Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare outcomes of antenatal testing in women who received testing between 40 weeks and 40+6 weeks versus those who received testing at ≥41 weeks.
Materials and methods: This retrospective study included women without maternal comorbidities, who were referred for outpatient antenatal testing for gestational age ≥40 weeks. We compared women who received antenatal testing between 40 and 40+6 weeks (Group 1), to those who were only tested at ≥41 weeks (Group 2).
Results: A total of 827 Group 1 and 244 Group 2 pregnancies were evaluated. One-hundred and eighty-nine (18%) were sent to labor and delivery (L&D) for further evaluation. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of being sent or admitted to labor and delivery, the reason for which women were sent, induction of labor, mode of delivery, neonatal length of stay, or admission to intensive care.
Conclusion: Pregnancies tested at 40 weeks were identified as abnormal and sent to L&D at the same rate as those tested at 41 weeks. Therefore, it may be reasonable to initiate fetal surveillance at the estimated date of delivery.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Sandy M. Field, PhD, for the medical writing assistance provided in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
[1] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Antepartum fetal surveillance. 1999;9 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 188, January 1994). Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;68:175–85.Search in Google Scholar
[2] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynecologists. 2004;55 (replaces practice pattern number 6, October 1997). Management of postterm pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:639–46.10.1097/00006250-200409000-00052Search in Google Scholar
[3] Bobby PD, Divon MY. Fetal testing in postdates. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9:79–82.10.1097/00001703-199704000-00002Search in Google Scholar
[4] Brar HS, Platt LD, Devore GR. Antepartum fetal surveillance: the biophysical profile. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1987;30:936–47.10.1097/00003081-198712000-00017Search in Google Scholar
[5] Caughey AB, Snegovskikh VV, Norwitz ER. Postterm pregnancy: how can we improve outcomes? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63:715–24.10.1097/OGX.0b013e318186a9c7Search in Google Scholar
[6] Cleary-Goldman J, Bettes B, Robinson JN, Norwitz E, D’Alton ME, Schulkin J. Postterm pregnancy: practice patterns of contemporary obstetricians and gynecologists. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23:15–20.10.1055/s-2005-918891Search in Google Scholar
[7] Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee, Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee, Delaney M, Roggensack A, Leduc DC, Ballermann C, Biringer A, Delaney M. Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:800–23.10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32945-0Search in Google Scholar
[8] Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 579: definition of term pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1139–40.10.1097/01.AOG.0000437385.88715.4aSearch in Google Scholar
[9] Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000170.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Divon MY, Feldman-Leidner N. Postdates and antenatal testing. Semin Perinatol. 2008;32:295–300.10.1053/j.semperi.2008.04.013Search in Google Scholar
[11] Freeman RK, Anderson G, Dorchester W. A prospective multi-institutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. II. Contraction stress test versus nonstress test for primary surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;143:778–81.10.1016/0002-9378(82)90009-6Search in Google Scholar
[12] Hankins GD, Miller DA. A review of the 2008 NICHD Research Planning Workshop: recommendations for fetal heart rate terminology and interpretation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:3–7.10.1097/GRF.0b013e31820a015bSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Heimstad R, Skogvoll E, Mattsson LA, Johansen OJ, Eik-Nes SH, Salvesen KA. Induction of labor or serial antenatal fetal monitoring in postterm pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:609–17.10.1097/01.AOG.0000255665.77009.94Search in Google Scholar
[14] Kaimal AJ, Little SE, Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Grobman WA, Long EF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of elective induction of labor at 41 weeks in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:137e1–e9.10.1016/j.ajog.2010.08.012Search in Google Scholar
[15] Kisilevsky BS, Kilpatrick KL, Low JA. Vibroacoustic-induced fetal movement: two stimuli and two methods of scoring. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:174–7.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Kitlinski ML, Kallen K, Marsal K, Olofsson P. Gestational age-dependent reference values for pH in umbilical cord arterial blood at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:338–45.Search in Google Scholar
[17] Lamvu GM, Thorp JM, Jr., Stuart N, Hartmann KE. Impact of abnormal results of outpatient fetal heart rate monitoring on maternal intervention in labor. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:689–93.Search in Google Scholar
[18] Mandujano A, Waters TP, Myers SA. The risk of fetal death: current concepts of best gestational age for delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:207e1–e8.10.1016/j.ajog.2012.12.005Search in Google Scholar
[19] Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1999;26:557–77.10.1016/S0889-8545(05)70099-1Search in Google Scholar
[20] Manning FA. Antepartum fetal testing: a critical appraisal. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:348–52.10.1097/GCO.0b013e32832ae0b3Search in Google Scholar
[21] Manning FA, Bondaji N, Harman CR, Casiro O, Menticoglou S, Morrison I, et al. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring. VIII. The incidence of cerebral palsy in tested and untested perinates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:696–706.10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70479-XSearch in Google Scholar
[22] Miller DA, Rabello YA, Paul RH. The modified biophysical profile: antepartum testing in the 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:812–7.10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70305-8Search in Google Scholar
[23] National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. Full guideline. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2008;62:454.Search in Google Scholar
[24] Ohel G, Yaacobi N, Linder N, Younis J. Postdate antenatal testing. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995;49:145–7.10.1016/0020-7292(95)02357-ISearch in Google Scholar
[25] Olesen AW, Westergaard JG, Olsen J. Perinatal and maternal complications related to postterm delivery: a national register-based study, 1978-1993. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:222–7.10.1067/mob.2003.446Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[26] Savitz DA, Terry JW, Jr., Dole N, Thorp JM, Jr., Siega-Riz AM, Herring AH. Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1660–6.10.1067/mob.2002.127601Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[27] Smith GC. Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:489–96.10.1067/mob.2001.109735Search in Google Scholar PubMed
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
©2015 by De Gruyter
