Perinatal Outcomes of Fetal Growth Restriction, Classified According to the Delphi Consensus Definition: A Prospective Observational Study

被引:1
|
作者
Sainky, Aman [1 ]
Nayar, Sakshi [1 ]
Sharma, Nidhish [3 ]
Gupta, Nandita Dimri [3 ]
Modi, Manoj [2 ]
Mansukhani, Chandra [1 ]
Saluja, Satish [2 ]
Gujral, Kanwal [1 ]
机构
[1] Sir Ganga Ram Hosp, Inst Obstet & Gynecol, New Delhi, India
[2] Sir Ganga Ram Hosp, Dept Neonatol, New Delhi, India
[3] Sir Ganga Ram Hosp, Dept Fetal Med, New Delhi, India
关键词
Fetal growth restriction; Delphi defined FGR; Perinatal outcomes of FGR; BIRTH-WEIGHT; MORTALITY; IMPACT; MORBIDITY; INFANTS; COHORT;
D O I
10.1007/s40556-022-00346-6
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Fetal Growth Restriction has been redefined on the basis of biometry (Abdominal Circumference/Estimated Fetal Weight) beyond the original definition of failure of a fetus to reach its full growth potential irrespective of its size. The Delphi consensus has standardised the definition of early and late onset FGR using size (biometry) as well as functional parameters (doppler blood flow). The clinical validity of this consensus in terms of perinatal outcomes has yet to be tested. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the incidence and perinatal outcomes of fetal growth restriction classified by the Delphi consensus as against conventional definitions. This was a prospective cohort study of 500 consecutive patients from February 2018 onwards, in a tertiary hospital (Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi) with a fully equipped neonatal intensive care unit. 70 patients were excluded by predefined exclusion criteria. 430 subjects were enrolled as the study population. Enrolled subjects, apart from a dating scan at first visit and an anomaly scan in the 2nd trimester had a transabdominal scan using a 5 MHz curvilinear probe for fetal assessment between 26 and 32 weeks with at least one scan at 31-32 weeks to identify early onset FGR. A repeat USG between 35 and 36 weeks was conducted to identify late onset FGR. All recruited subjects were categorised as Conventional FGR i.e. AC/EFW < 10th% ile (C), early onset (C1) and late onset (C2), Delphi defined FGR (D) based on Delphi Consensus criteria, early onset (D1) and late onset (D2), Non Delphi Conventional FGR as (C-D), early onset (C1-D1) and late onset (C2-D2). Rest of the fetuses were designated as Non FGR (> 10th% ile). The association of incidence along with perinatal outcomes in each group were compared. The incidence of FGR was as follows: conventional criteria: 35.8%, Delphi criteria: 22.7% and Non Delphi Conventional FGR: 13.1%. Delphi defined FGR had statistically significant increased incidence of PPHTN, hypoglycemia and NICU admission in comparison to Conventional FGR. Delphi defined FGR also had statistically significant increased frequency of Apgar < 7, PPHTN, hypoglycemia, seizures, NICU admissions and prolonged stay as compared to Non Delphi Conventional FGR group. Comparing Non FGR fetuses with Non Delphi Conventional FGR fetuses, neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. Delphi defined FGR is associated with increased frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes as compared to conventionally defined FGR. Delphi defined criteria, should be routinely applied to a fetus who is small (AC/EFW < 10th% ile). This will timely identify a truly growth restricted fetus, who is at risk for adverse perinatal outcome and save the rest from unnecessary monitoring and intervention. The findings of our study call for larger studies validating the use of Delphi consensus in clinical practise.
引用
收藏
页码:113 / 119
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Neural and cardiac injury markers in fetal growth restriction and their relation to perinatal outcomes
    Yakistiran, Betul
    Katlan, Doruk Cevdi
    Yuce, Tuncay
    Koc, Acar
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 16 (01) : 50 - 54
  • [42] Fetal growth restriction in rural Bangladesh: A prospective study
    Ferdous F.
    Rashid M.H.
    Ma E.
    Raqib R.
    Hamada H.
    Wagatsuma Y.
    Tropical Medicine and Health, 46 (1)
  • [43] Lipid profiling in maternal and fetal circulations in preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction-a prospective case control observational study
    Alahakoon, Thushari I.
    Medbury, Heather J.
    Williams, Helen
    Lee, Vincent W.
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [44] Lipid profiling in maternal and fetal circulations in preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction-a prospective case control observational study
    Thushari I. Alahakoon
    Heather J. Medbury
    Helen Williams
    Vincent W. Lee
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 20
  • [45] Search for the best prediction model, definition and growth charts for fetal growth restriction using a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes: a catch-22?
    Gordijn, S. J.
    Ganzevoort, W.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 60 (03) : 305 - 306
  • [46] Sensitivity of Broadened Definition of Fetal Growth Restriction in Predicting Adverse Neonatal Outcomes
    Allen, Stephanie M.
    Contag, Stephen A.
    Rubin, Nathan T.
    Engel, Melissa S.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 139 : 99S - 99S
  • [47] Perinatal Outcomes and Risk Factors for Fetal Growth Restriction in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Alamri, Nada
    Altaifi, Hatoon
    Aleid, Hassan A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2024, 35 (10):
  • [48] Perinatal outcomes of two consecutive strategies for the management of fetal growth restriction: a before-after study
    Paola Demirdjian, Sabrina
    Hernan Meller, Cesar
    Celeste Berruet, Maria
    Dosdoglirian, Gonzalo
    Etchegaray, Adolfo
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2023, 307 (01) : 319 - 326
  • [49] PERINATAL OUTCOMES OF REDUCED FETAL MOVEMENTS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
    McCarthy, C. M.
    Meaney, S.
    O'Donoghue, K.
    JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2015, 69 : A62 - A62
  • [50] Perinatal outcomes of reduced fetal movements: a prospective cohort study
    McCarthy, C.
    Meaney, S.
    O'Donoghue, K.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2015, 122 : 108 - 109