Prenatal identification of fetal growth restriction and risk of stillbirth
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2024.1.289740Keywords:
antenatal diagnosis, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, perinatal consequencesAbstract
The aim of the work is to determine the frequency and impact of prenatal identification of fetal growth restriction (FGR) on obstetric and perinatal outcomes based on a retrospective analysis.
Materials and methods. In total, 618 birth histories in singleton normal pregnancies complicated by FGR in the city of Zaporizhzhia were analyzed. Of these, in 546 cases of FGR, women gave birth to live infants (group I), and in 72 such cases, pregnancies ended up in a stillbirth (group II). The mean age of pregnant women in the studied groups was 28.7 ± 3.1 and 31.7 ± 3.1 years and it was significantly greater in group II (p < 0.0001). In all the cases, the gestational age was ≥22 weeks, and the fetal weight was less than the 10th percentile for the relevant gestational age according to the current Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 1718 dated 02.10.2023. Growth restriction in newborns was determined according to the criteria of the Consensus Definition (2018) including birth weight the <3rd percentile, or a combination of three of the following criteria: birth weight the <10th percentile; head circumference the <10th percentile; prenatal diagnosis of FGR; prenatal risk factors associated with FGR. A stillbirth was defined as death of a fetus after 22 weeks of gestation without any signs of life. Exclusion criteria from the study were: multiple pregnancy, the presence of a chromosomal abnormality in a fetus, an undetermined gestational age in the 1st trimester.
Results. A significant proportion of fetuses with FGR signs has been revealed in group II, which was 17 times more than that in group I. The study data have demonstrated a rather low level of prenatal FGR identification in both groups (35.6 %), while in group II, the diagnosis of FGR was made before delivery only in every fifth case (p < 0.05). Data analysis has shown a higher percentage of preterm births among pregnant women in group II (p < 0.0001) with the maximum number of births in this group at 28- and 36-weeks’ gestation. The average weight percentile was significantly higher in group II, namely 4.12 compared to 3.77 (p < 0.0001), however, the number of fetuses with a weight the <1st percentile occurred significantly more often in group I (p < 0.05). The frequency of fetal distress in group I was greater among fetuses with the birth weight 10th percentile than among those with fetal weight less than the 3rd percentile.
Conclusions. The conducted study results have shown a large percentage of FGR fetuses in the structure of stillbirths with no downward trend. A low level of FGR prenatal identification has been found in both groups (35.6 %), while in the group of stillbirths, the indicator was significantly lower and amounted to 22.22 %. The presence of FGR has resulted in a significant increase in the relative risk of stillbirth – 28.4, 95 % CI [21.2; 38.3]. Besides, the additional risk was increased (11.0, 95 % CI [8.7; 13.8]) if FGR was not diagnosed during pregnancy. At the same time, the odds ratio was 32.1, 95 % CI [23.3; 44.1].
References
Ego A, Monier I, Skaare K, Zeitlin J. Antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and risk of stillbirth: population-based case-control study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(5):613-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20414
Tokoro S, Koshida S, Tsuji S, Katsura D, Ono T, Murakami T, et al. Insufficient antenatal identification of fetal growth restriction leading to intrauterine fetal death: a regional population-based study in Japan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36(1):2167075. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2023.2167075
Hirst JE, Villar J, Victora CG, Papageorghiou AT, Finkton D, Barros FC, et al. The antepartum stillbirth syndrome: risk factors and pregnancy conditions identified from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG. 2018;125(9):1145-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14463
Siassakos D, Silver R, Dudley D, Flenady V, Erwich JJ, Joseph KS. Stillbirth: understand, standardise, educate - time to end preventable harm. BJOG. 2018;125(2):99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15028
Reinebrant HE, Leisher SH, Coory M, Henry S, Wojcieszek AM, Gardener G, et al. Making stillbirths visible: a systematic review of globally reported causes of stillbirth. BJOG. 2018;125(2):212-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14971
Nuzum D, Meaney S, O'Donoghue K. The public awareness of stillbirth: an Irish population study. BJOG. 2018;125(2):246-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14939
Dall'Asta A, Stampalija T, Mecacci F, Minopoli M, Schera GBL, Cagninelli G, et al. Ultrasound prediction of adverse perinatal outcome at diagnosis of late-onset fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;59(3):342-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23714
Fung C, Zinkhan E. Short- and Long-Term Implications of Small for Gestational Age. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021;48(2):311-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2021.02.004
Dudink I, Hüppi PS, Sizonenko SV, Castillo-Melendez M, Sutherland AE, Allison BJ, et al. Altered trajectory of neurodevelopment associated with fetal growth restriction. Exp Neurol. 2022;347:113885. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2021.113885
Melamed N, Baschat A, Yinon Y, Athanasiadis A, Mecacci F, Figueras F, et al. FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;152 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):3-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13522
Fetal Growth Restriction: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 227. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(2):e16-e28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004251
Blencowe H, Krasevec J, de Onis M, Black RE, An X, Stevens GA, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(7):e849-e860. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30565-5
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.004
Pacora P, Romero R, Jung E, Gudicha DW, Hernandez-Andrade E, Musilova I, et al. Reduced fetal growth velocity precedes antepartum fetal death. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(6):942-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23111
Leite DFB, Cecatti JG. Fetal Growth Restriction Prediction: How to Move beyond. ScientificWorldJournal. 2019;2019:1519048. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1519048
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(2):153-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13702
Beune IM, Bloomfield FH, Ganzevoort W, Embleton ND, Rozance PJ, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, et al. Consensus Based Definition of Growth Restriction in the Newborn. J Pediatr. 2018;196:71-76.e1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.12.059
Lee AC, Kozuki N, Cousens S, Stevens GA, Blencowe H, Silveira MF, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;358:j3677. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3677
Korkalainen N, Räsänen J, Kaukola T, Kallankari H, Hallman M, Mäkikallio K. Fetal hemodynamics and adverse outcome in primary school-aged children with fetal growth restriction: a prospective longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(1):69-77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13052
Marzouk A, Filipovic-Pierucci A, Baud O, Tsatsaris V, Ego A, Charles MA, et al. Prenatal and post-natal cost of small for gestational age infants: a national study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2155-x
Antypkin YG, Marushko RV, Dudina OO, Bondarenko NY. (). Modern features of the injury of children of the first year of life: regional aspects. Modern Pediatrics. Ukraine. 2022;(5):50-9. doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15574/SP2022.125.50
Zabolotko VM, editor. Monitorynh yakosti nadannia medychnykh posluh pid chas reformuvannia akushersko-pediatrychnoi dopomohy naselenniu Ukrainy u zakladakh okhorony zdorovia, shcho perebuvaiut u sferi upravlinnia MOZ Ukrainy [Monitoring the quality of health care delivery during the reform of obstetric and pediatric care to the population of Ukraine in healthcare facilities under the management of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine]. Kyiv: Center for Medical Statistics of the MoH of Ukraine; 2022. Available from: http://medstat.gov.ua/ukr/MMXXI.html
Beune IM, Bloomfield FH, Ganzevoort W, Embleton ND, Rozance PJ, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, et al. Consensus Based Definition of Growth Restriction in the Newborn. J Pediatr. 2018;196:71-76.e1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.12.059
Ministry of Health of Ukraine. [On approval of the Instructions for determining the criteria for the perinatal period, live births and stillbirths, the Procedure for registering live births and stillbirths]. Order dated 2006 Mar 29, No. 179, revision on 2022 May 10 [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2023 Dec 21]. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0427-06#Text
Puchkov VA, Krut YY. Intrauterine growth restriction in the structure of perinatal losses. Ukrainian journal of perinatology and pediatrics. 2020;(1):34-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.15574/PP.2020.81.34
Tolu LB, Ararso R, Abdulkadir A, Feyissa GT, Worku Y. Perinatal outcome of growth restricted fetuses with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms compared to growth restricted fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms at a tertiary referral hospital in urban Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234810. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234810
Malhotra A, Allison BJ, Castillo-Melendez M, Jenkin G, Polglase GR, Miller SL. Neonatal Morbidities of Fetal Growth Restriction: Pathophysiology and Impact. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:55. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00055
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.004
Fantasia I, Zamagni G, Lees C, Mylrea-Foley B, Monasta L, Mullins E, et al. Current practice in the diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: An international survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(12):1431-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14466
Deinichenko OV, Krut YY. Factors of angiogenesis and placental hormones in pregnant women with arterial hypertension. Pathologia. 2019;16(3):368-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1237.2019.3.188891
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
