Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Sep;227(3):519.e1-519.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.005. Epub 2022 Jun 10.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
脐动脉无舒张末期速度表明胎盘阻力增加,与胎儿生长受限的围产儿死亡和新生儿发病率增加相关。然而,间歇性和持续性无舒张末期速度的临床意义尚不清楚。
我们比较了胎儿生长受限且无舒张末期速度的孕妇中,脐动脉多普勒血流速度变化与间歇性无舒张末期速度和持续性无舒张末期速度的妊娠之间的新生儿结局。
在这项对胎儿生长受限且无舒张末期速度的单胎妊娠的回顾性研究中,将脐动脉多普勒异常分为以下几类:间歇性无舒张末期速度(<50%的心动周期无舒张末期速度)和持续性无舒张末期速度(≥50%的心动周期无舒张末期速度)。主要结局是脐动脉多普勒向反向舒张末期速度进展。次要结局包括持续的脐动脉多普勒改善、分娩潜伏期、分娩时的胎龄、新生儿复合发病率、新生儿重症监护病房入院率和新生儿重症监护病房住院时间。比较了间歇性无舒张末期速度和持续性无舒张末期速度之间的结果。使用多变量逻辑回归来调整混杂因素。绘制受试者工作特征曲线以评估无舒张末期速度的心动周期百分比预测新生儿复合发病率的敏感性和特异性。使用约登指数计算预测新生儿复合发病率的最佳无舒张末期速度百分比截断值。
在纳入的 77 例患者中,38 例为间歇性无舒张末期速度,39 例为持续性无舒张末期速度。两组间的母体特征,包括年龄、产次和既往疾病,差异无统计学意义。与持续性无舒张末期速度相比,间歇性无舒张末期速度向反向舒张末期速度进展的发生率较低(7.9% vs 25.6%;比值比,0.25;95%置信区间,0.06-0.99)。与持续性无舒张末期速度相比,间歇性无舒张末期速度的脐动脉多普勒持续改善更为常见(50.0% vs 10.3%;比值比,8.75;95%置信区间,2.60-29.5)。与持续性无舒张末期速度相比,间歇性无舒张末期速度的分娩潜伏期更长(11 天 vs 3 天;P<.01),分娩时的胎龄也更晚(33.9 周 vs 28.7 周;P<.01)。间歇性无舒张末期速度组的新生儿复合发病率较低(55.3% vs 92.3%;P<.01)。在间歇性无舒张末期速度病例中,新生儿死亡发生率为 7.9%,在持续性无舒张末期速度病例中为 33.3%(P<.01)。当控制分娩时的胎龄时,新生儿结局的差异不再显著。无舒张末期速度的心动周期百分比是新生儿发病率的一个中等预测指标,受试者工作特征曲线下面积为 0.71(95%置信区间,0.58-0.84)。预测新生儿发病率的最佳无舒张末期速度的胎儿心动周期百分比截断值计算为 47.7%,灵敏度为 65%,特异性为 85%。
与持续性无舒张末期速度相比,在胎儿生长受限的情况下诊断为间歇性无舒张末期速度,与向反向舒张末期速度进展的发生率较低、脐动脉多普勒改善的可能性较高、分娩潜伏期较长以及分娩时的胎龄较高相关,从而导致新生儿发病率和死亡率较低。我们的数据支持使用 50%的心动周期无舒张末期速度百分比来区分间歇性无舒张末期速度和持续性无舒张末期速度。这种在无舒张末期速度的胎儿生长受限中的区分可能允许进一步的风险分层。