Download PDF
AJP Rep 2016; 06(01): e83-e90
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567857
Case Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Uncomplicated Pregnancies and Ultrasounds for Fetal Growth Restriction: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Ibrahim A. Hammad
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Suneet P. Chauhan
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, UT Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
,
Malgorzata Mlynarczyk
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Nader Rabie
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arkansas for the Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
,
Chris Goodie
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
,
Eugene Chang
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
,
Everett F. Magann
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arkansas for the Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
,
Alfred Z. Abuhamad
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

28 July 2015

01 October 2015

Publication Date:
16 November 2015 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this multicenter pilot study was to determine the feasibility of randomizing uncomplicated pregnancies (UPs) to have third trimester ultrasonographic exams (USE) versus routine prenatal care (RPNC) to improve the detection of small for gestational age (SGA; birth weight < 10% for GA).

Material and Methods At three referral centers, 50 UPs were randomized after gestational diabetes was ruled out. Women needed to screen, consenting, and loss to follow-up was ascertained, as was the detection rate of SGA in the two groups.

Results During the study period at the three centers, there were 7,680 births, of which 64% were uncomplicated. Of the 234 women approached for randomization, 36% declined. We recruited 149 women and had follow-up delivery data on 97%. The antenatal detection rate of SGA in the intervention group was 67% (95% confidence intervals 31–91%) and 9% (0.5–43%) in control.

Conclusion The pilot study provides feasibility data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial to determine if third trimester USE, compared with RPNC, improves the detection of SGA and composite neonatal morbidity.

Keywords

small for gestational age - third trimester ultrasound - screening - pilot study
 

  • References

  • 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Fetal Growth Restriction. ACOG practice bulletin No. 134. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Garite TJ, Clark R, Thorp JA. Intrauterine growth restriction increases morbidity and mortality among premature neonates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (2) 481-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gilbert WM, Danielsen B. Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (6) 1596-1599 , discussion 1599–1601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bukowski R, Hansen NI, Willinger M , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network. Fetal growth and risk of stillbirth: a population-based case-control study. PLoS Med 2014; 11 (4) e1001633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Trudell AS, Cahill AG, Tuuli MG, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Risk of stillbirth after 37 weeks in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (5) 376.e1-376.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pilliod RA, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Doss AE, Caughey AB. The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (4) 318.e1-318.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chen HY, Chauhan SP, Ward TC, Mori N, Gass ET, Cisler RA. Aberrant fetal growth and early, late, and postneonatal mortality: an analysis of Milwaukee births, 1996-2007. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (3) 261.e1-261.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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 (4) 300-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 31. The Investigation and Management of the Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London. February 2013. Available at: https://www.gestation.net/RCOG_Green_Top_-_SGA_2013.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lausman A, Kingdom J, Gagnon R , et al; Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee. Intrauterine growth restriction: screening, diagnosis, and management. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (8) 741-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Antepartum Fetal Surveillance. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 145. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. Fetal Growth Restriction—Recognition, Diagnosis and Management. RCPI Clinical Practice Guideline No. 28. Dublin, Ireland: Royal College of Physicians of Ireland; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Jahn A, Razum O, Berle P. Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Germany: low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998; 77 (6) 643-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (3) 258-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McCowan LM, Roberts CT, Dekker GA , et al; SCOPE consortium. Risk factors for small-for-gestational-age infants by customised birthweight centiles: data from an international prospective cohort study. BJOG 2010; 117 (13) 1599-1607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mattioli KP, Sanderson M, Chauhan SP. Inadequate identification of small-for-gestational-age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 109 (2) 140-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Verlijsdonk JW, Winkens B, Boers K, Scherjon S, Roumen F. Suspected versus non-suspected small-for-gestational age fetuses at term: perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (7) 938-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chauhan SP, Beydoun H, Chang E , et al. Prenatal detection of fetal growth restriction in newborns classified as small for gestational age: correlates and risk of neonatal morbidity. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (3) 187-194
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Monier I, Blondel B, Ego A, Kaminiski M, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG 2015; 122 (4) 518-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McKenna D, Tharmaratnam S, Mahsud S, Bailie C, Harper A, Dornan J. A randomized trial using ultrasound to identify the high-risk fetus in a low-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (4) 626-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chauhan SP, Rouse DJ, Ananth CV , et al. Screening for intrauterine growth restriction in uncomplicated pregnancies: time for action. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30 (1) 33-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Method of Estimating Due Date. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 611. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Scardo JA, Berghella V. A review of sonographic estimate of fetal weight: vagaries of accuracy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 18 (4) 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Ultrasonography in Pregnancy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 26 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 (3) 333-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sandlin AT, Chauhan SP, Magann EF. Clinical relevance of sonographically estimated amniotic fluid volume: polyhydramnios. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (5) 851-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chauhan SP, Parker D, Shields D, Sanderson M, Cole JH, Scardo JA. Sonographic estimate of birth weight among high-risk patients: feasibility and factors influencing accuracy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (2) 601-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Maggio L, Albright CM, Chauhan SP, Wenstrom KD. Early term versus term delivery in the management of fetal growth restriction: a comparison of two protocols. Am J Perinatol 2015; 32 (6) 523-530
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Boers KE, Vijgen SM, Bijlenga D , et al; DIGITAT study group. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010; 341: c7087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Stergiotou I, Crispi F, Valenzuela-Alcaraz B, Cruz-Lemini M, Bijnens B, Gratacos E. Aortic and carotid intima-media thickness in term small-for-gestational-age newborns and relationship with prenatal signs of severity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (6) 625-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Metz TD, Lynch AM, Wolfe P, Barry JS, Galan HL. Effect of small for gestational age on hemodynamic parameters in the neonatal period. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (10) 2093-2097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Alexander G, Himes J, Kaufman R, Mor J, Kogan M. United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar