4.5 Article

Placental insufficiency among high-risk pregnancies with a normal umbilical artery resistance index after 32 weeks

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.038

关键词

Doppler; Fetal growth restriction; Third trimester; Ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the incidence of abnormal multi-vessel Doppler values among advanced pregnancies at risk of suboptimal placentation but with a normal umbilical artery resistance index (RI), and to assess whether clinical and ultrasonography findings can identify them. Methods: In a prospective cross-sectional study at Tygerberg Hospital, South Africa, women with high-risk pregnancies but normal umbilical artery RI after 32 weeks underwent ultrasonography (fetal biometry, liquor, and placenta maturation) and Doppler assessment (uterine, umbilical, and middle cerebral arteries) between February 11 and October 21, 2013. Study data were compared among four groups: fetuses with normal uterofetoplacental Doppler values and those with any abnormal pulsatility index, each subdivided into small for gestational age (SGA) and appropriate for gestational age (AGA) by estimated fetal weight. Results: Of 210 participants, 72 (36.2%) had abnormal Doppler results, and 60 (28.6%) fetuses were SGA (38 [63.3%1 with abnormal Doppler results). Clinical characteristics did not differ between groups with normal or abnormal Doppler values; however, among normal Doppler results, SGA pregnancies demonstrated poorer fundal growth (P=0.006). Significant associations existed between abnormal Doppler results and asymmetric growth, inappropriately advanced placental maturation, and reduced liquor volume (all 130.04), but with very low sensitivities (3.9%, 4.8%, and 14.5%, respectively). Conclusion: Maternal characteristics and imaging variables did not reliably identify more than one-third of pregnancies with evidence of suboptimal placentation. (C) 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据