Grivell Rosalie M, Wong Lufee, Bhatia Vineesh
Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;2012(6):CD007113. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007113.pub3.
Policies and protocols for fetal surveillance in the pregnancy where impaired fetal growth is suspected vary widely, with numerous combinations of different surveillance methods.
To assess the effects of antenatal fetal surveillance regimens on important perinatal and maternal outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 February 2012).
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the effects of described antenatal fetal surveillance regimens.
Review authors R Grivell and L Wong independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data.
We included one trial of 167 women and their babies. This trial was a pilot study recruiting alongside another study, therefore, a separate sample size was not calculated. The trial compared a twice-weekly surveillance regimen (biophysical profile, nonstress tests, umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery Doppler and uterine artery Doppler) with the same regimen applied fortnightly (both groups had growth assessed fortnightly). There were insufficient data to assess this review's primary infant outcome of composite perinatal mortality and serious morbidity (although there were no perinatal deaths) and no difference was seen in the primary maternal outcome of emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (risk ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.63). In keeping with the more frequent monitoring, mean gestational age at birth was four days less for the twice-weekly surveillance group compared with the fortnightly surveillance group (mean difference (MD) -4.00; 95% CI -7.79 to -0.21). Women in the twice-weekly surveillance group were 25% more likely to have induction of labour than those in the fortnightly surveillance group (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform best practice for fetal surveillance regimens when caring for women with pregnancies affected by impaired fetal growth. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects of currently used fetal surveillance regimens in impaired fetal growth.
对于疑似胎儿生长受限的妊娠,胎儿监护的政策和方案差异很大,有多种不同监护方法的组合。
评估产前胎儿监护方案对重要围产期和产妇结局的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠和分娩组试验注册库(2012年2月29日)。
比较所述产前胎儿监护方案效果的随机和半随机试验。
综述作者R·格里维尔和L·黄独立评估试验的合格性和质量并提取数据。
我们纳入了一项涉及167名妇女及其婴儿的试验。该试验是一项与另一项研究同时进行的试点研究,因此未计算单独的样本量。该试验比较了每周两次的监护方案(生物物理评分、无应激试验、脐动脉和大脑中动脉多普勒以及子宫动脉多普勒)与每两周应用一次的相同方案(两组均每两周评估一次生长情况)。没有足够的数据来评估本综述关于围产期综合死亡率和严重发病率的主要婴儿结局(尽管没有围产期死亡);在因胎儿窘迫而行急诊剖宫产的主要产妇结局方面未观察到差异(风险比(RR)0.96;95%置信区间(CI)0.35至2.63)。与更频繁的监测一致,每周两次监护组的平均出生孕周比每两周监护组少4天(平均差(MD)-4.00;95%CI -7.79至-0.21)。每周两次监护组的妇女引产的可能性比每两周监护组高25%(RR 1.25;95%CI 1.04至1.50)。
随机对照试验提供的证据有限,无法为照顾受胎儿生长受限影响的妊娠妇女时胎儿监护方案的最佳实践提供参考。需要更多研究来评估当前使用的胎儿监护方案对胎儿生长受限的影响。