Fetal growth restriction: underdiagnosed condition with non-optimal screening.

Anthony Atallah, Marine Butin, Stéphanie Moret, Olivier Claris, Pascal Gaucherand, Muriel Doret-Dion
{"title":"Fetal growth restriction: underdiagnosed condition with non-optimal screening.","authors":"Anthony Atallah,&nbsp;Marine Butin,&nbsp;Stéphanie Moret,&nbsp;Olivier Claris,&nbsp;Pascal Gaucherand,&nbsp;Muriel Doret-Dion","doi":"10.1080/14767058.2021.1967924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fetal Growth restriction (FGR) is the pathological failure of a fetus to reach its biologically determined growth potential. Detection of FGR fetuses is a universally agreed key objective of antenatal care. Antenatal detection of FGR has undeniable benefits, juggling between intensive fetal surveillance and optimized timing of delivery; it reduces adverse perinatal outcomes by up to four-fold. However, FGR is still widely underdiagnosed. We aimed to identify the prevalence of FGR diagnosis in our wards and study the impact of the 2013 published French guidelines on the detection rate of FGR. The secondary objective aimed to highlight the factors of suboptimal screening in the population of non-diagnosed FGR fetuses and emphasize the screening method that led to antenatal diagnosis of FGR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study at a single tertiary maternity center in Lyon-France, the Femme Mère Enfant Hospital, including the exhaustive population of FGR born after 24 + 0 weeks of gestation from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2017. FGR was defined combining the neonatal and antenatal consensus-based definitions for early and late FGR in absence of congenital anomalies, excluding small for gestational age fetuses. For all FGR fetuses, we compared the antenatal detection rate of FGR during 2011-2013 to 2015-2017, since the French guidelines were published in December 2013. When FGR fetuses underwent an antenatal diagnosis of FGR, we retrospectively collected the characteristics that led to the diagnosis. When fetuses were not diagnosed as FGR, we retrospectively reviewed the implementation of the recommended screening method, enabling to evaluate whether screening was optimal or not. Statistical analysis was performed in July 2018, and statistical significance was regarded as a <i>p</i>-value <.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the seven-year period, and among 31,052 newborns, 1020 (3.3%) infants were identified as FGR and met the inclusion criteria. The detection rate of FGR was similar before and after publication of the French Guidelines related to FGR in 2013. Indeed, 50.8% (201/395) FGR were diagnosed between 2011 and 2013 versus 52.6% (245/465) between 2015 and 2017 (<i>p</i> = .59). In the population of non-diagnosed FGR infants, screening was suboptimal in 80%. Symphysis-fundal height (SFH) was not measured in 10.7%, with no difference before and after 2014 (7.3 versus 11.8% <i>p</i> = .11). Ultrasound examination for fetal biometry had not been prescribed in spite of abnormal SFH in 47.7% of undiagnosed FGR infants. Diagnosis has been missed in 11.5% of infants because of misinterpretation of the estimated fetal weight's centile.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FGR is widely underdiagnosed. However, the limited performances can partially be explained by the regular misuse of screening method in clinical practice. Despite the systematic third trimester ultrasound screening, the detection rate of FGR was similar to the one reported in the medical literature. The timing of routine third trimester ultrasound in low-risk women may be rethought.</p>","PeriodicalId":520807,"journal":{"name":"The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians","volume":" ","pages":"8237-8244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1967924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Fetal Growth restriction (FGR) is the pathological failure of a fetus to reach its biologically determined growth potential. Detection of FGR fetuses is a universally agreed key objective of antenatal care. Antenatal detection of FGR has undeniable benefits, juggling between intensive fetal surveillance and optimized timing of delivery; it reduces adverse perinatal outcomes by up to four-fold. However, FGR is still widely underdiagnosed. We aimed to identify the prevalence of FGR diagnosis in our wards and study the impact of the 2013 published French guidelines on the detection rate of FGR. The secondary objective aimed to highlight the factors of suboptimal screening in the population of non-diagnosed FGR fetuses and emphasize the screening method that led to antenatal diagnosis of FGR.

Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective study at a single tertiary maternity center in Lyon-France, the Femme Mère Enfant Hospital, including the exhaustive population of FGR born after 24 + 0 weeks of gestation from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2017. FGR was defined combining the neonatal and antenatal consensus-based definitions for early and late FGR in absence of congenital anomalies, excluding small for gestational age fetuses. For all FGR fetuses, we compared the antenatal detection rate of FGR during 2011-2013 to 2015-2017, since the French guidelines were published in December 2013. When FGR fetuses underwent an antenatal diagnosis of FGR, we retrospectively collected the characteristics that led to the diagnosis. When fetuses were not diagnosed as FGR, we retrospectively reviewed the implementation of the recommended screening method, enabling to evaluate whether screening was optimal or not. Statistical analysis was performed in July 2018, and statistical significance was regarded as a p-value <.05.

Results: Over the seven-year period, and among 31,052 newborns, 1020 (3.3%) infants were identified as FGR and met the inclusion criteria. The detection rate of FGR was similar before and after publication of the French Guidelines related to FGR in 2013. Indeed, 50.8% (201/395) FGR were diagnosed between 2011 and 2013 versus 52.6% (245/465) between 2015 and 2017 (p = .59). In the population of non-diagnosed FGR infants, screening was suboptimal in 80%. Symphysis-fundal height (SFH) was not measured in 10.7%, with no difference before and after 2014 (7.3 versus 11.8% p = .11). Ultrasound examination for fetal biometry had not been prescribed in spite of abnormal SFH in 47.7% of undiagnosed FGR infants. Diagnosis has been missed in 11.5% of infants because of misinterpretation of the estimated fetal weight's centile.

Conclusion: FGR is widely underdiagnosed. However, the limited performances can partially be explained by the regular misuse of screening method in clinical practice. Despite the systematic third trimester ultrasound screening, the detection rate of FGR was similar to the one reported in the medical literature. The timing of routine third trimester ultrasound in low-risk women may be rethought.

胎儿生长受限:未确诊的条件与非最佳筛选。
背景:胎儿生长受限(FGR)是胎儿达到其生物学决定的生长潜能的病理失败。FGR胎儿的检测是普遍同意的产前保健的关键目标。产前检测FGR具有不可否认的好处,在强化胎儿监测和优化分娩时间之间进行平衡;它可将不良围产期结局减少多达四倍。然而,FGR仍未得到广泛的诊断。我们的目的是确定FGR诊断在我们病房的患病率,并研究2013年出版的法国指南对FGR检出率的影响。次要目标旨在强调未确诊FGR胎儿人群中筛查不理想的因素,并强调导致FGR产前诊断的筛查方法。材料和方法:我们在法国里昂的一家三级妇产中心Femme mentreenfant医院进行了一项回顾性研究,包括2011年1月1日至2017年12月31日妊娠24 + 0周后出生的FGR人口。FGR的定义结合了基于新生儿和产前共识的早期和晚期FGR的定义,在没有先天性异常的情况下,不包括胎龄小的胎儿。对于所有FGR胎儿,我们比较了2011-2013年与2015-2017年期间FGR的产前检出率,因为法国指南于2013年12月发布。当FGR胎儿接受FGR产前诊断时,我们回顾性收集导致诊断的特征。当胎儿未被诊断为FGR时,我们回顾性地回顾了推荐的筛查方法的实施情况,从而评估筛查是否最佳。结果:7年期间,31,052例新生儿中,1020例(3.3%)被诊断为FGR,符合纳入标准。2013年法国FGR指南发布前后FGR的检出率相似。事实上,2011年至2013年间诊断出FGR的比例为50.8%(201/395),而2015年至2017年间诊断出FGR的比例为52.6% (245/465)(p = 0.59)。在未确诊的FGR婴儿人群中,80%的筛查不理想。10.7%的患者未测量联合-基底高度(SFH), 2014年前后差异无统计学意义(7.3% vs 11.8% p = 0.11)。尽管47.7%未确诊的FGR婴儿存在SFH异常,但仍未开具胎儿生物测定超声检查。11.5%的婴儿因误读胎儿体重百分位而漏诊。结论:FGR未被充分诊断。然而,在临床实践中,筛查方法的经常误用可以部分解释其有限的性能。尽管有系统的妊娠晚期超声筛查,但FGR的检出率与医学文献报道的相似。低风险妇女妊娠晚期常规超声检查的时机可能需要重新考虑。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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