Comparison between Cerebroplacental Ratio and Umbilicocerebral Ratio in Predicting Adverse Perinatal Outcome in Pregnancies Complicated by Late Fetal Growth Restriction: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Author:

Di Mascio Daniele,Herraiz Ignacio,Villalain Cecilia,Buca Danilo,Morales-Rossello Jose,Loscalzo Gabriela,Sileo Filomena GiuliaORCID,Finarelli Alessandra,Bertucci Emma,Facchinetti Fabio,Rizzo GiuseppeORCID,Brunelli Roberto,Giancotti Antonella,Muzii Ludovico,Maruotti Giuseppe Maria,Carbone LuigiORCID,D’Amico Alice,Tinari Sara,Morelli Roberta,Cerra Chiara,Nappi Luigi,Greco Pantaleo,Liberati Marco,Galindo Alberto,D’Antonio FrancescoORCID

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The role of cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) or umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR) to predict adverse intrapartum and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction (FGR) remains controversial. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving 5 referral centers in Italy and Spain, including singleton pregnancies complicated by late FGR, as defined by Delphi consensus criteria, with a scan 1 week prior to delivery. The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the CPR and UCR for the prediction of a composite adverse outcome, defined as the presence of either an adverse intrapartum outcome (need for operative delivery/cesarean section for suspected fetal distress) or an adverse perinatal outcome (intrauterine death, Apgar score &#x3c;7 at 5 min, arterial pH &#x3c;7.1, base excess of &#x3e;−11 mEq/mL, or neonatal intensive care unit admission). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Median CPR absolute values (1.11 vs. 1.22, <i>p</i> = 0.018) and centiles (3 vs. 4, <i>p</i> = 0.028) were lower in pregnancies with a composite adverse outcome than in those without it. Median UCR absolute values (0.89 vs. 0.82, <i>p</i> = 0.018) and centiles (97 vs. 96, <i>p</i> = 0.028) were higher. However, the area under the curve, 95% confidence interval for predicting the composite adverse outcome showed a poor predictive value: 0.580 (0.512–0.646) for the raw absolute values of CPR and UCR, and 0.575 (0.507–0.642) for CPR and UCR centiles adjusted for gestational age. The use of dichotomized values (CPR &#x3c;1, UCR &#x3e;1 or CPR &#x3c;5th centile, UCR &#x3e;95th centile) did not improve the diagnostic accuracy. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The CPR and UCR measured in the week prior delivery are of low predictive value to assess adverse intrapartum and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies with late FGR.

Publisher

S. Karger AG

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynaecology,Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Embryology,General Medicine,Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Reference28 articles.

1. Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat A, da Silva Costa F, Ferrazzi E, Figueras F, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56:298–312.

2. O'Dwyer V, Burke G, Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, Kennelly MM, et al. Defining the residual risk of adverse perinatal outcome in growth-restricted fetuses with normal umbilical artery blood flow. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:420–5.

3. Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs CA, De Boer MA, Heymans MW, Schoonmade LJ, Bossuyt PMM, Mol BWJ, et al. Prognostic accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery Doppler for adverse perinatal outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:313–22.

4. Hecher K, Spernol R, Stettner H, Szalay S. Potential for diagnosing imminent risk to appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetuses by Doppler sonographic examination of umbilical and cerebral arterial blood flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992;2:266–71.

5. Conde-Agudelo A, Villar J, Kennedy SH, Papageorghiou AT. Predictive accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio for adverse perinatal and neurodevelopmental outcomes in suspected fetal growth restriction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:430–41.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3