Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2013; 30(01): 033-040
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1321497
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Screening for Intrauterine Growth Restriction in Uncomplicated Pregnancies: Time for Action

Suneet P. Chauhan
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Dwight J. Rouse
2   Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Cande V. Ananth
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Everett F. Magann
4   University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas
,
Eugene Chang
5   Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
,
Joshua D. Dahlke
2   Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
,
Alfred Z. Abuhamad
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical University, Norfolk, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 November 2011

31 March 2012

Publication Date:
13 July 2012 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A randomized clinical trial (RCT) noted that sonographic examination in the third trimester, in conjunction with delivery at term for abnormalities of fetal growth, significantly decreased the likelihood of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates in uncomplicated pregnancies. We identified 15 characteristics of screening tests and attempted to determine if there is evidence to routinely obtain sonographic estimates of fetal weight in the third trimester and decrease rates of SGA. Of the 15 suggested characteristics, currently 10 (67%) are fulfilled, two are uncertain (sonographic examination is cost-effective or reliable), and one (the test must do its job) is possibly valid. Due to the lack of RCTs demonstrating reduction in morbidity, there is potential for lead-time and length bias. To observe a 36% decrease (from 4.1 to 2.6%) decrease in composite perinatal morbidity, 6000 women need to be randomized to at least two sonographic examinations in the third trimester versus routine prenatal care. Such an RCT is warranted and justified.

Keywords

IUGR - perinatal outcomes - third-trimester sonography - SGA

Note

Presented at Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at Nassau, Bahamas in October 2011.


 

  • References

  • 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000. Reaffirmed 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 2 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: 626-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ultrasonography in Pregnancy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL. Routine maternal platelet count: an assessment of a technologically driven screening practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179 (3 Pt 1) 573-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet 2002; 359: 881-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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: 261 , e1–e261, e10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chauhan SP, Magann EF. Screening for fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 284-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chauhan SP, Gupta LM, Hendrix NW, Berghella V ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin with other national guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 409 , e1–e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Resnik R, Creasy RK. Intrauterine growth restriction. In: Creasy RK, Resnik R, Iams JD, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, , eds. Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, Elsevier; 2009: 636-650
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Godfrey KM, Barker DJ. Fetal nutrition and adult disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 71: 1344S-1352S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum Fetal Surveillance. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1999. Reaffirmed 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GML. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (1) CD007529
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top guidelines. 2007. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/investigation-and-management-small-gestational-age-fetus-green-top-31 . Accessed March 1, 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Task Force on National Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics. Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy: Defining the Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology. Washington: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Klagholz J, Strunk AL. Overview of the 2009 ACOG Survey on Professional Liability. Available at: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Professional_Liability/2012_Survey_Results . Retrieved October, 16 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gilbert WM, Danielsen B. Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1596-1599 ; discussion 1599–1601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 72-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fox NS, Bhavsar V, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A, Chasen ST. Influence of maternal body mass index on the clinical estimation of fetal weight in term pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 641-645
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Humphries J, Reynolds D, Bell-Scarbrough L, Lynn N, Scardo JA, Chauhan SP. Sonographic estimate of birth weight: relative accuracy of sonographers versus maternal-fetal medicine specialists. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002; 11: 108-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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: 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Crane JP, LeFevre ML, Winborn RC , et al; The RADIUS Study Group. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on the detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 392-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD , et al. Births: Final Data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol. 54, No. 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Chen H-Y, Chauhan SP, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM, Abuhamad AZ. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204: 491 , e1–e10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of Preterm Labor. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2003. Reaffirmed 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271: 703-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Velthius S , et al. Detection of fetal growth restriction in patients with chronic hypertension: is it feasible?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 14: 324-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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: 601-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Practice Guideline for the Performance of Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Newnham JP, Evans SF, Michael CA, Stanley FJ, Landau LI. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993; 342: 887-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Campbell JD, Elford RW, Brant RF. Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech. CMAJ 1993; 149: 1435-1440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Stark CR, Orleans M, Haverkamp AD, Murphy J. Short- and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 194-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Salvesen KA, Vatten LJ, Eik-Nes SH, Hugdahl K, Bakketeig LS. Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development. BMJ 1993; 307: 159-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (4) CD007058
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M. , et al; ISUOG-WHO Fetal Growth Study Group. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 599-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chauhan SP, Taylor M, Shields D, Parker D, Scardo JA, Magann EF. Intrauterine growth restriction and oligohydramnios among high-risk patients. Am J Perinatol 2007; 24: 215-221
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Harstad TW, Buschang PH, Little BB, Santos-Ramos R, Twickler D, Brown CE. Ultrasound anthropometric reliability. J Clin Ultrasound 1994; 22: 531-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Neufeld LM, Wagatsuma Y, Hussain R, Begum M, Frongillo EA. Measurement error for ultrasound fetal biometry performed by paramedics in rural Bangladesh. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 387-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rijken MJ, Lee SJ, Boel ME , et al. Obstetric ultrasound scanning by local health workers in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Minior VK, Divon MY. Fetal growth restriction at term: myth or reality?. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 57-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110: 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Thornton JG, Hornbuckle J, Vail A, Spiegelhalter DJ, Levene M. GRIT study group. Infant wellbeing at 2 years of age in the Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT): multicentred randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 513-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Barker DJ, Osmond C, Golding J, Kuh D, Wadsworth ME. Growth in utero, blood pressure in childhood and adult life, and mortality from cardiovascular disease. BMJ 1989; 298: 564-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Godfrey KM, Barker DJ. Fetal nutrition and adult disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 71 (5, Suppl) 1344S-1352S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar