Fetal growth restriction: underdiagnosed condition with non-optimal screening. (12th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Atallah, Anthony; Butin, Marine; Moret, Stéphanie; Claris, Olivier; Gaucherand, Pascal; Doret-Dion, Muriel
• Is Part Of: Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. Volume 35:Number 25(2022)
• Page Start: 8237
• Page End: 8244
• Publication Date: 2022-12-12
• Subjects: Growth restriction -- evidence based care -- antenatal management -- ultrasound screening -- symphysis-fundal height -- fetal growth restriction -- prenatal care; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Perinatology -- Periodicals; Infants (Newborn) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neonatology -- Periodicals; 618.2
• DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1967924
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7058

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Fetal Growth restriction (FGR) is the pathological failure of a fetus to reach its biologically determined growth potential. Detection of FGR fetuses is a universally agreed key objective of antenatal care. Antenatal detection of FGR has undeniable benefits, juggling between intensive fetal surveillance and optimized timing of delivery; it reduces adverse perinatal outcomes by up to four-fold. However, FGR is still widely underdiagnosed. We aimed to identify the prevalence of FGR diagnosis in our wards and study the impact of the 2013 published French guidelines on the detection rate of FGR. The secondary objective aimed to highlight the factors of suboptimal screening in the population of non-diagnosed FGR fetuses and emphasize the screening method that led to antenatal diagnosis of FGR. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective study at a single tertiary maternity center in Lyon-France, the Femme Mère Enfant Hospital, including the exhaustive population of FGR born after 24 + 0 weeks of gestation from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2017. FGR was defined combining the neonatal and antenatal consensus-based definitions for early and late FGR in absence of congenital anomalies, excluding small for gestational age fetuses. For all FGR fetuses, we compared the antenatal detection rate of FGR during 2011–2013 to 2015–2017, since the French guidelines were published in December 2013. When FGR fetuses underwent an antenatal diagnosis of FGR, we retrospectively collected the characteristics that led to the diagnosis. When fetuses were not diagnosed as FGR, we retrospectively reviewed the implementation of the recommended screening method, enabling to evaluate whether screening was optimal or not. Statistical analysis was performed in July 2018, and statistical significance was regarded as a p -value <.05. Results: Over the seven-year period, and among 31, 052 newborns, 1020 (3.3%) infants were identified as FGR and met the inclusion criteria. The detection rate of FGR was similar before and after publication of the French Guidelines related to FGR in 2013. Indeed, 50.8% (201/395) FGR were diagnosed between 2011 and 2013 versus 52.6% (245/465) between 2015 and 2017 ( p = .59). In the population of non-diagnosed FGR infants, screening was suboptimal in 80%. Symphysis-fundal height (SFH) was not measured in 10.7%, with no difference before and after 2014 (7.3 versus 11.8% p = .11). Ultrasound examination for fetal biometry had not been prescribed in spite of abnormal SFH in 47.7% of undiagnosed FGR infants. Diagnosis has been missed in 11.5% of infants because of misinterpretation of the estimated fetal weight's centile. Conclusion: FGR is widely underdiagnosed. However, the limited performances can partially be explained by the regular misuse of screening method in clinical practice. Despite the systematic third trimester ultrasound screening, the detection rate of FGR was similar to the one reported in the medical literature. The timing of routine third trimester ultrasound in low-risk women may be rethought.