Stefopoulou Maria, Johnson Jonas, Lindgren Peter, Acharya Ganesh
Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet and Center for Fetal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, 141 86, Sweden.
Women's Health and Perinatology Research Group, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Sci Rep. 2025 Mar 27;15(1):10610. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-94621-x.
Cerebral hemodynamic adaptation in fetal growth restriction (FGR) is primarily assessed using middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler and cerebroplacental (CPR) or umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR). The superior vena cava (SVC) blood flow may provide additional hemodynamic insights. Our objective was to evaluate fetal SVC blood flow velocities, pulsatility index for vein (PIV), volume blood flow (QSVC), and volume blood flow (Q)-based indices of fetal brain sparing in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and FGR fetuses in the third trimester of pregnancy and compare with appropriately grown (AGA) fetuses. This was a prospective cohort study of 40 non-anomalous, singleton fetuses during 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 gestational weeks. Fetuses with abdominal circumference or estimated fetal weight below the 10th percentile were classified into SGA and FGR groups based on Delphi criteria. Doppler velocimetry of the umbilical artery (UA), umbilical vein (UV), fetal MCA and SVC was performed. UV and SVC diameters were measured, and their volume blood flows, i.e. QUV and QSVC were calculated. Both pulsatility index (PI)-based and Q-based indices of fetal brain sparing were calculated and compared to previously reported reference ranges for AGA fetuses using z-scores. In our study population, z-scores of SVC velocities (except the end-diastolic A-wave velocity) and PIV were significantly lower than the gestational age-specific mean values for AGA fetuses (p-values 0.005 to 0.018). Similarly, z-scores of SVC diameter (p < 0.001), QSVC normalized to fetal weight (QSVCw) (p < 0.001), blood flow volume-based QCPR (p < 0.001) were higher and QUCR (p < 0.001) was lower. However, z-scores of PI-based CPR (p = 0.195), UCR (p = 0.195), and the end-diastolic (A wave) velocity (p = 0.177) were not significantly different compared to AGA fetuses. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the FGR fetuses (n = 21) had increased SVC diameter (p < 0.001), QSVCw (p < 0.001), QCPR (p < 0.001), UCR (p < 0.001), and decreased CPR (p < 0.001), QUCR (p < 0.001) and SVC PIV (p = 0.030), but no significant change in velocities was observed compared to AGA fetuses (n = 98) of similar gestational age. The SGA fetuses (n = 19) had decreased SVC S velocity (p = 0.013), D velocity (p = 0.005), TAMxV (p = 0.030), PIV (p = 0.005), QUCR (p = 0.014), and increased SVC diameter (p = 0.026), QSVCw (p = 0.034) and QCPR (p = 0.014) in comparison to AGA fetuses. When compared to SGA fetuses, the FGR fetuses had significantly lower QUVw (60.5 ± 19.7 vs. 80.1 ± 20.2 ml/min/kg, p = 0.004), QUCR (0.79 ± 0.45 vs. 1.34 ± 0.52 p < 0.001) and birthweight (2181 ± 577 vs. 2848 ± 330 g, p < 0.001) but higher QSVCw (91.82 ± 39.56 vs. 65.53 ± 17.79 ml/min/kg, p = 0.039) and QCPR (1.63 ± 0.74 vs. 0.90 ± 0.45, p < 0.001). In conclusion, third-trimester fetuses < 10th percentile had significantly increased SVC diameter, resulting in increased QSVCw in SGA and FGR despite reduced or unchanged TAMxV. Significantly altered QCPR and QUCR confirmed circulatory redistribution with increased brain and upper body venous return both in FGR and SGA fetuses. However, as the magnitude of increase in QSVCw and QCPR was significantly larger in FGR compared to SGA fetuses, it could be potentially used as a quantifiable marker to differentiate FGR from SGA. The role of SVC Doppler in refining the diagnosis of late FGR should be further investigated.
胎儿生长受限(FGR)时的脑血流动力学适应主要通过大脑中动脉(MCA)多普勒以及脑胎盘率(CPR)或脐脑比(UCR)进行评估。上腔静脉(SVC)血流可能提供额外的血流动力学信息。我们的目的是评估妊娠晚期小于胎龄(SGA)和FGR胎儿的胎儿SVC血流速度、静脉搏动指数(PIV)、血流量(QSVC)以及基于血流量(Q)的胎儿脑保护指标,并与正常生长(AGA)胎儿进行比较。这是一项对40例孕32⁺⁰至36⁺⁶周的非畸形单胎胎儿进行的前瞻性队列研究。根据德尔菲标准,将腹围或估计胎儿体重低于第10百分位数的胎儿分为SGA和FGR组。对脐动脉(UA)、脐静脉(UV)、胎儿MCA和SVC进行多普勒测速。测量UV和SVC直径,并计算其血流量,即QUV和QSVC。计算基于搏动指数(PI)和基于Q的胎儿脑保护指标,并使用z分数与先前报道的AGA胎儿参考范围进行比较。在我们的研究人群中,SVC速度(舒张末期A波速度除外)和PIV的z分数显著低于AGA胎儿的孕周特异性平均值(p值为0.005至0.018)。同样,SVC直径(p<0.001)、标准化至胎儿体重的QSVC(QSVCw)(p<0.001)、基于血流量的QCPR(p<0.001)的z分数较高,而QUCR(p<0.001)较低。然而,基于PI的CPR(p = 0.195)、UCR(p = 0.195)和舒张末期(A波)速度(p = 0.177)的z分数与AGA胎儿相比无显著差异。亚组分析表明,FGR胎儿(n = 21)的SVC直径(p<0.001)、QSVCw(p<0.001)、QCPR(p<0.001)、UCR(p<0.001)增加,而CPR(p<0.001)、QUCR(p<0.001)和SVC PIV(p = 0.030)降低,但与相似孕周的AGA胎儿(n = 98)相比,速度无显著变化。SGA胎儿(n = 19)与AGA胎儿相比,SVC S速度(p = 0.013)、D速度(p = 0.005)、TAMxV(p = 0.030)、PIV(p = 0.005)、QUCR(p = 0.014)降低,而SVC直径(p = 0.026)、QSVCw(p = 0.034)和QCPR(p = 0.014)增加。与SGA胎儿相比,FGR胎儿的QUVw显著降低(60.5±19.7 vs. 80.1±20.2 ml/min/kg,p = 0.004)、QUCR(0.79±0.45 vs. 1.34±0.52,p<0.001)和出生体重(2181±577 vs. 2848±330 g,p<0.001),但QSVCw(91.82±39.56 vs. 65.53±17.79 ml/min/kg,p = 0.039)和QCPR(1.63±0.74 vs. 0.90±0.45,p<0.001)较高。总之,孕晚期第10百分位数以下的胎儿SVC直径显著增加,导致SGA和FGR胎儿的QSVCw增加,尽管TAMxV降低或不变。显著改变的QCPR和QUCR证实了FGR和SGA胎儿的循环再分布,脑和上身静脉回流增加。然而,由于FGR胎儿的QSVCw和QCPR增加幅度显著大于SGA胎儿,它可能作为区分FGR和SGA的可量化标志物。SVC多普勒在完善晚期FGR诊断中的作用应进一步研究。