Adverse intrapartum outcome in pregnancies complicated by small for gestational age and late fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with Dinoprostone, Misoprostol or mechanical methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Alessandra Familiari ◽  
Asma Khalil ◽  
Giuseppe Rizzo ◽  
Anthony Odibo ◽  
Patrizia Vergani ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Farias Batista Leite ◽  
Aude-Claire Morillon ◽  
Elias F Melo Júnior ◽  
Renato T Souza ◽  
Ali S Khashan ◽  
...  

IntroductionFetal growth restriction (FGR) is a relevant research and clinical concern since it is related to higher risks of adverse outcomes at any period of life. Current predictive tools in pregnancy (clinical factors, ultrasound scan, placenta-related biomarkers) fail to identify the true growth-restricted fetus. However, technologies based on metabolomics have generated interesting findings and seem promising. In this systematic review, we will address diagnostic accuracy of metabolomics analyses in predicting FGR.Methods and analysisOur primary outcome is small for gestational age infant, as a surrogate for FGR, defined as birth weight below the 10th centile by customised or population-based curves for gestational age. A detailed systematic literature search will be carried in electronic databases and conference abstracts, using the keywords ‘fetal growth retardation’, ‘metabolomics’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘screening’ (and their variations). We will include original peer-reviewed articles published from 1998 to 2018, involving pregnancies of fetuses without congenital malformations; sample collection must have been performed before clinical recognition of growth impairment. If additional information is required, authors will be contacted. Reviews, case reports, cross-sectional studies, non-human research and commentaries papers will be excluded. Sample characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy data will be retrieved and analysed. If data allows, we will perform a meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationAs this is a systematic review, no ethical approval is necessary. This protocol will be publicised in our institutional websites and results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018089985.


Author(s):  
MLE Hendrix ◽  
JAP Bons ◽  
A van Haren ◽  
SMJ van Kuijk ◽  
WPTM van Doorn ◽  
...  

Background Fetal growth restriction, i.e. the restriction of genetically predetermined growth potential due to placental dysfunction, is a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. The consequences of inadequate fetal growth can be life-long, but the risks can be reduced substantially if the condition is identified prenatally. Currently, screening strategies are based on ultrasound detection of a small-for-gestational age fetus and do not take into account the underlying vascular pathology in the placenta. Measurement of maternal circulating angiogenic biomarkers placental growth factor, sFlt-1 (soluble FMS-like tyrosine kinase-1) are increasingly used in studies on fetal growth restriction as they reflect the pathophysiological process in the placenta. However, interpretation of the role of angiogenic biomarkers in prediction of fetal growth restriction is hampered by the varying design, population, timing, assay technique and cut-off values used in these studies. Methods We conducted a systematic-review in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane to explore the predictive performance of maternal concentrations of placental growth factor, sFlt-1 and their ratio for fetal growth restriction and small-for-gestational age, at different gestational ages, and describe the longitudinal changes in biomarker concentrations and optimal discriminatory cut-off values. Results We included 26 studies with 2514 cases with small-for-gestational age, 27 cases of fetal growth restriction, 582 cases mixed small-for-gestational age/fetal growth restriction and 29,374 reference. The largest mean differences for the two biomarkers and their ratio were found after 26 weeks of gestational age and not in the first trimester. The ROC-AUC varied between 0.60 and 0.89 with sensitivity and specificity matching the different cut-off values or a preset false-positive rate of 10%. Conclusions Most of the studies did not make a distinction between small-for-gestational age and fetal growth restriction, and therefore the small-for-gestational age group consists of fetuses with growth restriction and fetuses that are constitutionally normal. The biomarkers can be a valuable screening tool for small-for-gestational age pregnancies, but unfortunately, there is not yet a clear cut-off value to use for screening. More research is needed to see if these biomarkers are sufficiently able to differentiate growth restriction on their own and how these biomarkers in combination with other relevant clinical and ultrasound parameters can be used in clinical routine diagnostics.


2018 ◽  
pp. 184-195
Author(s):  
Minh Son Pham ◽  
Vu Quoc Huy Nguyen ◽  
Dinh Vinh Tran

Small for gestational age (SGA) and fetal growth restriction (FGR) is difficult to define exactly. In this pregnancy condition, the fetus does not reach its biological growth potential as a consequence of impaired placental function, which may be because of a variety of factors. Fetuses with FGR are at risk for perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor long-term health outcomes, such as impaired neurological and cognitive development, and cardiovascular and endocrine diseases in adulthood. At present no gold standard for the diagnosis of SGA/FGR exists. The first aim of this review is to: summarize areas of consensus and controversy between recently published national guidelines on small for gestational age or fetal growth restriction; highlight any recent evidence that should be incorporated into existing guidelines. Another aim to summary a number of interventions which are being developed or coming through to clinical trial in an attempt to improve fetal growth in placental insufficiency. Key words: fetal growth restriction (FGR), Small for gestational age (SGA)


2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
Odessa P. Hamidi ◽  
Camille Driver ◽  
Tamara Stampalija ◽  
Sarah Martinez ◽  
Diana Gumina ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ali Ghanchi ◽  
Neil Derridj ◽  
Damien Bonnet ◽  
Nathalie Bertille ◽  
Laurent J. Salomon ◽  
...  

Newborns with congenital heart defects tend to have a higher risk of growth restriction, which can be an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes. To date, a systematic review of the relation between congenital heart defects (CHD) and growth restriction at birth, most commonly estimated by its imperfect proxy small for gestational age (SGA), has not been conducted. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of children born with CHD that are small for gestational age (SGA). Methods: The search was carried out from inception until 31 March 2019 on Pubmed and Embase databases. Studies were screened and selected by two independent reviewers who used a predetermined data extraction form to obtain data from studies. Bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. The database search identified 1783 potentially relevant publications, of which 38 studies were found to be relevant to the study question. A total of 18 studies contained sufficient data for a meta-analysis, which was done using a random effects model. Results: The pooled proportion of SGA in all CHD was 20% (95% CI 16%–24%) and 14% (95% CI 13%–16%) for isolated CHD. Proportion of SGA varied across different CHD ranging from 30% (95% CI 24%–37%) for Tetralogy of Fallot to 12% (95% CI 7%–18%) for isolated atrial septal defect. The majority of studies included in the meta-analysis were population-based studies published after 2010. Conclusion: The overall proportion of SGA in all CHD was 2-fold higher whereas for isolated CHD, 1.4-fold higher than the expected proportion in the general population. Although few studies have looked at SGA for different subtypes of CHD, the observed variability of SGA by subtypes suggests that growth restriction at birth in CHD may be due to different pathophysiological mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document