Why we succeed and fail in detecting fetal growth restriction: A population-based study

Lisbeth A Andreasen, Ann Tabor, Lone Nikoline Nørgaard, Caroline A Taksøe-Vester, Lone Krebs, Finn S Jørgensen, Ida E Jepsen, Heidi Sharif, Helle Zingenberg, Susanne Rosthøj, Anne L Sørensen, Martin Grønnebaek Tolsgaard, Lisbeth A Andreasen, Ann Tabor, Lone Nikoline Nørgaard, Caroline A Taksøe-Vester, Lone Krebs, Finn S Jørgensen, Ida E Jepsen, Heidi Sharif, Helle Zingenberg, Susanne Rosthøj, Anne L Sørensen, Martin Grønnebaek Tolsgaard

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to explore the association between detection of fetal growth restriction and maternal-, healthcare provider- and organizational factors.

Material and methods: A historical, observational, multicentre study. All women who gave birth to a child with a birthweight <2.3rd centile from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2015 in Zealand, Denmark, were included. The population was identified through the Danish Fetal Medicine Database. Medical charts were reviewed to obtain data regarding maternal characteristics and information on the healthcare professionals. Date of authorization for the midwives and obstetricians involved was extracted from the Danish Health Authorization Registry. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction, and analyses were adjusted for hospital, body mass index, parity, the presence of at least one risk factor and experience of the first midwife, number of midwife visits, number of visits to a doctor, the experience of the consultant midwife or the educational level of the doctor, the number of scans and gaps in continuity of midwife-care. Antenatal detection was defined as an ultrasound estimated fetal weight <2.3rd centile (corresponding to -2 standard deviations) prior to delivery.

Results: Among 78 544 pregnancies, 3069 (3.9%) had a fetal growth restriction. Detection occurred in 31% of fetal growth-restricted pregnancies. Clinical experience (defined as years since graduation) of the first consultation midwife was positively associated with detection, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.28), for every 10 years of additional experience. The hazard of detection increased with the number of midwife consultations (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) and with multiparity (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58). After adjusting for all covariates, an unexplained difference between hospitals (P = .01) remained.

Conclusions: The low-risk nullipara may constitute an overlooked group of women at increased risk of antenatal non-detection of fetal growth restriction. Being screened by experienced midwives during early pregnancy and having access to multiple midwife consultations may improve future diagnosis.

Keywords: detection; fetal growth restriction; prenatal care; small for gestation age.

© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

References

REFERENCES

    1. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus, Investigation and Management (Green-top Guideline No. 31). Published online 2013. London: RCOG; 2013.
    1. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:333-339.
    1. Savchev S, Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R, Illa M, Botet F, Gratacos E. Estimated weight centile as a predictor of perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies with normal fetal and maternal Doppler indices. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:299-303.
    1. Madden JV, Flatley CJ, Kumar S. Term small-for-gestational-age infants from low-risk women are at significantly greater risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218 (5):525.e1-525.e9.
    1. Mendez-Figueroa H, Truong VTT, Pedroza C, Khan AM, Chauhan SP. Small-for-gestational-age infants among uncomplicated pregnancies at term: a secondary analysis of 9 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215 (5):628.e1-628.e7.
    1. Gardosi J, Giddings S, Buller S, Southam M, Williams M. Preventing stillbirths through improved antenatal recognition of pregnancies at risk due to fetal growth restriction. Public Health. 2014;128:698-702.
    1. Verlijsdonk J-W, 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;25:938-943.
    1. Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:258-264.
    1. Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, Pasupathy D, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386:2089-2097.
    1. 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;122:518-527.
    1. Mattioli KP, Sanderson M, Chauhan SP. Inadequate identification of small-for-gestational-age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:140-143.
    1. Ciobanu A, Rouvali A, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of small for gestational age neonates: screening by maternal factors, fetal biometry, and biomarkers at 35-37 weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:486.e1-486.e11.
    1. Miranda J, Rodriguez-Lopez M, Triunfo S, et al. Prediction of fetal growth restriction using estimated fetal weight vs a combined screening model in the third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:603-611.
    1. Hoftiezer L, Hof MHP, Dijs-Elsinga J, Hogeveen M, Hukkelhoven CWPM, van Lingen RA. From population reference to national standard: new and improved birthweight charts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:383.e1-383.e17.
    1. Gaccioli F, Aye ILMH, Sovio U, Charnock-Jones DS, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction using fetal biometry combined with maternal biomarkers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:S725-S737.
    1. Norcini JJ, Boulet JR, Opalek A, Dauphinee WD. Outcomes of cardiac surgery: associations with physician characteristics, institutional characteristics, and transfers of care. Med Care. 2013;51:1034-1039.
    1. Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:260-273.
    1. Robinson HP, Fleming JE. A critical evaluation of sonar “crown-rump length” measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82 (9):702-710.
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RLPSK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements - a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151:333-337.
    1. Marsál K, Persson PH, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85:843-848.
    1. Shin D, Song WO. Prepregnancy body mass index is an independent risk factor for gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, preterm labor, and small- and large-for-gestational-age infants. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28:1679-1686.
    1. Khalil A, Rezende J, Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH. Maternal racial origin and adverse pregnancy outcome: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:278-285.
    1. Horta BL, Victora CG, Menezes AM, Halpern R, Barros FC. Low birthweight, preterm births and intrauterine growth retardation in relation to maternal smoking. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997;11:140-151.
    1. Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:87-104.
    1. Ananth CV, Peltier MR, Chavez MR, Kirby RS, Getahun D, Vintzileos AM. Recurrence of ischemic placental disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:128-133.
    1. Drenthen W, Pieper PG, Roos-Hesselink JW, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease: a literature review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2303-2311.
    1. Alfirevic Z, Roberts D, Martlew V. How strong is the association between maternal thrombophilia and adverse pregnancy outcome? A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;101:6-14.
    1. McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Davey MA, et al. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012;119:1483-1492.
    1. Hollnagel E. Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2014.
    1. Danish Fetal Medicine Database. Annual report 2015.
    1. Eva K. The aging physician: changes in cognitive processing and their impact on medical practice. Acad Med. 2002;77 (10 Suppl):S1-6.
    1. Barnett ML, Boddupalli D, Nundy S, Bates DW. Comparative accuracy of diagnosis by collective intelligence of multiple physicians vs individual physicians. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e190096.
    1. Birkmeyer NJO, Dimick JB, Share D, et al. Hospital complication rates with bariatric surgery in Michigan. JAMA. 2010;304:435-442.
    1. Singer S, Lin S, Falwell A, Gaba D, Baker L. Relationship of safety climate and safety performance in hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2009;44:399-421.
    1. Smirnova A, Ravelli ACJ, Stalmeijer RE, et al. The association between learning climate and adverse obstetrical outcomes in 16 nontertiary obstetrics-gynecology departments in the Netherlands. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2017;92:1740-1748.
    1. Hansen DN, Odgaard HS, Uldbjerg N, Sinding M, Sørensen A. Screening for small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:503-509.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren