Current practice in the diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: An international survey. (10th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fantasia, Ilaria; Zamagni, Giulia; Lees, Christoph; Mylrea‐Foley, Bronacha; Monasta, Lorenzo; Mullins, Edward; Prefumo, Federico; Stampalija, Tamara
• Is Part Of: Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. Volume 101:Number 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1431
• Page End: 1439
• Publication Date: 2022-10-10
• Subjects: cardiotocography -- fetal Doppler -- fetal growth retardation -- middle cerebral artery -- surveys and questionnaires -- TRUFFLE; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Pregnancy -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14466
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6349

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the current practice in respect of diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction among obstetricians in different countries. Material and methods: An e‐questionnaire was sent via REDCap with "click thru" links in emails and newsletters to obstetric practitioners in different countries and settings with different levels of expertise. Clinical scenarios in early and late fetal growth restriction were given, followed by structured questions/response pairings. Results: A total of 275 participants replied to the survey with 87% of responses complete. Participants were obstetrician/gynecologists (54%; 148/275) and fetal medicine specialists (43%; 117/275), and the majority practiced in a tertiary teaching hospital (56%; 153/275). Delphi consensus criteria for fetal growth restriction diagnosis were used by 81% of participants (223/275) and 82% (225/274) included a drop in fetal growth velocity in their diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction. For early fetal growth restriction, TRUFFLE criteria were used for fetal monitoring and delivery timing by 81% (223/275). For late fetal growth restriction, indices of cerebral blood flow redistribution were used by 99% (250/252), most commonly cerebroplacental ratio (54%, 134/250). Delivery timing was informed by cerebral blood flow redistribution in 72% (176/244), used from ≥32 weeks of gestation. Maternal biomarkers and hemodynamics, as additional tools in the context of early‐onset fetal growth restriction (≤32 weeks of gestation), were used by 22% (51/232) and 46% (106/230), respectively. Conclusions: The diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction are fairly homogeneous among different countries and levels of practice, particularly for early fetal growth restriction. Indices of cerebral flow distribution are widely used in the diagnosis and management of late fetal growth restriction, whereas maternal biomarkers and hemodynamics are less frequently assessed but more so in early rather than late fetal growth restriction. Further standardization is needed for the definition of cerebral blood flow redistribution. Abstract : There is still some variability in the diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. This survey shows that there is fair agreement among different countries and levels of practice, especially for early fetal growth restriction. Cerebral blood flow redistribution definition needs standardization.