rciu perinatolo

Upload: romimaus

Post on 07-Apr-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    1/22

    Diagnosis and management of intrauterine

    growth restriction

    Ursula F. Harkness, MD, MPH*, Giancarlo Mari, MDDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

    University of Cincinnati, 231 Albert Sabin Way, PO Box 670526, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0526, USA

    Normal growth on a cellular level is not homogeneous but rather follows a

    pattern that shifts over time from rapid cellular duplication to rapid cellular

    enlargement [1]. Early growth is characterized by an increase in cell number, and

    this period has proportional increases in weight, protein, and DNA (phase ofhyperplasia). This phase is followed by one in which cell division slows and

    existing cells enlarge (phase of hyperplasia and hypertrophy). During this time,

    the increase in DNA is slower than the increase in protein and weight. During the

    final phase, cell division decreases, and all further growth is due to enlargement

    of cells (phase of hypertrophy). DNA does not continue to increase, although net

    protein and weight do. The effects of stimuli that restrict growth may depend in

    part on when in the sequence of cellular events they occur.

    Fetal growth is determined by the mother, the fetus, and the placenta. Any

    factor that affects one of these three environments can result in intrauterinegrowth restriction (IUGR).

    Dating the pregnancy

    Accurate dating is the most important step in the prenatal management of

    the IUGR fetus. Using the last menstrual period (LMP) to determine gestational

    0095-5108/04/$ see front matterD 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    doi:10.1016/j.clp.2004.06.006

    * Corresponding author.

    E-mail address: [email protected] (U.F. Harkness).

    Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764

    http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    2/22

    age is often unreliable. In one study, menstrual history could only be obtained

    from 89.8% of the women enrolled, and 44.7% of these were unreliable because

    of an unsure actual date of LMP, irregular menstrual cycles, recent oralcontraceptive use, or first-trimester bleeding [2]. Ultrasound performed before

    18 weeks gestation was as good or better for prediction of estimated date of

    confinement than even an optimal menstrual historydepending on the

    gestational age at which the scan was performed [2].

    In the first trimester, the crown-rump length (CRL) is used to estimate

    gestational age. This measurement is highly accurate [3,4]. A longitudinal view

    of the fetus is found, and the calipers are placed at the outer edge of the cephalic

    pole and fetal rump with care not to include the yolk sac or fetal limbs. The

    pregnancy should be dated by ultrasonography if there is a greater than 7-daydiscrepancy between LMP and CRL [5].

    In the second trimester, fetal biometry can be used to date a pregnancy

    accurately. Chervenak et al [6] studied 152 singletons conceived through in vitro

    fertilization. These authors used stepwise multiple linear regression to determine

    the best equation for gestational age assessment using head circumference (HC),

    biparietal diameter (BPD), femur length (FL), and abdominal circumference (AC)

    alone or in combination. The most accurate single parameter was HC, which gave

    a random error of 3.77 days. Adding AC and FL to HC slightly improved

    prediction (random error 3.35 days). Based on this study, biometry should beused to date the pregnancy if the discrepancy between LMP and ultrasound

    dating is greater than 7 days in the absence of congenital anomalies and severe

    growth delay.

    The accuracy of a single ultrasonographic measurement for the detection of

    gestational age decreases as gestational ages increases. The normal distribution of

    measurements becomes wider as gestational age increases [7]. Serial ultrasound

    should be performed at 3-week intervals when dating is to be determined using

    third-trimester sonography.

    Although precise sonographic assessment of gestational age in the thirdtrimester is not feasible in all cases based on fetal biometry alone, other sono-

    graphic markers are currently used to estimate the gestational age. The ossi-

    fication centers of various long bones are most commonly used in practice.

    These centers become increasingly echo-dense and larger with advancing

    gestational age. Although their presence does not give an exact gestational

    age assessment, it can reassure the clinician that the pregnancy is relatively

    late into the third trimester. The distal femoral epiphysis is noted at the distal

    end of the femur in the plane of measurement of this bone. The distal femoral

    epiphysis is never seen before 28 weeks, and it is observed in 72% of fetusesat 33 weeks, 94% of fetuses at 34 weeks, and 100% of fetuses at 36 weeks

    [8]. The proximal tibial epiphysis is seen adjacent to the head of the tibia

    at its proximal end, in the plane of measurement of this bone. The proximal

    tibial epiphysis is never seen before 34 weeks, and it is found in 35% of

    fetuses at 35 weeks, 79% of fetuses at 37 weeks, and 100% of fetuses at

    39 weeks [8]. Finally, if the proximal humeral epiphysis is greater than or equal

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764744

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    3/22

    to 1 mm, there is at least a probability of 0.69 that the pregnancy is at 40 to

    42 weeks [9].

    Estimating fetal weight

    Many different formulae have been used to calculate gestational age. Two that

    are commonly used are the Shepard and Hadlock formulae. The Hadlock formula

    uses head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length to estimate

    fetal weight [10]. The estimate of random error for this method is plus or minus

    15% (2 standard deviations). The Shepard formula is based on BPD and AC [11].

    The fetal weight estimate, once obtained, is compared with reference ranges.

    A value between the 10th and 90th percentiles is usually considered normal.

    These cut-offs are used in an attempt to identify fetuses at risk. Genetic and

    environmental factors may influence growth, however, and thus different popu-

    lations have different growth curves.

    Definitions

    The terms small for gestational age (SGA) and IUGR are often used inter-

    changeably, although this is misleading. The growth-restricted fetus is a fetus that

    fails to reach its growth potential and is at risk for adverse perinatal morbidity and

    mortality. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)

    defines an IUGR fetus as a fetus with an estimated weight below the 10th

    percentile [12]. Not all fetuses measuring less than the 10th percentile are at risk

    for adverse perinatal outcome; many are just constitutionally small. IUGR refers

    to the fetus who is SGA and displays other signs of chronic hypoxia or

    malnutrition [5]. SGA is defined here as a fetus who measures less than the 10th percentile for gestational age, whether it be because he is growth-restricted

    (IUGR) or just constitutionally small. The authors will first discuss the fetus with

    an estimated weight below the 10th percentile, then suggest ways to differentiate

    the small fetus from the at-risk IUGR fetus and to manage the pregnancy

    complicated by IUGR.

    Traditionally, symmetric IUGR has been distinguished from asymmetric

    IUGR [13]. The former is described as having an early onset. The insult affects

    growth of skeletal, head, and abdominal measurements, because it occurs at a

    time when fetal growth is affected primarily by cell division. Asymmetric IUGR,by contrast, has its onset later in gestation, when fetal growth occurs secondary to

    increases in cell size. Skeletal and head measurements are spared, but abdominal

    circumference is small because of decreased liver size and subcutaneous fat.

    More recently, the need to distinguish these entities has been questioned, because

    it is unclear whether they can be associated with distinct causes or neonatal

    outcomes [12]. One study demonstrated, however, that although the etiologies of

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 745

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    4/22

    symmetrically and asymmetrically small fetuses overlap, the latter are at an

    increased risk for neonatal and intrapartum complications [14].

    Consequences of being small for gestational age

    Short term

    Estimated fetal weight below the 10th percentile is a leading risk factor for

    fetal death [15]. As birth weight decreases from the 10th percentile to the first

    percentile, perinatal morbidity and mortality increase markedly [16]. In term

    infants, the rates of low 5-minute Apgars, severe acidemia, need for intubation in

    the delivery room, seizures in the first 24 hours of life, sepsis, and neonatal death

    increase significantly among infants at or below the third percentile for ges-

    tational age [17]. In preterm infants, by contrast, there is no specific birth-weight

    threshold below which neonatal morbidity and mortality are increased; rather,

    respiratory distress (RDS) and neonatal death increase along a continuum with

    decreasing birth weight percentile. In a retrospective review of more than

    1.4 million deliveries, the risk of RDS, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and

    necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) was found to increase significantly in IUGR

    fetuses as compared with normally grown fetuses beginning at 34 to 35 weeks

    gestation [18]. (Because the IUGR group was found using an International

    Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code search of a large

    state database, it is difficult to assess whether only IUGR or both IUGR and

    SGA babies were included.)

    The findings of the aforementioned study contrast with older studies that

    reported that small neonates had a decreased incidence of RDS [19,20] and IVH

    [20,21] when compared with appropriate-for-gestational-age preterm neonates,

    suggesting that in small fetuses there is an adaptive reaction to intrauterine stress.

    Another study using the Vermont Oxford Network database described a signifi-

    cant increase in neonatal death, RDS, and NEC among babies whose birth weight

    was less than the 10th percentile and who weighed between 500 and 1500 g, as

    compared with appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) babies [22]. These authors

    suggest that the inconsistency between their findings and those of earlier studies

    may be due to the extent to which confounding variables are addressed and taken

    into account.

    Long term

    The problems of the small fetus do not end at birth or soon after birth but

    continue well into childhood and adulthood. Studies have shown that small

    children have an increased rate of impaired school performance. One study

    described significantly higher numbers of children with late entry into secondary

    school and failure to pass or take the baccalaureate examination in the bsmallQ

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764746

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    5/22

    group as compared with the AGA group, after controlling for maternal age,

    maternal educational level, parental socioeconomic status, family size, and gen-

    der [23]. Another large follow-up study of 14,189 full-term infants from theUnited Kingdom showed that at 5, 10, and 16 years of age, individuals born with

    a birth weight less than the fifth percentile had small but significant deficits in

    academic achievement [24]. At 26 years of age, this same cohort of once SGA

    babies showed lower levels of professional achievement, despite adjustment for

    potential confounders.

    Other studies have described an association between fetuses with weight or

    height less than the 10th percentile and the development of hypertension,

    hypercholesterolemia, impaired glucose tolerance, and diabetes in later life

    [2527]. In the United Kingdom, a follow-up study on 5654 men showed thatthose with the lowest weight at birth and at 1 year of age had the highest death

    rate from ischemic heart disease [28]. The bfetal originsQ hypothesis asserts that

    changes in the intrauterine nutritional or endocrine environment result in per-

    manent alterations in structure, physiology, and metabolism that predispose the

    affected individual to develop cardiovascular, metabolic, and endocrine disease

    years later [26]. An endocrine-metabolic reprogramming occurs that enables

    the small fetus to adapt to its adverse intrauterine environment; after birth,

    nutrient abundance may lead to a metabolic syndrome and to the development of

    the above-noted cardiovascular risk factors [25]. This theory is the so-calledbBarkers hypothesis.Q

    Screening for the small fetus

    Fundal height assessment

    Several studies have estimated that 41% to 86% of SGA babies could be

    detected with routine use of symphysis-fundal height measurements [2932].Some of these studies used standard value curves, with the small fundal height

    defined as that below the 10th percentile of standard values for gestational age.

    The most common method in practice, however, uses the concept that, between

    20 and 34 weeks, the fundal height in centimeters equals the gestational age in

    weeks [33]. A measurement in centimeters is taken from the upper edge of the

    symphysis pubis to the top of the uterine fundus. A measurement of 3 to 4 cm

    below the expected number suggests inappropriate growth.

    Ultrasonographic measurements

    According to one meta-analysis of ultrasonographic measurements, AC and

    estimated fetal weight (EFW) were the best predictors of fetal weight below the

    10th percentile [34]. In high-risk populations, the sensitivity using AC of less

    than the 10th percentile was 73% to 95%, whereas using EFW the sensitivity was

    43% to 89%; in low-risk populations, the corresponding sensitivities were 48% to

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 747

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    6/22

    64% for AC and 31% to 73% for EFW. In another study, AC measurements were

    shown to predict small fetuses better than BPD, HC, or a combination of

    parameters [35]. The sensitivity of a single AC measurement after 25 weeks forthe detection of fetuses with birth weight below the 10th percentile was 48%. In

    the same study, a normal AC was found to exclude fetal growth restriction with a

    false-negative rate of about 10%. Another study showed that a single AC

    measurement for the detection of babies with birth weight less than the 10th

    percentile was only slightly better than serial fundal height measurements

    (sensitivity 83% versus 76%); the difference was not statistically significant[36].

    Thus there is no clear evidence that routine ultrasound is a better screening

    method for SGA than fundal height measurement in the general population.

    Diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction

    The data already reported refer to fetuses with an estimated weight below the

    10th percentile. When a fetus has an estimated weight below the 10th percentile

    in the absence of congenital anomalies and in the presence of a normal amount of

    amniotic fluid, Doppler velocimetry gives the most important information to

    differentiate the truly growth-restricted fetus (IUGR) from the fetus that is

    constitutionally small but otherwise normal.

    Umbilical artery

    Normal pregnancy is characterized by a low-resistance feto-placental system

    with continuous forward flow throughout the cardiac cycle. Although several

    indices to estimate vessel resistance as evaluated by Doppler ultrasonography

    have been described, the most popular and the simplest of these is the systolic/

    diastolic (S/D) ratio. This index is a ratio of the maximum systolic flow velocity

    divided by the minimal end-diastolic flow velocity. Normal reference rangesthroughout pregnancy are reported in Fig. 1 [37]. In pregnancies complicated

    by IUGR, there is a chronological process characterized by increased umbilical

    artery resistance (increased S/D ratio), absent end-diastolic flow, and finally

    reverse end-diastolic flow (Fig. 2). Various hypotheses have been proposed

    to explain the pathophysiology of IUGR and abnormal umbilical artery Dopp-

    ler velocimetry [38]: (1) reduced placental-stem artery number, (2) primary vil-

    lus maldevelopment with small, hypovascular, and fibrotic terminal villi, and

    (3) placental-stem vessel vasoconstriction.

    Small fetuses with abnormal umbilical artery waveforms are admitted morefrequently to the neonatal intensive care unit and stay longer compared with those

    small fetuses who have normal Doppler velocimetry in the umbilical artery

    [39,40]. Studies have shown that the perinatal mortality rate in pregnancies

    complicated by growth restriction or hypertension is higher in fetuses with

    reversed end-diastolic flow (33% to 73%) or absent end-diastolic flow (9% to

    41%) in the umbilical artery [4143]. Finally, fetuses with absent and reverse

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764748

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    7/22

    end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery are at increased risk for impaired mental

    development, severe motor deficits, and neurodevelopmental delay [44,45].

    Eleven randomized studies involving close to 7000 women were included in a

    meta-analysis that compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery

    to no Doppler in high-risk pregnancies, many of which were complicated by

    IUGR. A trend in reduction of perinatal deaths was seen (odds ratio [OR] 0.71,

    95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 1.01), as well as significantly fewer in-

    ductions of labor and hospital admissions without untoward effects [46]. Thesedata prompted ACOG to endorse the use of Doppler in high-risk pregnancies.

    One area of debate and research is whether Doppler can help in timing the

    delivery of an IUGR fetus. The question arises: In a fetus with an abnormal

    umbilical artery waveform, is it better to deliver soon after making the diagnosis

    or to prolong the pregnancy? Each of these managements carries a riskpossible

    intrauterine hypoxia with continuation of the pregnancy; complications of pre-

    Fig. 1. Normal values for umbilical artery S/D ratios. (From Thompson RS, Trudinger BJ, Cook CM,

    Giles WB. Umbilical artery velocity waveforms: normal reference values for A/B ratio and Pourcelot

    ratio. BJOG 1988;95:590; with permission.)

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 749

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    8/22

    maturity with early delivery. The Growth Restriction Intervention Trial was a

    randomized trial that addressed this question in 547 pregnancies between 24 and

    36 weeks with singleton or multiple gestations, in circumstances where theprovider was uncertain whether to deliver [47]. The median time to delivery was

    0.9 days in the deliver-now group (within 48 hours, to allow a steroid course to be

    given) and 4.9 days in the expectant-management group. Total deaths before

    discharge were 29 (10%) in the deliver-now group and 27 (9%) in the expectant-

    management group (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.8). Based on this study, no dif-

    ference exists between combined antenatal and neonatal mortality rates

    Fig. 2. Umbilical artery waveform in a fetus with (A) normal umbilical artery flow, (B) increased

    resistance with an elevated S/D ratio, (C) absent end-diastolic flow, and (D) reversed end-dia-

    stolic flow.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764750

    http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    9/22

    associated with immediate delivery and rates associated with expectant manage-

    ment until the clinician is no longer uncertain that intervention is necessary.

    Information on the developmental quotient of the survivors of this study at 2 yearsof age will be available in the near future.

    Many authors have suggested that small fetuses with normal umbilical artery

    flow represent a group not at risk for adverse perinatal outcome. Most of these

    babies are constitutionally small [4850]. Recently, Baschat and Weiner [51]

    reported on 308 women with ultrasonographic EFW less than the 10th percentile

    or AC less than the 2.5th percentile for gestational age. Babies with abnormal

    umbilical artery Doppler had increased rates of fetal distress associated with

    chronic hypoxemia, RDS, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. The

    authors suggested that antenatal surveillance may not be necessary in SGA babiesif the umbilical artery S/D ratio and amniotic fluid are normal.

    One study of 167 women with small fetuses with normal umbilical artery

    Dopplers randomly allocated participants to surveillance that occurred twice

    weekly or every other week[52]. Although the two groups showed no differences

    in neonatal morbidity, the more frequently tested group had a higher induction

    rate. Unfortunately, this study did not have the power to detect clinically impor-

    tant differences in neonatal outcome. These babies could not be assumed to be

    simply small and healthy, because 32% were admitted to the neonatal special care

    unit (range of stay 0 to 66 days, mean 4 to 5 days), 20% had hypoglycemia, and40% had a low ponderal index at birth, despite the fact that the mean gestational

    age at delivery was 38 weeks. However, 10% of the babies in this study had an

    abnormal cerebral artery/umbilical artery resistance ratio, a finding that suggests

    that some of them were growth-restricted babies with blood flow redistribution.

    Evidence shows that umbilical artery Doppler can be used to distinguish

    between the high-risk small fetus that is truly growth-restricted and the lower-risk

    small fetus. A prospective randomized trial is needed to examine the question of

    whether antenatal surveillance is necessary when fetal growth is less than the

    10th percentile, but the umbilical artery S/D and AFI are normal.

    Middle cerebral artery

    The fetal response to chronic hypoxia is redistribution of blood flow to the

    tissues that are most needed, such as the brain, myocardium, and adrenal glands.

    This phenomenon has been called the bbrain-sparing effect.Q In this scenario,

    oligohydramnios is thought to occur because of decreased renal perfusion.

    Mari and Deter [53] described a parabolic pattern of middle cerebral artery(MCA) pulsatility index ([peak systolic velocity lowest diastolic velocity]/

    mean velocity) in normal singletons across gestational age, with higher values

    from 25 to 30 weeks (Table 1). These authors showed that SGA babies with

    abnormal pulsatility indices were at a higher risk for perinatal death and neonatal

    ICU stay of greater than 12 hours [53]. Fig. 3 demonstrates a normal MCA

    waveform and one that suggests bbrain sparing.Q

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 751

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    10/22

    The IUGR fetus displays an increased placental resistance, evidenced by an

    increased S/D ratio of the umbilical artery that is associated with a decreased

    cerebral vascular resistance quantified by a decreased pulsatility index (PI) of the

    MCA. Therefore, the cerebral-placental ratio may be a better index to assess the

    small fetus than the umbilical artery or cerebral vessels [54,55]. The cerebral-placental ratio generally refers to the ratio between the MCA PI and the umbilical

    artery PI. This index, however, has alternatively been defined as the ratio of S/D

    or resistance index in the MCA and umbilical artery. In small fetuses, cerebral-

    placental ratio is a good predictor for longer neonatal ICU stays, low Apgar

    scores, cord gas pH, cesarean for fetal distress, and other perinatal complications

    [5659]. The cerebral-placental ratio is a more sensitive predictor than either

    Table 1

    Middle cerebral artery pulsatility index

    Gestational age (wk) Normal valuesLower limita Predicted value Upper limit b

    15 0.99 1.57 2.14

    16 1.08 1.71 2.33

    17 1.16 1.83 2.51

    18 1.23 1.95 2.67

    19 1.30 2.05 2.81

    20 1.35 2.14 2.93

    21 1.40 2.22 3.04

    22 1.44 2.29 3.13

    23 1.48 2.34 3.2024 1.51 2.38 3.26

    25 1.52 2.41 3.30

    26 1.54 2.43 3.32

    27 1.54 2.44 3.33

    28 1.54 2.43 3.32

    29 1.52 2.41 3.30

    30 1.50 2.38 3.26

    31 1.48 2.34 3.20

    32 1.44 2.28 3.12

    33 1.40 2.21 3.03

    34 1.35 2.13 2.9235 1.29 2.04 2.79

    36 1.22 1.94 2.65

    37 1.15 1.82 2.49

    38 1.07 1.69 2.32

    39 0.98 1.56 2.13

    40 0.89 1.40 1.92

    41 0.78 1.24 1.70

    42 0.67 1.06 1.45

    Abbreviations:GA, gestational age; PI, Pulsatility index; PI = 1.9763 +(0.32737 GA) +

    (0.00611 GA2).a Predicted value (2 0.184 predicted value).b Predicted value + (2 0.184 predicted value).

    From Mari G, Deter RL. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in normal and small-

    for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1268; with permission.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764752

    http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    11/22

    MCA or umbilical artery velocimetry alone [5659]. Usually the cut-off cerebral-

    placental ratio below which the fetus is considered to have brain sparing is 1.0 to

    1.1 [56,58]. The cerebral-placental ratio does not correlate significantly with

    perinatal morbidity after 34 weeks [59].

    Although an abnormal cerebral Doppler is frequently seen in fetuses with

    abnormal umbilical artery velocimetry, MCA redistribution may be seen infetuses with normal umbilical artery waveforms. One study reported an increased

    rate of emergency cesarean section in small babies with normal umbilical artery

    velocimetry when the MCA waveform was abnormal [60]. When the uterine

    artery waveform was also abnormal, the rate of emergency cesarean was reported

    to be as high as 86%, versus 4% when MCA and uterine artery velocimetry were

    both normal. The rate of severe morbidity (grades II to IV intraventricular

    hemorrhage) was significantly increased in the pregnancies delivered by emer-

    gency cesarean section. Although abnormal umbilical artery velocimetry is a

    better predictor of adverse perinatal outcome in the small fetus, MCA PI has a better sensitivity (91.7%) and negative predictive value (98.6%) for major

    adverse outcome, especially before 32 weeks (when the sensitivity is 95.5% and

    the negative predictive value is 97.7%) [61].

    The cerebral-placental ratio should be used in small fetuses with normal

    umbilical artery waveforms. When there is absent or reversed flow of the

    umbilical artery, this index is not needed.

    Fig. 3. Middle cerebral artery waveform in (A) a fetus at 31 weeks with normal flow and (B) a fetus

    at 32 weeks with brain sparing, as evidenced by an increased MCA diastolic flow velocity waveformthat corresponds to a decreased pulsatility index. The pulsatility index for fetus (A) is 2.02 and for

    fetus (B) 0.90.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 753

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    12/22

    Issues in management of intrauterine growth restriction

    Ductus venosus

    The ductus venosus (DV) originates from the umbilical vein before it turns

    to the right to join the portal vein [62,63]. Blood from the DV then enters

    the inferior vena cava. The DV waveform includes two peaks. The first peak

    (S wave) reflects filling of the right atrium during ventricular systole. The second

    peak (D wave) reflects the passive filling of the ventricles during early diastole.

    The lowest point of the waveform (A wave) corresponds to atrial contraction

    (atrial kick) in late diastole [5,62]. In the normal fetus, flow in the DV is forward-

    moving toward the heart during the entire cardiac cycle. When circulatorycompensation of the fetus fails, the DV waveform may become abnormal,

    showing absent or reversed blood flow (Fig. 4) during atrial contraction. In these

    cases, pulsations in the umbilical vein may be seen. These changes may be due to

    increasing right ventricular afterload and right-sided heart failure due to

    myocardial hypoxia [62].

    The perinatal mortality in the presence of absent or reversed flow of the DV

    ranges from 63% to 100% [6466]. It appears that the fetus should be delivered

    before the development of absent or reversed flow of the DV. Therefore, the

    inclusion of venous Doppler in antepartum surveillance for IUGR fetuses may be beneficial, although a prospective randomized trial has not yet been done to

    confirm this hypothesis [67]. In one study including 224 fetuses with IUGR who

    underwent umbilical artery (UA), DV, and umbilical vein assessment, absent or

    reversed UA waveform was shown to have the highest sensitivity and negative

    Fig. 4. Ductus venosus velocimetry in a fetus with (A) a normal waveform and (B) reversed blood

    flow during atrial contraction (arrow).

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764754

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    13/22

    predictive value for acidemia, asphyxia, stillbirth, and neonatal and perinatal

    death [67]. Absent or reversed atrial systolic blood-flow velocity in the DV and

    pulsatile flow in the umbilical vein, however, had the best specificity and positivepredictive values for prediction of the above outcomes. The authors suggested

    that important intrauterine time can be gained for preterm fetuses who have

    absent or reversed UA end-diastolic velocities but normal venous flows.

    Results of a prospective multicenter longitudinal observational study also

    suggested that Doppler velocimetry of the DV may be useful in timing the

    delivery of the IUGR fetus [68]. Of 70 singleton IUGR fetuses delivered between

    26 and 33 weeks gestation, DV PI was significantly higher, UA PI was sig-

    nificantly higher, and short-term heart-rate variation (STV) was significantly

    lower in the last 24 hours before delivery in babies with adverse outcomes. Pooroutcomes included perinatal death, cerebral hemorrhage of grade II or greater,

    and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Two to 7 days before delivery, only DV PI was

    significantly higher. With logistic regression analysis, only DV waveform and

    gestational agenot UA PI or STVwere predictive of adverse outcomes. Only

    32% (6/19) of the infants with DV PI of 3 standard deviations or greater and 18%

    (2/11) of the infants with absent or reversed DV A-wave flow in the 24 hours

    before delivery had normal outcomes.

    Although the results of these studies are promising for timing the delivery of

    the IUGR fetus based on DV, data from randomized trials are not yet available tosupport or refute its use. Currently, a multicenter prospective randomized trial is

    being planned in Europe.

    Other vessels

    Many other vessels have been assessed by Doppler ultrasound in the AGA and

    IUGR fetus [6977]. Those studies have improved our understanding of fetal

    physiology and the pathophysiology of the IUGR fetus. However, they do not

    add much beyond the information given from assessment of the UA, MCA,

    and DV.

    Temporal sequence of Doppler changes

    Recent longitudinal studies have described a Doppler temporal sequence in

    the IUGR fetus before fetal distress. Hecher et al [78] reported findings from a

    prospective observational multicenter study on 93 singleton pregnancies after

    24 weeks complicated by IUGR. Amniotic fluid index and UA PI were the firstto become abnormal. These were followed by abnormalities of MCA velocimetry,

    aorta Doppler studies, STV of the fetal heart rate, DV waveforms, and inferior

    vena cava Doppler studies. This trend appeared both before and after 32 weeks.

    In the group delivered after 32 weeks, however, the probability of having any

    given abnormality in Doppler velocimetry was lower, and the changes in actual

    Doppler values and STV were less pronounced.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 755

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    14/22

    Baschat et al [79] longitudinally studied 44 IUGR fetuses with elevated

    umbilical artery PI who had a final biophysical profile of less than 6/10 before

    delivery. In 42 fetuses (95.5%), one or more vascular parameters changed. UAand DV indices markedly increased at a median of 4 days before the biophysical

    score deteriorated. Fetal breathing movements declined beginning 2 to 3 days

    before delivery; the following day, amniotic fluid volume dropped. Loss of fetal

    movement and tone occurred on the day of delivery. In 70.5% of these fetuses,

    Doppler deterioration was complete 24 hours before the biophysical profile

    changed. Three patterns of Doppler deterioration were described in this study.

    The majority of fetuses (72.7%) displayed a sequence of worsening of the UA

    PI, development of brain sparing, then venous changes. Another group of fetuses

    showed venous changes before brain sparing. Finally, some fetuses demonstratedchanges in the DV without ever showing Doppler changes consistent with

    brain sparing.

    Ferrazzi et al [80] evaluated 26 IUGR fetuses with abnormal uterine and UA

    Doppler velocimetry. A temporal sequence of abnormal Doppler changes was

    described. Early changes, assumed to reflect increased placental vascular resist-

    ance and hypoxia, included absent end-diastolic flow in the UA and an abnormal

    MCA PI. Half the fetuses showed these changes 15 to 16 days before delivery.

    Late changes, thought to indicate circulatory collapse, were reverse flow in the

    UA and abnormal DV, aortic, and pulmonary outflow tract velocimetry. Half thefetuses were affected by these late changes 4 to 5 days before delivery. These late

    Doppler changes correlated significantly with perinatal death.

    Significantly, not all fetuses appear to follow the same pattern of circulatory

    deterioration [79]. In addition, near-term fetuses may not show the same

    progression of circulatory changes [79]. These differences need to be considered

    when using Doppler velocimetry in the antenatal surveillance of the IUGR fetus.

    Nonstress test

    The heart rate of the fetus that is not affected by acidosis or neurologic de-

    pression will accelerate in response to fetal movement. This reaction is the basis

    of the nonstress test (NST). Although abnormal fetal heart-rate patterns are

    related to impaired fetal oxygenation and subsequent neurologic outcome, these

    are late changes. Ideally, the fetus should be delivered before evidence of

    hypoxemia is noted on fetal heart-rate monitoring to avoid subsequent handicap

    [81]. However, the NST remains the most common test used in evaluation of

    pregnancies complicated by an IUGR fetus.

    Biophysical profile

    The biophysical profile (BPP) is based on the fact that the fetal central nervous

    system initiates and regulates biophysical activity. Neuronal centers deprived of

    oxygen have decreased or absent output, which results in alterations in fetal

    movement, tone, and breathing. Systemic hypoxia is assumed to be absent as

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764756

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    15/22

    long as brain activity is normal, because the brain is one of the most oxygen-

    dependent tissues [82].

    The BPP is a widely used antepartum testing modality. A significant decreasein perinatal mortality is seen in high-risk pregnancies managed with BPP as

    opposed to those managed with untested historical controls. The perinatal mor-

    tality in one study was 1.86 per 1000 in those tested, compared with 7.69 per

    1000 in those not tested, for a decrease of 76% [83]. In a large retrospective study

    of 26,290 high-risk fetuses who received BPP testing and 58,659 fetuses who

    did not receive BPP testing, there was a very significant inverse exponential

    relationship between BPP before delivery and incidence of cerebral palsy [84].

    The incidence of cerebral palsy when the last BPP score before delivery was

    normal (10/10, 8/10, or 8/8) was 0.7 per 1000, whereas with a score of 0/10 theincidence of cerebral palsy was 333 per 1000. In the same study, these same

    high-risk fetuses were compared with mixed low-risk and high-risk patients not

    followed by BPP; the rate of cerebral palsy was 4.74 per 1000 in the untested

    population and 1.33 per 1000 in the tested group, a significant difference.

    Although the mean birth weight is noted to be smaller in the tested population,

    the actual number of SGA or IUGR fetuses in this study is unknown.

    The authors of a review assessing the effects of BPP on perinatal outcome

    conclude that there is currently inconclusive evidence from randomized

    controlled trials to support or argue against the use of BPP as a test of fetalwell-being in high-risk pregnancies, including those with IUGR [85]. Surpris-

    ingly, however, the number of patients enrolled in randomized trials using this

    method of antepartum testing is small (2839).

    Corticosteroids

    One important consideration regarding the use of the BPP in the management

    of high-risk pregnancies is the effect of corticosteroids on fetal behavior and thus

    on the score itself. In a study of 35 women at risk for preterm delivery withoutIUGR and between 28 and 34 weeks, BPPs and Doppler velocimetry of the UA

    and MCA were performed daily before a first dose of betamethasone and for

    120 hours afterward [86]. Though none of the BPPs were less than or equal to 6 at

    baseline, at 24, 48, and 72 hours poststeroids, 13.3%, 76.7%, and 16.7% were

    less than or equal to 6, respectively (Pb 0.05). The change in BPP was due to

    decreased fetal movement, decreased fetal breathing, and more frequent

    nonreassuring heart-rate tracing. The alteration in BPP in these healthy fetuses

    was transient. Doppler indices were not affected by corticosteroid administration.

    Another prospective study showed findings of decreased fetal breathing anddecreased fetal limb and trunk movements 48 hours from a first dose of beta-

    methasone, with return to baseline at 96 hours; again, Doppler velocimetry of

    the MCA and UA remained unchanged [87]. These effects should be considered

    in managing women with IUGR after steroids have been administered.

    The efficacy of antenatal corticosteroids for the preterm fetus with IUGR has

    not been well studied. One study showed no significant difference in short-term

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 757

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    16/22

    morbidity between infants with growth restriction delivered between 26 and

    31 weeks who received corticosteroids and those who did not, but it did demon-

    strate a significantly higher survival without disability or handicap in the steroidgroup [88]. Another study reported no difference between growth-restricted

    fetuses of less than 1750 g given steroids and AGA infants for several neonatal

    outcomes, including RDS and intraventricular hemorrhage/periventricular leu-

    komalacia [89].

    However, a very recent study demonstrated that of 19 fetuses with absent or

    reversed end-diastolic flow (ARED) in the UA, 10 developed transient forward

    end-diastolic flow after betamethasone injection, whereas nine fetuses showed

    persistent ARED [90]. Although some babies respond to steroids with vaso-

    dilation of the fetoplacental circulation and decreased vascular resistance, other babies respond with an increase in vascular resistance that may lead to fetal

    deterioration. The persistent ARED group had more frequent acute fetal deterio-

    ration. The two patients with a fetal demise and the two patients with severe

    acidosis were in the persistent ARED group. The authors suggest performing

    Doppler studies the day after steroid administration in IUGR fetuses with ARED.

    If no forward end-diastolic flow is seen, the fetal venous circulation should be

    examined, and delivery should be considered if abnormalities exist. The response

    of IUGR fetuses to corticosteroid administration should be studied further.

    Prediction of intrauterine growth restriction

    Uterine artery

    IUGR and pre-eclampsia have been associated with abnormal velocimetry of

    the uterine arteries. The uterine artery is typically measured using color Doppler

    where it crosses over the external iliac artery. In the normal pregnancy, the normal

    waveform shows high flow throughout diastole. An abnormal waveform ischaracterized by high resistance and an early diastolic notch (Fig. 5). This finding

    is thought to be related to a failure of trophoblastic invasion of spiral arteries and

    the resultant low-resistance circulation.

    One large study in 5121 unscreened women found that, at the 95th percentile

    for mean PI at 23 weeks in the studied population (1.45), the likelihood ratio for

    severe adverse outcomes was 5 for nonsmokers and 10 for smokers [91]. Severe

    outcome was defined as pre-eclampsia associated with delivery before 34 weeks,

    birth weight less than the 10th percentile associated with delivery before

    34 weeks, fetal death, or placental abruption.A multicenter study of 7851 women with singleton pregnancies in an

    unselected population showed that the sensitivity of transvaginally obtained

    uterine Doppler velocimetry with a PI of greater than 1.63 (95th percentile) at

    23 weeks is 93.3% for predicting pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction

    (FGR) and 56.3% for predicting FGR without pre-eclampsia when delivery

    occurred before 32 weeks [92]. The negative predictive values were 100% and

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764758

    http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-
  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    17/22

    99.9%, respectively. When all deliveries were included, the sensitivity decreased

    to 69% for prediction of pre-eclampsia and FGR and 13.2% for FGR without pre-

    eclampsia. When the screening test was PI greater than 1.63 or the presenceof bilateral notches, the sensitivity for pre-eclampsia and FGR increased to 100%

    and for FGR without pre-eclampsia to 68.8% in patients delivered before

    32 weeks, although the screen-positive rate increased from 5.1% to 11.9%.

    At this time, we are unable to alter the pathophysiology of the progres-

    sive disease process that is first evidenced by abnormal uterine artery Doppler

    velocimetry at 23 weeks. These fetuses may, however, benefit from closer

    antepartum surveillance.

    Summary

    The first step in the management of the IUGR fetus is diagnosis. Fundal height

    is the best screening tool, and ultrasound biometry is the best method for

    detecting the small fetus. Doppler velocimetry is the most important means

    of diagnosing the IUGR fetus who is at risk for adverse perinatal morbidity

    and mortality.

    It is difficult to determine the best time to deliver the IUGR fetus: one must balance the risks of prematurity with the risks of further intrauterine de-

    compensation. For the very preterm fetus, there may be some benefit to delaying

    delivery until after venous evidence of circulatory decompensation is present,

    but before the BPP becomes very abnormal. Two complicating factors in the

    management of IUGR are its varied causes and the fact that not all IUGR fetuses

    demonstrate the same patterns of decompensation. We need studies that compare

    Fig. 5. Demonstration of (A) normal uterine artery waveform and (B) uterine artery notching (arrow).

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 759

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    18/22

    NST, BPP, and Doppler surveillance to one another and to management strategies

    that combine them. Perhaps an integration of the testing modalities that reflect

    central nervous system phenomena (NST, BPP) and circulatory phenomena(Doppler velocimetry) will emerge as the best antepartum method of testing fetal

    well-being.

    References

    [1] Winick M. Cellular changes during placental and fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971;

    109:16676.

    [2] Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction

    of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:61320.

    [3] Robinson HP, Fleming JE. A critical evaluation of sonarbcrown-rump lengthQ measurements.

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:70210.

    [4] Drumm JE, Clinch J, MacKenzie G. The ultrasonic measurement of fetal crown-rump length

    as a method of assessing gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:41721.

    [5] Ville Y, Nyberg DA. Growth, Doppler and fetal assessment. In: Nyberg DA, McGahan JP,

    Pretorius DH, Pilu G, editors. Diagnostic imaging of fetal anomalies. Philadelphia7 Lippincott,

    Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 3158.

    [6] Chervenak FA, Skupski DW, Romero R, Myers MK, Smith-Levitin M, Rosenwaks Z, et al.

    How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;

    178:67887.[7] Manning F. Intrauterine growth restriction: diagnosis, prognostication, and management based

    on ultrasound methods. In: Fleischer AC, Manning F, Jeanty P, Romero R, editors. Sonography

    in obstetrics and gynecology: principles and practice. 6th edition. New York7 McGraw-Hill;

    2001. p. 61535.

    [8] Goldstein I, Lockwood C, Belanger K, Hobbins J. Ultrasonographic assessment of gesta-

    tional age with the distal femoral and proximal tibial ossification centers in the third trimester.

    Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:12730.

    [9] Goldstein I, Reece EA, OConnor TZ, Hobbins JC. Estimating gestational age in the term

    pregnancy with a model based on multiple indices of fetal maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol

    1989;161:12358.

    [10] Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight withthe use of head, body and femur measurementsa prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol

    1985;151:3337.

    [11] Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC. An evaluation of two

    equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:4754.

    [12] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauterine growth restriction. ACOG

    practice bulletin no. 12. Washington, DC7 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-

    gists; 2000.

    [13] Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:490 6.

    [14] Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Lucas MJ, Leveno KJ. Effects of symmetric and asymmetric fetal

    growth on pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:3217.

    [15] Fretts RC, Boyd ME, Usher RH, Usher HA. The changing pattern of fetal death, 19611988.Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:359.

    [16] Manning FA. Intrauterine growth retardation. In: Manning FA, editor. Fetal medicine: principles

    and practice. Norwalk (CT)7 Appleton and Lange; 1995.

    [17] McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity

    and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999;340:12348.

    [18] Gilbert WM, Danielsen B. Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction.

    Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1596 601.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764760

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    19/22

    [19] Gluck L, Kulovich MV. Lecithin/sphingomyelin ratios in amniotic fluid in normal and abnor-

    mal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;115:53946.

    [20] Procianoy RS, Garcia-Prats JA, Adams JM, Silvers A, Rudolph AJ. Hyaline membrane disease

    and intraventricular haemorrhage in small for gestational age infants. Arch Dis Child 1980;

    55:5025.

    [21] Pena IC, Teberg AJ, Finello KM. The premature small-for-gestational-age infant during the

    first year of life: comparison by birth weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1988;113:106673.

    [22] Bernstein IM, Horbar JD, Badger GJ, Ohlsson A, Golan A. For the Vermont Oxford Network.

    Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth-weight neonates with intrauterine growth

    restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:198206.

    [23] Larroque B, Bertrais S, Czernichow P, Leger J. School difficulties in 20-year-olds who were

    born small for gestational age at term in a regional cohort study. Pediatrics 2001;108:1115.

    [24] Strauss RS. Adult functional outcome of those born small for gestational age: twenty-six-

    year follow-up of the 1970 British Birth Cohort. JAMA 2000;283:62532.

    [25] Kanaka-Gantenbein C, Mastorakos G, Chrousos GP. Endocrine-related causes and consequences

    of intrauterine growth retardation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;997:1507.

    [26] Godfrey KM, Barker DJP. Fetal nutrition and adult disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71(Suppl):

    1344S52S.

    [27] Barker DJP. Fetal programming of coronary heart disease. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2002;

    13:3648.

    [28] Barker DJP, Winter PD, Osmond C, Margetts B, Simmonds SJ. Weight in infancy and death

    from ischaemic heart disease. Lancet 1989;2:577 80.

    [29] Belizan JM, Villar J, Nardin JC, Malamud J, Sainz de Vicuna L. Diagnosis of intrauterine

    growth retardation by a simple clinical method: measurement of uterine height. Am J Obstet

    Gynecol 1978;131:6436.[30] Quaranta P, Currell R. Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-

    fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981;88:1159.

    [31] Jensen OH, Larsen S. Evaluation of symphysis-fundus measurements and weighing during

    pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:136.

    [32] Walraven GE, Mkanje RJ, van Roosmalen J, van Dongen PW, van Asten AG, Dolmans WM.

    Single pre-delivery symphysis-fundal height measurement as a predictor of birthweight and

    multiple pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1995;102:5259.

    [33] Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap III LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Prenatal care.

    In: Williams obstetrics. 21st edition. New York7 McGraw Hill; 2001. p. 221 47.

    [34] Chang TC, Robson SC, Boys RJ, Spencer JAD. Prediction of the small for gestational age

    infant: which ultrasonic measurement is best? Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:10308.[35] Warsof SLK, Cooper DJ, Little D, Campbell S. Routine ultrasound screening for antena-

    tal detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:339.

    [36] Pearce JM, Campbell S. A comparison of symphysis-fundal height and ultrasound as screen-

    ing tests for light-for-gestational age infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:100 4.

    [37] Thompson RS, Trudinger BJ, Cook CM, Giles WB. Umbilical artery velocity waveforms:

    normal reference values for A/B ratio and Pourcelot ratio. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:

    58991.

    [38] Sebire NJ. Umbilical artery Doppler revisited: pathophysiology of changes in intrauterine

    growth restriction revealed. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:419 22.

    [39] Berkowitz GS, Mehalek KE, Chitkara U, Rosenberg J, Cogswell C, Berkowitz RL. Doppler

    velocimetry in the prediction of adverse outcome in pregnancies at risk for intrauterinegrowth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:742 6.

    [40] Gaziano EP, Knox E, Ferrera B, Brandt DG, Calvin SE, Knox GE. Is it time to reassess the

    risk for the growth retarded fetus with normal velocimetry of the umbilical artery? Am J Obstet

    Gynecol 1994;170:1734 41.

    [41] Brar H, Platt LD. Reverse end-diastolic flow velocity on umbilical artery velocimetry in high

    risk pregnancies: an ominous finding with adverse pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol

    1988;159:559 61.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 761

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    20/22

    [42] Karsdorp VHM, van Vugt JMG, van Geijn HP, Kostense PJ, Arduini D, Montenegro N, et al.

    Clinical significance of absent or reversed end diastolic velocity waveforms in umbilical artery.

    Lancet 1994;344:16648.

    [43] Zelop CM, Richardson DK, Heffner LJ. Outcomes of severely abnormal umbilical artery

    Doppler velocimetry in structurally normal singleton fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:4348.

    [44] Wienerroither H, Steiner H, Tomaselli J, Lobendanz M, Thun-Hohenstein L. Intrauterine

    blood flow and long-term intellectual, neurologic, and social development. Obstet Gynecol

    2001;97:44953.

    [45] Vogbeck S, de Camargo OK, Grab D, Bode H, Pohlandt F. Neonatal and neurodevelopmental

    outcome in infants born before 30 weeks of gestation with absent or reversed end-diastolic

    flow velocities in the umbilical artery. Eur J Pediatr 2001;160:12834.

    [46] Neilson JP, Alfirevic Z. Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies

    (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester (UK)7 John Wiley and

    Sons; 2004.

    [47] Hornbuckle J, Vail A, Spiegelhalter D, Levene M, Thornton JG, and GRIT study group.

    A randomized trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes

    and Bayesian interpretation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;110:2732.

    [48] Nienhuis SJ, Vles JSH, Gerver WJM, Hoogland HJ. Doppler ultrasonography in suspected

    intrauterine growth retardation: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;

    9:613.

    [49] Burke G, Stuart B, Crowley P, Scanaill SN, Drumm J. Is intrauterine growth retardation

    with normal umbilical artery blood flow a benign condition? BMJ 1990;300:10445.

    [50] Ott WJ. Intrauterine growth restriction and Doppler ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med

    2000;19:6615.

    [51] Baschat AA, Weiner CP. Umbilical artery Doppler screening for detection of the small fetusin need of antepartum surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1548.

    [52] McCowan LME, Harding JE, Roberts AB, Barker SE, Ford C, Stewart AW. A pilot randomized

    controlled trial of two regimens of fetal surveillance for small-for-gestational-age fetuses with

    normal results of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:816.

    [53] Mari G, Deter RL. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in normal and small-

    for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:126270.

    [54] Wladimiroff JW, Wijngaard JA, Degani S, Noordam MJ, Eyck J, Tonge HM. Cerebral

    and umbilical arterial blood flow velocity waveforms in normal and growth-retarded preg-

    nancies. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:7059.

    [55] Arbeille P, Roncin A, Berson M, Patat F, Pourcelot L. Exploration of the fetal cerebral blood

    flow by duplex Dopplerlinear array system in normal and pathological pregnancies. UltrasoundMed Biol 1987;13:32937.

    [56] Arbeille P. Fetal arterial DopplerIUGR and hypoxia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol

    1997;75:513.

    [57] Sterne G, Shields LE, Dubinsky TJ. Abnormal fetal cerebral and umbilical Doppler measure-

    ments in fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction predict the severity of perinatal morbidity.

    J Clin Ultrasound 2001;29:14651.

    [58] Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, Vadora E, Merialdi A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio

    as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:41620.

    [59] Bahado-Singh RO, Kovanci E, Jeffres A, Oz U, Deren O, Copel J, et al. The Doppler

    cerebroplacental ratio and perinatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet

    Gynecol 1999;180:7506.[60] Severi FM, Bocchi C, Visentin A, Falco P, Cobellis L, Florio P, et al. Uterine and fetal cerebral

    Doppler predict the outcome of third-trimester small-for-gestational age fetuses with normal

    umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:225 8.

    [61] Fong KW, Ohlsson A, Hannah ME, Grisaru S, Kingdom J, Cohen H, et al. Prediction of

    perinatal outcome in fetuses suspected to have intrauterine growth restriction: Doppler US

    study of fetal cerebral, renal, and umbilical arteries. Radiology 1999;213:6819.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764762

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    21/22

    [62] Hecher K, Campbell S. Characteristics of fetal venous blood flow under normal circumstances

    and during fetal disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:6883.

    [63] Kiserud T, Eik-Nes SH. Doppler velocimetry of the ductus venosus. In: Maulik D, editor.

    Doppler ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. New York7 Springer-Verlag; 1997. p. 40322.

    [64] Goncalves LF, Romero R, Silva M, Ghezzi F, Soto A, Munoz H, et al. Reverse flow in the

    ductus venosus: an ominous sign. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:266.

    [65] Ozcan T, Sbracia M, dAncona RL, Copel JA, Mari G. Arterial and venous Doppler velo-

    cimetry in the severely growth-restricted fetus and associations with adverse perinatal outcome.

    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:3944.

    [66] Hecher K, Campbell S, Doyle P, Harrington K, Nicolaides K. Assessment of fetal compromise

    by Doppler ultrasound investigation of the fetal circulation. Circulation 1995;91:12938.

    [67] Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Weiner CP, Harman CR. Qualitative venous Doppler waveform

    analysis improves prediction of critical perinatal outcomes in premature growth-restricted

    fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:2405.

    [68] Bilardo CM, Wolf H, Stigter RH, Ville Y, Baez E, Visser GHA, et al. Relationship between

    monitoring parameters and perinatal outcome in severe, early intrauterine growth restriction.

    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:119 25.

    [69] Mari G. Arterial blood flow velocity waveforms of the pelvis and lower extremities in normal

    and growth-retarded fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:14351.

    [70] Abuhamad AZ, Mari G, Bogdan D, Evans III AT. Doppler flow velocimetry of the splenic artery

    in the human fetus: is it a marker of chronic hypoxia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:8205.

    [71] Mari G, Abuhamad AZ, Uerpairojkit B, Martinez E, Copel JA. Blood flow velocity waveforms

    of the abdominal arteries in appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound

    Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:158.

    [72] Mari G, Deter RL, Uerpairojkit B. Flow velocity waveforms of the ductus arteriosus inappropriate and small-for-gestational age fetuses. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:18596.

    [73] Uerpairojkit B, Chan L, Reece AE, Martinez E, Mari G. Cerebellar Doppler velocimetry in

    the appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:989 93.

    [74] Mari G, Uerpairojkit B, Abuhamad AZ, Copel J. Adrenal artery velocity waveforms in the

    appropriate and small-for-gestational age fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:82 6.

    [75] Abuhamad AZ, Mari G, Cortina RM, Croitoru DP, Evans AT. Superior mesenteric artery Doppler

    velocimetry and ultrasonographic assessment of fetal bowel in gastroschisis: a prospective

    longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:98590.

    [76] Rhee E, Detti L, Mari G. Superior mesenteric artery flow velocity waveforms in small

    for gestational age fetuses. J Matern Fetal Med 1998;7:120 3.

    [77] Mari G, Wasserstrum N. Flow velocity waveforms of the fetal circulation preceding fetaldeath in a case of lupus anticoagulant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164:7768.

    [78] Hecher K, Bilardo CM, Stigter RH, Ville Y, Hackeloer BJ, Kok HJ, et al. Monitoring of

    fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol

    2001;18:56470.

    [79] Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Harman CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and bio-

    physical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;

    18:5717.

    [80] Ferrazzi E, Bozzo M, Rigano S, Bellotti M, Morabito A, Pardi G, et al. Temporal sequence

    of abnormal Doppler changes in the peripheral and central circulatory systems of the severely

    growth-restricted fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:140 6.

    [81] Visser GH. Abnormal antepartum fetal heart rate patterns and subsequent handicap. BaillieresClin Obstet Gynaecol 1998;2:11724.

    [82] Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999;26:557 77.

    [83] Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile scoring. In: Fetal medicine, principles and practice.

    Norwalk (CT)7 Appleton & Lange; 1995. p. 237.

    [84] Manning FA, Bondaji N, Harman CR, Casiro O, Menticoglou S, Morrison I, et al. Fetal

    assessment by fetal biophysical profile score. VI. The incidence of cerebral palsy among

    tested and non-tested perinates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:696706.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764 763

  • 8/6/2019 rciu perinatolo

    22/22

    [85] Alfirevic Z, Neilson JP. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies

    (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester (UK)7 John Wiley &

    Sons; 2004.

    [86] Deren O, Karaer C, Onderoglu L, Yigit N, Durukan T, Bahado-Singh RO. The effect of steroids

    on the biophysical profile and Doppler indices of umbilical and middle cerebral arteries in

    healthy preterm fetuses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;99:726.

    [87] Rotmensch S, Liberati M, Celentano C, Efrat Z, Bar-Hava I, Kovo M, et al. The effect

    of betamethasone on fetal biophysical activities and Doppler velocimetry of umbilical and

    middle cerebral arteries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:76873.

    [88] Schaap AH, Wolf H, Bruinse HW, Smolders-de Haas H, Van Ertbruggen I, Treffers PE. Effects

    of antenatal corticosteroid administration on mortality and long-term morbidity in early

    preterm, growth-restricted infants. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:954 60.

    [89] Elimian A, Verma U, Canterino J, Shah J, Visintainer P, Tejani N. Effectiveness of antenatal

    steroids in obstetric subgroups. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:1749.

    [90] Simchen MJ, Alkazaleh F, Adamson SL, Windrim R, Telford J, Beyene J, et al. The fetal

    cardiovascular response to antenatal steroids in severe early-onset intrauterine growth restriction.

    Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:296304.

    [91] Lees C, Parra M, Missfelder-Lobos H, Morgans A, Fletcher O, Nicolaides KH. Individualized

    risk assessment for adverse pregnancy outcome by uterine artery Doppler at 23 weeks. Obstet

    Gynecol 2001;98:36973.

    [92] Papgeorghiou AT, Yu CKH, Bindra R, Pandis G, Nicolaides KH for the Fetal Medicine

    Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Multicenter screening for preeclampsia and

    fetal growth restriction by transvaginal uterine artery Doppler at 23 weeks of gestation.

    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18:4419.

    U.F. Harkness, G. Mari / Clin Perinatol 31 (2004) 743764764