Abstract
Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the value of fetal cerebro-placental Doppler ratio (CPR) in predicting adverse perinatal outcome in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction (FGR).
Methods: Three databases were used: MEDLINE, EMBASE (with online Ovid interface) and SCOPUS and studies from inception to April 2015 were included. Studies that reported perinatal outcomes of fetuses at risk of FGR or sonographically diagnosed FGR that were evaluated with CPR were considered eligible. Perinatal outcomes include cesarean section (CS) for fetal distress, APGAR scores at 5 min, neonatal complications and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Pooled data were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and confidence intervals (CI), and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was used to illustrate the diagnostic accuracy of CPR.
Results: Seven studies were eligible (1428 fetuses). Fetuses with abnormal CPR were at higher risk of CS for fetal distress (OR=4.49, 95% CI [1.63, 12.42]), lower APGAR scores (OR=4.01, 95% CI [2.65, 6.08]), admission to NICU (OR=9.65, 95% CI [3.02, 30.85]), and neonatal complications (OR=11.00, 95% [3.64, 15.37]) than fetuses who had normal CPR. These risks were higher among studies that included fetuses diagnosed with FGR than fetuses at risk of FGR. Abnormal CPR had higher diagnostic accuracy for adverse perinatal outcomes among “sonographically diagnosed FGR” studies than “at risk of FGR” studies.
Conclusion: Abnormal CPR is associated with substantial risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The test seems to be particularly useful for follow up of fetuses with sonographically diagnosed FGR.
References
[1] Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, Kennelly MM, McAuliffe FM, O’Donoghue K, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:290. e1–6.10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.007Search in Google Scholar
[2] Peleg D, Kennedy CM, Hunter SK. Intrauterine growth restriction: identification and management. Am Fam Physician. 1998;58:453–70.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Barker DJ. Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:270–83.10.1097/00003081-200606000-00009Search in Google Scholar
[4] Mari G, Tate DL. Detection and surveillance of IUGR. Contemporary ob/gyn; October 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[5] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 134: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:1122–33.10.1097/01.AOG.0000429658.85846.f9Search in Google Scholar
[6] Morris R, Say R, Robssson S, Kleijnen J, Khan K. Systematic review and meta-analysis of middle cerebral artery Doppler to predict perinatal wellbeing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:141–55.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.027Search in Google Scholar
[7] Baschat A, Gembruch U. The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio revisited. Ultrasound Obst Gyn. 2003;21:124–7.10.1002/uog.20Search in Google Scholar
[8] Arbeille P, Maulik D, Fignon A, Stale H, Berson M, Bodard S, et al. Assessment of the fetal PO2 changes by cerebral and umbilical Doppler on lamb fetuses during acute hypoxia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995;21:861–70.10.1016/0301-5629(95)00025-MSearch in Google Scholar
[9] 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;180:750–6.10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70283-8Search in Google Scholar
[10] Makhseed M, Jirous J, Ahmed M, Viswanathan D. Middle cerebral artery to umbilical artery resistance index ratio in the prediction of neonatal outcome. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2000;71:119–25.10.1016/S0020-7292(00)00262-9Search in Google Scholar
[11] Odibo AO, Riddick C, Pare E, Stamilio DM, Macones GA. Cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and adverse perinatal outcomes in intrauterine growth restriction evaluating the impact of using gestational age–specific reference values. J Ultras Med. 2005;24:1223–8.10.7863/jum.2005.24.9.1223Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, Vadora E, Merialdi A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:416–20.10.1097/00006250-199203000-00018Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Petersen J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
[14] DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials. 1986;7:177–88.10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2Search in Google Scholar
[15] Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.10.1002/sim.1186Search in Google Scholar
[16] Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 53 Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[17] Habek D, Jugović D, Hodek B, Herman R, Matičević A, Habek JČ, et al. Fetal biophysical profile and cerebro-umbilical ratio in assessment of brain damage in growth restricted fetuses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;114:29–34.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.039Search in Google Scholar
[18] Regan J, Masters H, Warshak C. Association between an abnormal cerebroplacental ratio and the development of severe pre-eclampsia. J Perinat. 2014;35:322–7.10.1038/jp.2014.210Search in Google Scholar
[19] Shahinaj R, Manoku N, Kroi E, Tasha I. The value of the middle cerebral to umbilical artery Doppler ratio in the prediction of neonatal outcome in patient with preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. J Prenat Med. 2010;4:17–21.Search in Google Scholar
[20] Singh M, Sharma A, Singh P. Role of Doppler indices in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in preeclampsia. Natl J Med Res. 2013;3:315–8.Search in Google Scholar
[21] Arias F. Fetus-placenta-newborn: accuracy of the middle-cerebral-to-umbilical-artery resistance index ratio in the prediction of neonatal outcome in patients at high risk for fetal and neonatal complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:1541–5.10.1016/0002-9378(94)90398-0Search in Google Scholar
[22] Morris R, Malin G, Robson S, Kleijnen J, Zamora J, Khan K. Fetal umbilical artery Doppler to predict compromise of fetal/neonatal wellbeing in a high-risk population: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obst Gyn. 2011;37:135–42.10.1002/uog.7767Search in Google Scholar
[23] Dubiel M, Gudmundsson S, Gunnarsson G, Marsál K. Middle cerebral artery velocimetry as a predictor of hypoxemia in fetuses with increased resistance to blood flow in the umbilical artery. Early Hum Dev. 1997;47:177–84.10.1016/S0378-3782(96)01777-XSearch in Google Scholar
[24] Devine PA, Bracero LA, Lysikiewicz A, Evans R, Womack S, Byrne DW. Middle cerebral to umbilical artery Doppler ratio in post-date pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:856–60.Search in Google Scholar
Supplemental Material:
The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2015-0274) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
©2016 by De Gruyter
