Cathrine Vedel, Ane Rom, Dave Wright, Richard Farlie, Lise Hald Nielsen, Anne Hammer Lauridsen, Simone Hansen, Hanne Hegaard, Frederikke Huitfeldt Sander, Mie de Wolff, Olav Bjørn Petersen
{"title":"评估CentaFlow™在胎儿生长受限评估中的安全性和性能——一项随机试验和前瞻性队列研究","authors":"Cathrine Vedel, Ane Rom, Dave Wright, Richard Farlie, Lise Hald Nielsen, Anne Hammer Lauridsen, Simone Hansen, Hanne Hegaard, Frederikke Huitfeldt Sander, Mie de Wolff, Olav Bjørn Petersen","doi":"10.1515/jpm-2025-0153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of centaflow (CF) in a prospective multicenter study, and secondary to evaluate the safety of the CF device in a randomized multicenter study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sponsor-initiated multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial with termination of the randomization after enough women had been included to evaluate safety. The study proceeded as a prospective multicenter study including high-risk women (estimated fetal weight <-15 %, FGR). The first part randomized women to either standard care (SC) or SC+CF. Participants underwent CF evaluation with subsequent analysis for sensitivity and specificity for FGR at birth. Secondarily, adverse events were evaluated. Clinical assessments of fetal size conducted by midwives served as a reference. The performance of CF and SC was compared by McNemar's Test. The performance analysis of CF was done per-protocol sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,601 pregnant women were enrolled, with 886 undergoing CF evaluation. A total of 123 were FGR (<3rd percentile) at birth, of which 88 were evaluated by CF, and 117 had a clinical assessment of the estimated fetal weight. CF demonstrated no evidence of benefit for detecting FGR with a sensitivity of 50 % and specificity of 43 %. Adverse events associated with CF use were limited to minor skin irritation. McNemar's test showed SC was superior to CF regarding specificity as a screening tool (p=0.014).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While CF was safe to use, we found no evidence that CF can be used as a predictor of FGR. Further refinement of signal analysis is necessary to enhance CFs diagnostic utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":16704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of safety and performance of CentaFlow™ in the assessment of fetal growth restriction - a randomized trial and prospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Cathrine Vedel, Ane Rom, Dave Wright, Richard Farlie, Lise Hald Nielsen, Anne Hammer Lauridsen, Simone Hansen, Hanne Hegaard, Frederikke Huitfeldt Sander, Mie de Wolff, Olav Bjørn Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jpm-2025-0153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of centaflow (CF) in a prospective multicenter study, and secondary to evaluate the safety of the CF device in a randomized multicenter study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sponsor-initiated multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial with termination of the randomization after enough women had been included to evaluate safety. The study proceeded as a prospective multicenter study including high-risk women (estimated fetal weight <-15 %, FGR). The first part randomized women to either standard care (SC) or SC+CF. Participants underwent CF evaluation with subsequent analysis for sensitivity and specificity for FGR at birth. Secondarily, adverse events were evaluated. Clinical assessments of fetal size conducted by midwives served as a reference. The performance of CF and SC was compared by McNemar's Test. The performance analysis of CF was done per-protocol sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,601 pregnant women were enrolled, with 886 undergoing CF evaluation. A total of 123 were FGR (<3rd percentile) at birth, of which 88 were evaluated by CF, and 117 had a clinical assessment of the estimated fetal weight. CF demonstrated no evidence of benefit for detecting FGR with a sensitivity of 50 % and specificity of 43 %. Adverse events associated with CF use were limited to minor skin irritation. McNemar's test showed SC was superior to CF regarding specificity as a screening tool (p=0.014).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While CF was safe to use, we found no evidence that CF can be used as a predictor of FGR. Further refinement of signal analysis is necessary to enhance CFs diagnostic utility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perinatal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perinatal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2025-0153\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2025-0153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of safety and performance of CentaFlow™ in the assessment of fetal growth restriction - a randomized trial and prospective cohort study.
Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of centaflow (CF) in a prospective multicenter study, and secondary to evaluate the safety of the CF device in a randomized multicenter study.
Methods: A sponsor-initiated multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial with termination of the randomization after enough women had been included to evaluate safety. The study proceeded as a prospective multicenter study including high-risk women (estimated fetal weight <-15 %, FGR). The first part randomized women to either standard care (SC) or SC+CF. Participants underwent CF evaluation with subsequent analysis for sensitivity and specificity for FGR at birth. Secondarily, adverse events were evaluated. Clinical assessments of fetal size conducted by midwives served as a reference. The performance of CF and SC was compared by McNemar's Test. The performance analysis of CF was done per-protocol sample.
Results: A total of 1,601 pregnant women were enrolled, with 886 undergoing CF evaluation. A total of 123 were FGR (<3rd percentile) at birth, of which 88 were evaluated by CF, and 117 had a clinical assessment of the estimated fetal weight. CF demonstrated no evidence of benefit for detecting FGR with a sensitivity of 50 % and specificity of 43 %. Adverse events associated with CF use were limited to minor skin irritation. McNemar's test showed SC was superior to CF regarding specificity as a screening tool (p=0.014).
Conclusions: While CF was safe to use, we found no evidence that CF can be used as a predictor of FGR. Further refinement of signal analysis is necessary to enhance CFs diagnostic utility.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPM) is a truly international forum covering the entire field of perinatal medicine. It is an essential news source for all those obstetricians, neonatologists, perinatologists and allied health professionals who wish to keep abreast of progress in perinatal and related research. Ahead-of-print publishing ensures fastest possible knowledge transfer. The Journal provides statements on themes of topical interest as well as information and different views on controversial topics. It also informs about the academic, organisational and political aims and objectives of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine.