S'abonner

Clinical significance of umbilical artery intermittent vs persistent absent end-diastolic velocity in growth-restricted fetuses - 23/08/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.005 
Katherine H. Bligard, MD, MA , Xinyuan Xu, BS, Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MSCI, Jeffrey M. Dicke, MD, Anthony O. Odibo, MD, MSCE, Antonina I. Frolova, MD, PhD
 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 

Corresponding author: Katherine H. Bligard, MD, MA.

Abstract

Background

Umbilical artery absent end-diastolic velocity indicates increased placental resistance and is associated with increased risk of perinatal demise and neonatal morbidity in fetal growth restriction. However, the clinical implications of intermittent vs persistent absent end-diastolic velocity are unclear.

Objective

We compared umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry changes during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between pregnancies with fetal growth restriction and intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity and those with persistent absent end-diastolic velocity.

Study Design

In this retrospective study of singletons with fetal growth restriction and absent end-diastolic velocity, umbilical artery Doppler abnormalities were classified as follows: intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity (<50% of cardiac cycles with absent end-diastolic velocity) and persistent absent end-diastolic velocity (≥50% of cardiac cycles with absent end-diastolic velocity). The primary outcome was umbilical artery Doppler progression to reversed end-diastolic velocity. Secondary outcomes included sustained umbilical artery Doppler improvement, latency to delivery, gestational age at delivery, neonatal morbidity composite, rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, and length of neonatal intensive care unit stay. Outcomes were compared between intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity and persistent absent end-diastolic velocity. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the percentage of waveforms with absent end-diastolic velocity in predicting the neonatal composite. The Youden index was used to calculate the optimal absent end-diastolic velocity percentage cut-point for predicting the neonatal composite.

Results

Of the 77 patients included, 38 had intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity and 39 had persistent absent end-diastolic velocity. Maternal characteristics, including age, parity, and preexisting conditions did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Progression to reversed end-diastolic velocity was less common in intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity than in persistent absent end-diastolic velocity (7.9% vs 25.6%; odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.99). Sustained umbilical artery Doppler improvement was more common in intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity than in persistent absent end-diastolic velocity (50.0% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 8.75; 95% confidence interval, 2.60–29.5). Pregnancies with intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity had longer latency to delivery than those with persistent absent end-diastolic velocity (11 vs 3 days; P<.01), and later gestational age at delivery (33.9 vs 28.7 weeks; P<.01). Composite neonatal morbidity was less common in the intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity group (55.3% vs 92.3%; P<.01). Neonatal death occurred in 7.9% of intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity cases and 33.3% of persistent absent end-diastolic velocity cases (P<.01). The differences in neonatal outcomes were no longer significant when controlling for gestational age at delivery. The percentage of cardiac cycles with absent end-diastolic velocity was a modest predictor of neonatal morbidity, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.84). The optimal percentage cut-point for fetal cardiac cycles with absent end-diastolic velocity observed at the sentinel ultrasound for predicting neonatal morbidity was calculated to be 47.7%, with a sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 85%.

Conclusions

Compared with persistent absent end-diastolic velocity, diagnosis of intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity in the setting of fetal growth restriction is associated with lower rates of progression to reversed end-diastolic velocity, higher likelihood of umbilical artery Doppler improvement, longer latency to delivery, and higher gestational age at delivery, leading to lower rates of neonatal morbidity and death. Our data support using an absent end-diastolic velocity percentage cut-point in 50% of cardiac cycles to differentiate intermittent absent end-diastolic velocity from persistent absent end-diastolic velocity. This differentiation in growth-restricted fetuses with absent end-diastolic velocity may allow further risk stratification.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : absent end-diastolic velocity, Doppler, end-diastolic flow, end-diastolic velocity, fetal growth restriction, intrauterine growth restriction, neonatal death, reversed end-diastolic velocity, stillbirth, velocimetry


Plan


 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 Cite this article as: Bligard KH, Xu X, Raghuraman N, et al. Clinical significance of umbilical artery intermittent vs persistent absent end-diastolic velocity in growth-restricted fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227:519.e1-9.


© 2022  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 227 - N° 3

P. 519.e1-519.e9 - septembre 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Beyond stillbirth: association of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy severity and adverse outcomes
  • Minhazur Sarker, Andres Ramirez Zamudio, Chelsea DeBolt, Lauren Ferrara
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Impact of implementation of the Maternal-Fetal Triage Index on patients presenting with severe hypertension
  • Eva Hoffmann, Kristie Wilburn-Wren, Shena J. Dillon, Amarily Barahona, Donald D. McIntire, David B. Nelson

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.