies were included in the study. With the ACOG protocol, an additional 310 (23.2%) of pregnancies would qualify for antepartum testing (57.8% with ACOG protocol vs. 34.6% with clinic protocol). Most of the increased testing was due to maternal age with additional risk factors, hypertensive disorders, diabetes, prepregnancy body mass index ≥ 35, and complex fetal anomalies or aneuploidies. Overall, the ACOG protocol would require an additional 570 antepartum tests (z-score = 4.04, p = 0.000005) over the study period, which is equivalent to 19 additional tests per month and 5 per week. Only nine stillbirths occurred during this time, of which two would have had antepartum testing with both protocols, one would have only had testing per ACOG, and two would have had testing individualized per ACOG.

Conclusion More pregnancies would require outpatient antenatal testing with adoption of the ACOG protocol. A 23% increase in testing would equate to five additional antepartum tests per week. Although this study cannot assess the clinical impact of additional testing, minimal scheduling resources are needed to accommodate this increase.

Key Points

  • Most pregnancies have risk factors for stillbirth.

  • Most pregnancies qualify for fetal testing per ACOG.

  • More resources are needed for this increased testing.

Keywords

pregnancy - fetal monitoring - stillbirth - resources - protocols - high risk


Publication History

Received: 04 April 2022

Accepted: 01 November 2022

Article published online:
05 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Indications for outpatient antenatal fetal surveillance. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 828. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137: e177-e197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Association between stillbirth and risk factors known at pregnancy confirmation. Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Writing Group. JAMA 2011; 306: 2469-2479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Flenady V, Koopmans L, Middleton P. et al. Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2011; 377 (9774): 1331-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yao R, Ananth CV, Park BY, Pereira L, Plante LA. Obesity and the risk of stillbirth: a population-based cohort study. Perinatal Research Consortium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 457.e1-457.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Antepartum fetal surveillance. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 229. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137: e116-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bardenheier BH, Imperatore G, Devlin HM, Kim SY, Cho P, Geiss LS. Trends in pre-pregnancy diabetes among deliveries in 19 U.S. states, 2000-2010. Am J Prev Med 2015; 48 (02) 154-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mathews T, Hamilton BE. Mean age of mother, 1970–2000. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2002. . Contract No.: 1
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Bateman BT, Bansil P, Hernandez-Diaz S, Mhyre JM, Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV. Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of chronic hypertension: a nationwide sample of delivery admissions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (02) 134.e1-134.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Main EK, Leonard SA, Menard MK. Association of maternal comorbidity with severe maternal morbidity: a cohort study of California mothers delivering between 1997 and 2014. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173 (11, suppl): S11-S18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leonard SA, Main EK, Carmichael SL. The contribution of maternal characteristics and cesarean delivery to an increasing trend of severe maternal morbidity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19 (01) 16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in collaboration with, Metz TD, Berry RS, Fretts RC, Reddy UM, Turrentine MA. Obstetric Care Consensus #10: Management of Stillbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (03) B2-B20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kozhimannil KB, Interrante JD, Henning-Smith C, Admon LK. Rural-urban differences in severe maternal morbidity and mortality in the US, 2007-15. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019; 38 (12) 2077-2085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Grzybowski S, Stoll K, Kornelsen J. Distance matters: a population based study examining access to maternity services for rural women. BMC Health Serv Res 2011; 11: 147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Thacker SB, Berkelman RL. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of selected antepartum fetal surveillance techniques. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1986; 41 (03) 121-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Devane D, Lalor JG, Daly S, McGuire W, Cuthbert A, Smith V. Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1 (01) CD005122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Foy AJ, Filippone EJ. The case for intervention bias in the practice of medicine. Yale J Biol Med 2013; 86 (02) 271-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Johnson GJ, Clark SL, Turrentine MA. Antepartum testing for the prevention of stillbirth: where do we go from here?. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (06) 1407-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Signore C, Freeman RK, Spong CY. Antenatal testing-a reevaluation: executive summary of a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (03) 687-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Heinke D, Nestoridi E, Hernandez-Diaz S. et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Risk of stillbirth for fetuses with specific birth defects. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (01) 133-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liu C, Lodge J, Flatley C. et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies with isolated foetal congenital heart abnormalities. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (18) 2985-2992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar