选择性第三孕期超声波筛查妊高症后的围产期结局:嵌套在 DESiGN 随机对照试验中的前瞻性队列研究。

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1002/uog.29130
C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan, N Marlow, C Lees, D A Lawlor, A Khalil, J Sandall, A Copas, D Pasupathy
{"title":"选择性第三孕期超声波筛查妊高症后的围产期结局:嵌套在 DESiGN 随机对照试验中的前瞻性队列研究。","authors":"C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan, N Marlow, C Lees, D A Lawlor, A Khalil, J Sandall, A Copas, D Pasupathy","doi":"10.1002/uog.29130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In screening for small-for-gestational age (SGA) using third-trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false-negative and false-positive screening results. Using a selective third-trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false-negative compared with true-positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false-positive compared with true-negative SGA diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective cohort study was nested within the UK-based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on the Hadlock formula and fetal growth charts. Similarly, SGA at birth was defined as birth weight (BW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on UK population references. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics and perinatal outcomes were reported according to whether SGA was suspected antenatally or not. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to quantify the differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between the screening results (false negative vs true positive and false positive vs true negative).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false-negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true-positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54-0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true-negative screening result, a false-positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3-26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3-71.7)). A false-positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88-2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51-1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false-negative and false-positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true-positive and true-negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false-negative results. It should be acknowledged that cases with a false-positive SGA screening result also constitute a high-risk population of small fetuses that warrant surveillance and timely birth. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"30-38"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693816/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perinatal outcomes after selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for small-for-gestational age: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan, N Marlow, C Lees, D A Lawlor, A Khalil, J Sandall, A Copas, D Pasupathy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/uog.29130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In screening for small-for-gestational age (SGA) using third-trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false-negative and false-positive screening results. Using a selective third-trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false-negative compared with true-positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false-positive compared with true-negative SGA diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective cohort study was nested within the UK-based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on the Hadlock formula and fetal growth charts. Similarly, SGA at birth was defined as birth weight (BW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on UK population references. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics and perinatal outcomes were reported according to whether SGA was suspected antenatally or not. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to quantify the differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between the screening results (false negative vs true positive and false positive vs true negative).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false-negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true-positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54-0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true-negative screening result, a false-positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3-26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3-71.7)). A false-positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88-2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51-1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false-negative and false-positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true-positive and true-negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false-negative results. It should be acknowledged that cases with a false-positive SGA screening result also constitute a high-risk population of small fetuses that warrant surveillance and timely birth. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"30-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693816/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29130\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29130","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在使用第三孕期产前超声波筛查小胎龄(SGA)时,人们担心筛查结果假阴性和假阳性的检出率低并可能造成危害。本研究利用选择性第三孕期超声筛查项目,旨在调查(i) 假阴性与真阳性 SGA 诊断病例相比,以及(ii) 假阳性与真阴性 SGA 诊断病例相比,围产期不良结局的发生率:这项前瞻性队列研究嵌套在英国的 DESiGN 试验中,DESiGN 试验是一项前瞻性多中心队列研究,对象是根据哈德洛克公式和胎儿生长曲线图,出生时胎儿畸形率大于 24 + 0 to th 百分位数,且未在产前检测出胎儿畸形的单胎妊娠。同样,根据英国人口参考数据,出生时 SGA 被定义为出生体重(BW)th 百分位数。根据产前是否怀疑 SGA,报告了孕产妇和妊娠特征以及围产期结果。使用未经调整和调整的逻辑回归模型来量化筛查结果(假阴性与真阳性、假阳性与真阴性)之间围产期不良结局的差异:共有 165 321 例妊娠被纳入分析。SGA筛查结果为假阴性的胎儿与筛查结果为真阳性的胎儿相比,死胎风险明显更高(调整OR(aOR),1.18(95% CI,1.07-1.31)),但新生儿大病(aOR,0.87(95% CI,0.83-0.91))和小病(aOR,0.56(95% CI,0.54-0.59))风险较低。与真正的阴性筛查结果相比,假阳性结果与较低的BW百分位数(中位数,18.1(四分位数间距(IQR),13.3-26.9)vs 49.9(IQR,30.3-71.7))相关。)假阳性结果还与死胎风险(aOR,2.24(95% CI,1.88-2.68))和新生儿轻微发病风险(aOR,1.60(95% CI,1.51-1.71))显著增加有关,但与新生儿重大发病风险(aOR,1.04(95% CI,0.98-1.09))无关:在选择性第三孕期SGA超声筛查中,假阴性和假阳性结果分别与真阳性和真阴性结果相比,死产风险明显更高。要解决假阴性结果的问题,需要改进 SGA 检测。应当承认,SGA 筛查结果呈假阳性的病例也构成了小胎儿的高风险人群,需要进行监测并及时分娩。© 2024 作者姓名妇产科超声》由 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 代表国际妇产科超声学会出版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perinatal outcomes after selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for small-for-gestational age: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial.

Objective: In screening for small-for-gestational age (SGA) using third-trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false-negative and false-positive screening results. Using a selective third-trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false-negative compared with true-positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false-positive compared with true-negative SGA diagnosis.

Methods: This prospective cohort study was nested within the UK-based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile, based on the Hadlock formula and fetal growth charts. Similarly, SGA at birth was defined as birth weight (BW) < 10th percentile, based on UK population references. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics and perinatal outcomes were reported according to whether SGA was suspected antenatally or not. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to quantify the differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between the screening results (false negative vs true positive and false positive vs true negative).

Results: In total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false-negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true-positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54-0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true-negative screening result, a false-positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3-26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3-71.7)). A false-positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88-2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51-1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09)).

Conclusions: In selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false-negative and false-positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true-positive and true-negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false-negative results. It should be acknowledged that cases with a false-positive SGA screening result also constitute a high-risk population of small fetuses that warrant surveillance and timely birth. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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