Vertebroplacental ratio for prediction of perinatal outcome and operative delivery for suspected fetal compromise: prospective observational cohort study.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1002/uog.29189
B Packet, R Van Severen, J Richter
{"title":"Vertebroplacental ratio for prediction of perinatal outcome and operative delivery for suspected fetal compromise: prospective observational cohort study.","authors":"B Packet, R Van Severen, J Richter","doi":"10.1002/uog.29189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate differences in fetal vertebroplacental ratio (VPR) depending on the occurrence of operative delivery for suspected fetal compromise (ODFC) and composite perinatal outcome (CPO) at delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Hospitals of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, between December 2022 and April 2024. Women with a term (37-42 gestational weeks) singleton pregnancy with an appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) fetus were recruited, before cervical dilatation reached 5 cm, for sonographic fetal weight estimation (EFW) and Doppler sonography of the umbilical artery (UA), umbilical vein (UV), middle cerebral artery (MCA) and vertebral artery (VA). The primary outcomes were differences in VPR multiples of the median (MoM) depending on the occurrence of ODFC and CPO at delivery (based on UA cord blood pH and base excess, 1-min and 5-min Apgar score, and neonatal intensive care unit admission). We explored the technical feasibility of fetal Doppler sonography in this setting and differences in Doppler findings from individual fetal vessels (UA, UV blood flow (UVF), MCA, VA) and related parameters (UVF/EFW and cerebroplacental ratio (CPR)). We also investigated whether adding individual sonographic variables to baseline clinical prediction models could improve discriminatory power (using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC)) and predictive accuracy (using the Brier score) for both outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 161 women were recruited. The mean ± SD maternal age was 32.2 ± 3.8 years and approximately half (53.4%) of the women were nulliparous. Most (88.2%) women had labor induced. The mean ± SD gestational age at delivery was 39.3 ± 1.0 weeks and the mean ± SD ultrasound-to-delivery interval was 10.4 ± 2.75 h. An adverse CPO occurred in 13.3% of cases and ODFC occurred in 17.4%. No difference in mean VPR MoM was observed between cases with normal vs adverse CPO (1.04 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.25; P = 0.09), or between cases which underwent ODFC vs those which did not (1.06 ± 0.29 vs 1.06 ± 0.26; P = 0.97). Likewise, no differences in other Doppler variables (UA pulsatility index (PI) MoM, MCA-PI MoM, VA-PI MoM, CPR MoM) were observed for both outcomes, except for significantly higher UVF rates in the adverse CPO group (both absolute (P = 0.02) and corrected for EFW (P = 0.048)). For both outcomes, adding VPR MoM or any other sonographic variable to baseline prediction models, which consisted solely of clinical variables, did not improve predictive accuracy or discriminatory power. The baseline model AUC and Brier score values were 0.68 (95% CI, 0.57-0.79) and 0.14 for adverse CPO, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.61-0.83) and 0.13 for ODFC, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although technically feasible to measure in most women with an AGA fetus admitted for spontaneous or induced labor at term, no difference in VPR MoM was observed depending on the occurrence of ODFC or CPO at delivery. Moreover, adding VPR MoM or any other sonographic variable to a baseline clinical prediction model did not improve predictive accuracy or discriminatory power for either outcome. Hence, peripartum ultrasound for the assessment of fetal weight and placental function has limited added value for predicting adverse labor outcomes in a low-risk obstetric population. © 2025 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"334-343"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29189","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate differences in fetal vertebroplacental ratio (VPR) depending on the occurrence of operative delivery for suspected fetal compromise (ODFC) and composite perinatal outcome (CPO) at delivery.

Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Hospitals of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, between December 2022 and April 2024. Women with a term (37-42 gestational weeks) singleton pregnancy with an appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) fetus were recruited, before cervical dilatation reached 5 cm, for sonographic fetal weight estimation (EFW) and Doppler sonography of the umbilical artery (UA), umbilical vein (UV), middle cerebral artery (MCA) and vertebral artery (VA). The primary outcomes were differences in VPR multiples of the median (MoM) depending on the occurrence of ODFC and CPO at delivery (based on UA cord blood pH and base excess, 1-min and 5-min Apgar score, and neonatal intensive care unit admission). We explored the technical feasibility of fetal Doppler sonography in this setting and differences in Doppler findings from individual fetal vessels (UA, UV blood flow (UVF), MCA, VA) and related parameters (UVF/EFW and cerebroplacental ratio (CPR)). We also investigated whether adding individual sonographic variables to baseline clinical prediction models could improve discriminatory power (using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC)) and predictive accuracy (using the Brier score) for both outcomes.

Results: A total of 161 women were recruited. The mean ± SD maternal age was 32.2 ± 3.8 years and approximately half (53.4%) of the women were nulliparous. Most (88.2%) women had labor induced. The mean ± SD gestational age at delivery was 39.3 ± 1.0 weeks and the mean ± SD ultrasound-to-delivery interval was 10.4 ± 2.75 h. An adverse CPO occurred in 13.3% of cases and ODFC occurred in 17.4%. No difference in mean VPR MoM was observed between cases with normal vs adverse CPO (1.04 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.25; P = 0.09), or between cases which underwent ODFC vs those which did not (1.06 ± 0.29 vs 1.06 ± 0.26; P = 0.97). Likewise, no differences in other Doppler variables (UA pulsatility index (PI) MoM, MCA-PI MoM, VA-PI MoM, CPR MoM) were observed for both outcomes, except for significantly higher UVF rates in the adverse CPO group (both absolute (P = 0.02) and corrected for EFW (P = 0.048)). For both outcomes, adding VPR MoM or any other sonographic variable to baseline prediction models, which consisted solely of clinical variables, did not improve predictive accuracy or discriminatory power. The baseline model AUC and Brier score values were 0.68 (95% CI, 0.57-0.79) and 0.14 for adverse CPO, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.61-0.83) and 0.13 for ODFC, respectively.

Conclusions: Although technically feasible to measure in most women with an AGA fetus admitted for spontaneous or induced labor at term, no difference in VPR MoM was observed depending on the occurrence of ODFC or CPO at delivery. Moreover, adding VPR MoM or any other sonographic variable to a baseline clinical prediction model did not improve predictive accuracy or discriminatory power for either outcome. Hence, peripartum ultrasound for the assessment of fetal weight and placental function has limited added value for predicting adverse labor outcomes in a low-risk obstetric population. © 2025 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

椎胎盘比预测围产期结局和疑似胎儿妥协的手术分娩:前瞻性观察队列研究。
目的:探讨疑似胎儿妥协(ODFC)手术分娩时胎椎胎盘比(VPR)与分娩时围产儿综合结局(CPO)的差异。方法:这是一项前瞻性观察队列研究,于2022年12月至2024年4月在比利时鲁汶大学医院妇产科进行。招募足月(37-42孕周)单胎妊娠且适宜胎龄(AGA)胎儿的妇女,在宫颈扩张达到5 cm之前,进行超声胎儿体重估计(EFW)和脐动脉(UA)、脐静脉(UV)、大脑中动脉(MCA)和椎动脉(VA)的多普勒超声检查。主要结局是中位VPR倍数(MoM)的差异,这取决于分娩时ODFC和CPO的发生(基于UA脐带血pH值和碱基过量,1分钟和5分钟Apgar评分,以及新生儿重症监护病房入住情况)。我们探讨了在这种情况下胎儿多普勒超声技术的可行性,以及各胎儿血管(UA, UV血流(UVF), MCA, VA)和相关参数(UVF/EFW和脑胎盘比(CPR))的多普勒结果的差异。我们还研究了将单个超声变量添加到基线临床预测模型中是否可以提高两种结果的区分能力(使用接受者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC))和预测准确性(使用Brier评分)。结果:共招募了161名女性。产妇平均年龄(±SD)为32.2±3.8岁,约一半(53.4%)的妇女未生育。大多数(88.2%)妇女进行了引产。平均±SD胎龄为39.3±1.0周,平均±SD超声至分娩间隔为10.4±2.75 h。不良CPO发生率为13.3%,ODFC发生率为17.4%。正常与不良CPO患者的平均VPR MoM差异无统计学意义(1.04±0.26 vs 1.17±0.25;P = 0.09),或接受ODFC的病例与未接受ODFC的病例之间(1.06±0.29 vs 1.06±0.26;p = 0.97)。同样,两种结果的其他多普勒变量(UA脉搏指数(PI) MoM、MCA-PI MoM、VA-PI MoM、CPR MoM)均无差异,除了不良CPO组的UVF率显著较高(绝对(P = 0.02)和校正EFW (P = 0.048))。对于这两种结果,将VPR MoM或任何其他超声变量添加到仅由临床变量组成的基线预测模型中,并不能提高预测准确性或区分能力。不良CPO的基线模型AUC和Brier评分值分别为0.68 (95% CI, 0.57-0.79)和0.14,ODFC的基线模型AUC和Brier评分值分别为0.72 (95% CI, 0.61-0.83)和0.13。结论:尽管在技术上对大多数因自然分娩或引产而住院的AGA胎儿进行测量是可行的,但在分娩时发生ODFC或CPO的VPR MoM没有观察到差异。此外,将VPR MoM或任何其他超声变量添加到基线临床预测模型中并不能提高对这两种结果的预测准确性或区分能力。因此,围产期超声评估胎儿体重和胎盘功能在预测低风险产科人群不良分娩结局方面的附加价值有限。©2025国际妇产科超声学会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
14.10%
发文量
891
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) is the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and is considered the foremost international peer-reviewed journal in the field. It publishes cutting-edge research that is highly relevant to clinical practice, which includes guidelines, expert commentaries, consensus statements, original articles, and systematic reviews. UOG is widely recognized and included in prominent abstract and indexing databases such as Index Medicus and Current Contents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信