Evaluation of the new expert consensus-based definition of selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic pregnancies. (18th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Badr, Dominique A.; Carlin, Andrew; Kang, Xin; Cos Sanchez, Teresa; Olivier, Camille; Jani, Jacques C.; Bevilacqua, Elisa
• Is Part Of: Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. Volume 35:Number 12(2022)
• Page Start: 2338
• Page End: 2344
• Publication Date: 2022-06-18
• Subjects: Expert consensus -- monochorionic pregnancy -- neonatal outcome -- selective fetal growth restriction; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Perinatology -- Periodicals; Infants (Newborn) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neonatology -- Periodicals; 618.2
• DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1786053
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7058

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the outcomes of a cohort of monochorionic pregnancies with selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) diagnosed according to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) definition published in 2015 with a cohort considered as sFGR according to new expert consensus-based diagnostic parameters published in 2019. Methods: This was a retrospective study, conducted between January 1st 2010 and July 30th 2019. We reviewed the medical records of all the monochorionic pregnancies followed in our center including perinatal outcomes. Pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies, infection, twin-twin transfusion syndrome, twin anaemia-polycythemia sequence and twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence were excluded. Patients were grouped according to the 2015 ISUOG definition into: normal (Group 1), sFGR (Group 2), and monochorionic pregnancies with abnormal growth that did not fulfill the full criteria for sFGR (Group 3). After the initial classifications were made, an additional group, was created, including all pregnancies reclassified as sFGR according to the 2019 expert consensus parameters (Group 4). Results: During the study period, 291 monochorionic pregnancies were followed in our center, 132 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. The prevalence of sFGR increased from 17.4% to 26.5% after applying the expert consensus-based parameters to the study population. Compared to group 1, group 2 had higher rates of emergency cesarean, neonatal intensive care admissions, invasive and noninvasive ventilation, surfactant use, metabolic disorders and lower gestational ages at birth. In contrast, the neonatal outcomes of Groups 1 and 4 were not significantly different. Conclusion: When the 2019 consensus-based diagnostic parameters for sFGR were applied to our study population, the number of sFGR cases increased by over 50%, without any improvements in perinatal outcomes. Larger prospective studies are needed to examine the potential clinical implications of these new parameters for sFGR in monochorionic pregnancies.