Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T16:32:47.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Fetal Growth Restriction: Diagnosis and Management

from Fetal Growth and Well-being

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Mark D. Kilby
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Anthony Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Dick Oepkes
Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Get access

Summary

Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is defined as failure of the fetus to achieve its genetically determined growth potential due to an underlying pathological process [1]. FGR affects approximately 10% of all pregnancies and is a major determinant of perinatal and childhood mortality and morbidity, as well as chronic disease in adulthood [2–4]. A challenge in studying FGR is the lack of a gold standard definition and clear diagnostic criteria. Small for gestational age (SGA) is often used interchangeably with FGR but fails to differentiate between the constitutionally small but healthy fetus and the pathologically growth-restricted fetus. SGA is typically defined as a baby <10th centile, but 40% of these babies are physiologically small and healthy, therefore fetal size alone cannot be used to differentiate SGA from FGR. Assessment of functional parameters has been proposed to improve diagnostic accuracy but may still miss the larger baby (>10th centile) that is also in fact growth restricted. The importance of accurately diagnosing FGR is that it identifies the potential risk of fetal demise or perinatal complications, which may be averted via appropriate monitoring and optimized delivery.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
, pp. 264 - 278
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2014). The Investigation and Management of the Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus. Green-top Guideline No. 31. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdfGoogle Scholar
Flenady, V, Middleton, P, Smith, GC, Duke, W, Erwich, JJ, Khong, TY, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet. 2011; 377: 1703–17.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J, Madurasinghe, V, Williams, M, Malik, A, Francis, A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ. 2013; 346: f108.Google Scholar
Barker, DJ, Osmond, C. Infant mortality, childhood nutrition, and ischaemic heart disease in England and Wales. Lancet. 1986; 1: 1077–81.Google Scholar
Mifsud, W, Sebire, NJ. Placental pathology in early-onset and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 36: 117–28.Google Scholar
Gordijn, SJ, Beune, IM, Thilaganathan, B, Papageorghiou, A, Baschat, AA, Baker, PN, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48: 333–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, SC, Derricott, H, Jones, RL, Heazell, AEP. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0186287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flenady, V, Koopmans, L, Middleton, P, Froen, JF, Smith, GC, Gibbons, K, et al. Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011; 377: 1331–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schieve, LA, Meikle, SF, Ferre, C, Peterson, HB, Jeng, G, Wilcox, LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 731–7.Google Scholar
Lawn, JE, Blencowe, H, Waiswa, P, Amouzou, A, Mathers, C, Hogan, D, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet. 2016; 387: 587603.Google Scholar
McDonald, SD, Han, Z, Mulla, S, Murphy, KE, Beyene, J, Ohlsson, A. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009; 146: 138–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmerhorst, FM, Perquin, DA, Donker, D, Keirse, MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004; 328: 261.Google Scholar
Steegers, EA, von Dadelszen, P, Duvekot, JJ, Pijnenborg, R. Pre-eclampsia. Lancet. 2010; 376: 631–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiber, K, Radin, M, Sciascia, S. Current insights in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 29: 397403.Google Scholar
Sammaritano, LR. Management of systemic lupus erythematosus during pregnancy. Annu Rev Med. 2017; 68: 271–85.Google Scholar
Foo, FL, Mahendru, AA, Masini, G, Fraser, A, Cacciatore, S, MacIntyre, DA, et al. Association between prepregnancy cardiovascular function and subsequent preeclampsia or fetal growth restriction. Hypertension. 2018; 72: 442–50.Google Scholar
Tay, J, Foo, L, Masini, G, Bennett, PR, McEniery, CM, Wilkinson, IB, et al. Early and late preeclampsia are characterized by high cardiac output, but in the presence of fetal growth restriction, cardiac output is low: insights from a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 517. e1–e12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simcox, LE, Ormesher, L, Tower, C, Greer, IA. Thrombophilia and pregnancy complications. Int J Mol Sci. 2015; 16: 28418–28.Google Scholar
Rodger, MA, Gris, JC, de Vries, JIP, Martinelli, I, Rey, E, Schleussner, E, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016; 388: 2629–41.Google Scholar
Kingdom, JC, Drewlo, S. Is heparin a placental anticoagulant in high-risk pregnancies? Blood. 2011; 118: 4780–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundhun, PK, Soogund, MZ, Huang, F. Impact of systemic lupus erythematosus on maternal and fetal outcomes following pregnancy: a meta-analysis of studies published between years 2001-2016. J Autoimmun. 2017; 79: 1727.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, EF, Khanna, D, Chung, L. Pregnancy outcomes in systemic sclerosis, primary pulmonary hypertension, and sickle cell disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 927–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greutmann, M, Pieper, PG. Pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36: 2491–9.Google Scholar
Luewan, S, Srisupundit, K, Tongsong, T. Outcomes of pregnancies complicated by beta-thalassemia/hemoglobin E disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 104: 203–5.Google Scholar
Mortola, JP, Frappell, PB, Aguero, L, Armstrong, K. Birth weight and altitude: a study in Peruvian communities. J Pediatr. 2000; 136: 324–9.Google Scholar
Stein, AD, Lumey, LH. The relationship between maternal and offspring birth weights after maternal prenatal famine exposure: the Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study. Hum Biol. 2000; 72: 641–54.Google Scholar
Saccone, G, Berghella, V, Sarno, L, Maruotti, GM, Cetin, I, Greco, L, et al. Celiac disease and obstetric complications: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 225–34.Google Scholar
Khashan, AS, Henriksen, TB, Mortensen, PB, McNamee, R, McCarthy, FP, Pedersen, MG, et al. The impact of maternal celiac disease on birthweight and preterm birth: a Danish population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25: 528–34.Google Scholar
Anjum, N, Baker, PN, Robinson, NJ, Aplin, JD. Maternal celiac disease autoantibodies bind directly to syncytiotrophoblast and inhibit placental tissue transglutaminase activity. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009; 7: 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiefte-de Jong, JC, Jaddoe, VW, Uitterlinden, AG, Steegers, EA, Willemsen, SP, Hofman, A, et al. Levels of antibodies against tissue transglutaminase during pregnancy are associated with reduced fetal weight and birth weight. Gastroenterology. 2013; 144: 726–35. e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suter, MA, Anders, AM, Aagaard, KM. Maternal smoking as a model for environmental epigenetic changes affecting birthweight and fetal programming. Mol Hum Reprod. 2013; 19: 16.Google Scholar
Blatt, K, Moore, E, Chen, A, Van Hook, J, DeFranco, EA. Association of reported trimester-specific smoking cessation with fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 1452–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, RC, Jacobson, JL, Molteno, CD, Dodge, NC, Meintjes, EM, Jacobson, SW. Fetal alcohol growth restriction and cognitive impairment. Pediatrics. 2016; 138: e20160775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, RC, Wainwright, H, Molteno, CD, Georgieff, MK, Dodge, NC, Warton, F, et al. Alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana exposure have distinct effects on the human placenta. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016; 40: 753–64.Google Scholar
Gundogan, F, Elwood, G, Longato, L, Tong, M, Feijoo, A, Carlson, RI, et al. Impaired placentation in fetal alcohol syndrome. Placenta. 2008; 29: 148–57.Google Scholar
Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion No. 711: Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130: e81–94.Google Scholar
Zedler, BK, Mann, AL, Kim, MM, Amick, HR, Joyce, AR, Murrelle, EL, et al. Buprenorphine compared with methadone to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety in the mother, fetus and child. Addiction. 2016; 111: 2115–28.Google Scholar
Soto, E, Bahado-Singh, R. Fetal abnormal growth associated with substance abuse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 56: 142–53.Google Scholar
Bada, HS, Das, A, Bauer, CR, Shankaran, S, Lester, B, Wright, LL, et al. Gestational cocaine exposure and intrauterine growth: maternal lifestyle study. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100: 916–24.Google ScholarPubMed
Kalaitzopoulos, DR, Chatzistergiou, K, Amylidi, AL, Kokkinidis, DG, Goulis, DG. Effect of methamphetamine hydrochloride on pregnancy outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Addict Med. 2018; 12: 220–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ray, S, Stowe, ZN. The use of antidepressant medication in pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 28: 7183.Google Scholar
Bloise, E, Feuer, SK, Rinaudo, PF. Comparative intrauterine development and placental function of ART concepti: implications for human reproductive medicine and animal breeding. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20: 822–39.Google Scholar
Snijders, RJ, Sherrod, C, Gosden, CM, Nicolaides, KH. Fetal growth retardation: associated malformations and chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 547–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochelson, B, Kaplan, C, Guzman, E, Arato, M, Hansen, K, Trunca, C. A quantitative analysis of placental vasculature in the third-trimester fetus with autosomal trisomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 5963.Google ScholarPubMed
Fujimoto, A, Wilson, MG. Growth retardation in Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Hum Genet. 1990; 84: 296–7.Google Scholar
Sagi-Dain, L, Peleg, A, Sagi, S. Risk for chromosomal aberrations in apparently isolated intrauterine growth restriction: A systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2017; 37: 1061–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoury, MJ, Erickson, JD, Cordero, JF, McCarthy, BJ. Congenital malformations and intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics. 1988; 82: 8390.Google Scholar
Sun, L, Macgowan, CK, Sled, JG, Yoo, SJ, Manlhiot, C, Porayette, P, et al. Reduced fetal cerebral oxygen consumption is associated with smaller brain size in fetuses with congenital heart disease. Circulation. 2015; 131: 1313–23.Google Scholar
Naeye, RL. Unsuspected organ abnormalities associated with congenital heart disease. Am J Pathol. 1965; 47: 905–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, ST, Scott, G, Naing, Z, Iwasenko, J, Hall, B, Graf, N, et al. Human cytomegalovirus-induces cytokine changes in the placenta with implications for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7: e52899.Google Scholar
Adams Waldorf, KM, McAdams, RM. Influence of infection during pregnancy on fetal development. Reproduction. 2013; 146: R151–62.Google Scholar
Umbers, AJ, Aitken, EH, Rogerson, SJ. Malaria in pregnancy: small babies, big problem. Trends Parasitol. 2011; 27: 168–75.Google Scholar
McCarthy, FP, Giles, ML, Rowlands, S, Purcell, KJ, Jones, CA. Antenatal interventions for preventing the transmission of cytomegalovirus (CMV) from the mother to fetus during pregnancy and adverse outcomes in the congenitally infected infant. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 3: CD008371.Google Scholar
Sassoon, DA, Castro, LC, Davis, JL, Hobel, CJ. Perinatal outcome in triplet versus twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 817–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Coutinho Nunes, F, Domingues, AP, Vide Tavares, M, Belo, A, Ferreira, C, Fonseca, E, et al. Monochorionic versus dichorionic twins: are obstetric outcomes always different? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 36: 598601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stirrup, OT, Khalil, A, D’Antonio, F, Thilaganathan, B, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative. Fetal growth reference ranges in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45: 301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheong-See, F, Schuit, E, Arroyo-Manzano, D, Khalil, A, Barrett, J, Joseph, KS, et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016; 354: i4353.Google Scholar
Hall, JG. Twinning. Lancet. 2003; 362: 735–43.Google Scholar
Sparks, TN, Nakagawa, S, Gonzalez, JM. Hypertension in dichorionic twin gestations: how is birthweight affected? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30: 380–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewi, L, Cannie, M, Blickstein, I, Jani, J, Huber, A, Hecher, K, et al. Placental sharing, birthweight discordance, and vascular anastomoses in monochorionic diamniotic twin placentas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 587. e1–8.Google Scholar
Audette, MC, Kingdom, JC. Screening for fetal growth restriction and placental insufficiency. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 23: 119–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingdom, JC, Audette, MC, Hobson, SR, Windrim, RC, Morgen, E. A placenta clinic approach to the diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S803–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pay, AS, Wiik, J, Backe, B, Jacobsson, B, Strandell, A, Klovning, A. Symphysis-fundus height measurement to predict small-for-gestational-age status at birth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15: 22.Google Scholar
Robert Peter, J, Ho, JJ, Valliapan, J, Sivasangari, S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 9: CD008136.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Harrist, RB, Sharman, RS, Deter, RL, Park, SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151: 333–7.Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma, EO, Altman, DG, Todros, T, Cheikh Ismail, L, Lambert, A, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet. 2014; 384: 869–79.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J. Customized fetal growth standards: rationale and clinical application. Semin Perinatol. 2004; 28: 3340.Google Scholar
Ego, A, Subtil, D, Grange, G, Thiebaugeorges, O, Senat, MV, Vayssiere, C, et al. Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1042–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, M, Wallace, EM, Mockler, JC, Stewart, L, Knight, M, Hodges, R, et al. Maternal Asian ethnicity and obstetric intrapartum intervention: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 3.Google Scholar
Lockie, E, McCarthy, EA, Hui, L, Churilov, L, Walker, SP. Feasibility of using self-reported ethnicity in pregnancy according to the gestation-related optimal weight classification: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2018; 125: 704–9.Google Scholar
Kiserud, T, Piaggio, G, Carroli, G, Widmer, M, Carvalho, J, Neerup Jensen, L, et al. The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight. PLoS Medicine. 2017; 14: e1002220.Google Scholar
Bricker, L, Medley, N, Pratt, JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 6: CD001451.Google Scholar
Sovio, U, White, IR, Dacey, A, Pasupathy, D, Smith, GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015; 386: 2089–97.Google Scholar
Monier, I, Blondel, B, Ego, A, Kaminiski, M, Goffinet, F, Zeitlin, J. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG. 2015; 122: 518–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deter, RL. Individualized growth assessment: evaluation of growth using each fetus as its own control. Semin Perinatol. 2004; 28: 2332.Google Scholar
Kingdom, JC, Burrell, SJ, Kaufmann, P. Pathology and clinical implications of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 9: 271–86.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Dowswell, T. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 6: CD007529.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Medley, N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 4: CD001450.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, A, Tuuli, MG, Odibo, AO. First-, second-, and third-trimester screening for preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. Clin Lab Med. 2016; 36: 331–51.Google Scholar
Roberts, LA, Ling, HZ, Poon, L, Nicolaides, KH, Kametas, NA. Maternal hemodynamics, fetal biometry and Dopplers in pregnancies followed up for suspected fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52: 507–14.Google Scholar
Smith, GC. First-trimester determination of complications of late pregnancy. JAMA. 2010; 303: 561–2.Google Scholar
Gaccioli, F, Aye, I, Sovio, U, Charnock-Jones, DS, Smith, GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction using fetal biometry combined with maternal biomarkers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S725–37.Google Scholar
Tan, MY, Poon, LC, Rolnik, DL, Syngelaki, A, de Paco Matallana, C, Akolekar, R, et al. Prediction and prevention of small-for-gestational-age neonates: evidence from SPREE and ASPRE. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52: 52–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sovio, U, Smith, GCS. The effect of customization and use of a fetal growth standard on the association between birthweight percentile and adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S738–44.Google Scholar
Griffin, M, Seed, PT, Duckworth, S, North, R, Myers, J, Mackillop, L, et al. Predicting delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant and adverse perinatal outcome in women with suspected pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 51: 387–95.Google Scholar
Sharp, A, Chappell, LC, Dekker, G, Pelletier, S, Garnier, Y, Zeren, O, et al. Placental Growth Factor informed management of suspected pre-eclampsia or fetal growth restriction: the MAPPLE cohort study. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018; 14: 228–33.Google Scholar
Ormesher, L, Johnstone, ED, Shawkat, E, Dempsey, A, Chmiel, C, Ingram, E, et al. A clinical evaluation of placental growth factor in routine practice in high-risk women presenting with suspected pre-eclampsia and/or fetal growth restriction. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018; 14: 243–9.Google Scholar
Griffin, M, Seed, PT, Webster, L, Myers, J, MacKillop, L, Simpson, N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor and ultrasound parameters to predict the small-for-gestational-age infant in women presenting with reduced symphysis-fundus height. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 46: 182–90.Google Scholar
Lees, C, Marlow, N, Arabin, B, Bilardo, CM, Brezinka, C, Derks, JB, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 400–8.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Caradeux, J, Crispi, F, Eixarch, E, Peguero, A, Gratacós, E. Diagnosis and surveillance of late-onset fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S790–802. e1.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Gratacós, E. An integrated approach to fetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 38: 4858.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ. Umbilical artery Doppler revisited: pathophysiology of changes in intrauterine growth restriction revealed. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 21: 419–22.Google Scholar
Caradeux, J, Martinez-Portilla, RJ, Basuki, TR, Kiserud, T, Figueras, F. Risk of fetal death in growth-restricted fetuses with umbilical and/or ductus venosus absent or reversed end-diastolic velocities before 34 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S774–82. e21.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Grivell, RM, Alfirevic, Z, Gyte, GM, Devane, D. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 9: CD007863.Google Scholar
Pattison, N, McCowan, L. Cardiotocography for antepartum fetal assessment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; 2: CD001068.Google Scholar
Frusca, T, Todros, T, Lees, C, Bilardo, CM, TRUFFLE Investigators. Outcome in early-onset fetal growth restriction is best combining computerized fetal heart rate analysis with ductus venosus Doppler: insights from the Trial of Umbilical and Fetal Flow in Europe. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S783–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalor, JG, Fawole, B, Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; 1: CD000038.Google Scholar
Kaur, S, Picconi, JL, Chadha, R, Kruger, M, Mari, G. Biophysical profile in the treatment of intrauterine growth-restricted fetuses who weigh <1000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 264. e1–4.Google Scholar
Thornton, JG, Hornbuckle, J, Vail, A, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Levene, M, GRIT Study Group. Infant wellbeing at 2 years of age in the Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT): multicentred randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 364: 513–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Walker, DM, Marlow, N, Upstone, L, Gross, H, Hornbuckle, J, Vail, A, et al. The Growth Restriction Intervention Trial: long-term outcomes in a randomized trial of timing of delivery in fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 34. e1–9.Google Scholar
Lees, CC, Marlow, N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A, Arabin, B, Bilardo, CM, Brezinka, C, et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2015; 385: 2162–72.Google Scholar
Ting, JY, Kingdom, JC, Shah, PS. Antenatal glucocorticoids, magnesium sulfate, and mode of birth in preterm fetal small for gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S818–28.Google Scholar
Lee, HC, Gould, JB. Survival rates and mode of delivery for vertex preterm neonates according to small- or appropriate-for-gestational-age status. Pediatrics. 2006; 118: e1836–44.Google Scholar
Boers, KE, Vijgen, SM, Bijlenga, D, van der Post, JA, Bekedam, DJ, Kwee, A, et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ. 2010; 341: c7087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Wyk, L, Boers, KE, van der Post, JA, van Pampus, MG, van Wassenaer, AG, van Baar, AL, et al. Effects on (neuro)developmental and behavioral outcome at 2 years of age of induced labor compared with expectant management in intrauterine growth-restricted infants: long-term outcomes of the DIGITAT trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 406. e1–7.Google Scholar
Meher, S, Duley, L, Hunter, K, Askie, L. Antiplatelet therapy before or after 16 weeks’ gestation for preventing preeclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216: 121–8. e2.Google Scholar
Groom, KM, David, AL. The role of aspirin, heparin, and other interventions in the prevention and treatment of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S829–40.Google Scholar
Rolnik, DL, Wright, D, Poon, LC, O’Gorman, N, Syngelaki, A, de Paco Matallana, C, et al. Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia. New Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 613–22.Google Scholar
Wat, JM, Audette, MC, Kingdom, JC. Molecular actions of heparin and their implications in preventing pre-eclampsia. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 [ePub ahead of print].Google Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). (2010). Antenatal magnesium sulphate prior to preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, infant and child. National Clinical Practice Guidelines. https://www.clinicalguidelines.gov.au/register/antenatal-magnesium-sulphate-prior-preterm-birth-neuroprotection-fetus-infant-and-childGoogle Scholar
Stockley, EL, Ting, JY, Kingdom, JC, McDonald, SD, Barrett, JF, Synnes, AR, et al. Intrapartum magnesium sulfate is associated with neuroprotection in growth-restricted fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 606. e1–e8.Google Scholar
Nawathe, A, David, AL. Prophylaxis and treatment of foetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 49: 6678.Google Scholar
Wright, E, Audette, MC, Ye, XY, Keating, S, Hoffman, B, Lye, SJ, et al. Maternal vascular malperfusion and adverse perinatal outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130: 1112–20.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×