Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reduced fetal movements at term, low-risk pregnancies: is it associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes? Ten years of experience from a single tertiary center

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to assess the outcomes of low-risk pregnancies complicated by isolated reduced fetal movements (RFM) at term.

Study design

The study population were patients at term, with singleton, low-risk, pregnancies who presented to our obstetric-triage and delivered during the subsequent 2 weeks. The study group included patients with an isolated complaint of RFM (RFM group). The control group included patients without history of RFM (control group). The pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes were compared between the groups. Severe and mild composites of adverse neonatal outcomes were defined. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify independent association with adverse neonatal outcomes.

Results

Among the 13,338 pregnant women, 2762 (20.7%) were included in the RFM group and 10,576 (79.3%) in the control group. The RFM group had higher rates of nulliparity (p < 0.001), and smoking (p < 0.001). At admission, the RFM group had higher rates of IUFD (p < 0.001). The RFM group had higher rates of Cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal monitor (p < 0.001), and mild adverse neonatal outcomes (p = 0.001). RFM was associated with mild adverse outcome independent of background confounders (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–2.6, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients presented with isolated RFM at term had higher rates of IUFD at presentation and significant adverse outcomes at delivery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Froen JF (2004) A kick from within—fetal movement counting and the cancelled progress in antenatal care. J Perinat Med 32:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2004.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mangesi L, Hofmeyr GJ, Smith V, Smyth RMD (2015) Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004909.pub3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grant A, Hepburn M (1984) Merits of an individualized approach to fetal movement counting compared with fixed-time and fixed-number methods. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 91:1087–1090

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith CV, Davis SA, Rayburn WF (1992) Patients’ acceptance of monitoring fetal movement. A randomized comparison of charting techniques. J Reprod Med 37:144–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Christensen FC, Olson K, Rayburn WF (2003) Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 14:118–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gomez LM, De la Vega G, Padilla L, Bautista F, Villar A (2007) Compliance with a fetal movement chart by high-risk obstetric patients in a Peruvian hospital. Am J Perinatol 24:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-958160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sadovsky E, Ohel G, Simon A, Aboulafia Y (1986) Decreased fetal activity in complications of pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 24:443–446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sadovsky E, Polishuk WZ (1977) Fetal movements in utero: nature, assessment, prognostic value, timing of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 50:49–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stacey T, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA, Med D, Ekeroma A, Zuccollo J, Mccowan LME (2011) Maternal perception of fetal activity and late stillbirth risk: findings from the Auckland stillbirth study. Birth 38:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heazell AEP, Froen JF (2008) Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610801912618

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sadovsky E, Yaffe H (1973) Daily fetal movement recording and fetal prognosis. Obstet Gynecol 41:845–850

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sadovsky E, Mahler Y, Polishuk WZ, Malkin A (1973) Correlation between electromagnetic recording and maternal assessment of fetal movement. Lancet 301:1141–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(73)91144-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rayburn WF (1980) Clinical significance of perceptible fetal motion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 138:210–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Timor-Tritsch I, Zador I, Hertz RH, Rosen MG (1976) Classification of human fetal movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 126:70–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Holm Tveit JV, Saastad E, Stray-Pedersen B, Børdahl PE, Frøen JF (2009) Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in women presenting with decreased fetal movements in late pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88:1345–1351. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903348375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Sullivan O, Stephen G, Martindale E, Heazell AEP (2009) Predicting poor perinatal outcome in women who present with decreased fetal movements. J Obstet Gynaecol 29:705–710. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903229598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sinha D, Sharma A, Nallaswamy V, Jayagopal N, Bhatti N (2007) Obstetric outcome in women complaining of reduced fetal movements. J Obstet Gynaecol 27:41–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610601016909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tveit JVH, Saastad E, Stray-Pedersen B, Bordahl PE, Froen JF (2010) Concerns for decreased foetal movements in uncomplicated pregnancies—increased risk of foetal growth restriction and stillbirth among women being overweight, advanced age or smoking. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23:1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903511578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sival DA, Visser GH, Prechtl HF (1992) The relationship between the quantity and quality of prenatal movements in pregnancies complicated by intra-uterine growth retardation and premature rupture of the membranes. Early Hum Dev 30:193–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bradford BF, Thompson JMD, Heazell AEP, Mccowan LME, McKinlay CJD (2018) Understanding the associations and significance of fetal movements in overweight or obese pregnant women: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2011 118: antiphospholipid syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 117:192–199. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820a61f9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2013 138: inherited thrombophilias in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122:706–717. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000433981.36184.4e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No 2009 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113:451–461. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819930b0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. American Diabetes Association (2003) Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26(Suppl 1):S5–S20. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.2007.s5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists’ task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122:1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000437382.03963.88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kehl S, Schelkle A, Thomas A, Puhl A, Meqdad K, Tuschy B, Berlit S, Weiss C, Bayer C, Heimrich J, Dammer U, Raabe E, Winkler M, Faschingbauer F, Beckmann MW, Sutterlin M (2016) Single deepest vertical pocket or amniotic fluid index as evaluation test for predicting adverse pregnancy outcome (SAFE trial): a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:674–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14924

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES (2005) Birthweight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7:311–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrington K, Thompson O, Jordan L, Page J, Harrington K (1998) Obstetric outcome in women who present with a reduction in fetal movements in the third trimester of pregnancy. J Perinat Med 26:77–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Whitty JE, Garfinkel DA, Divon MY (1991) Maternal perception of decreased fetal movement as an indication for antepartum testing in a low-risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:1084–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(91)90476-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhatia M, Mitsi V, Court L, Thampi P, El-Nasharty M, Hesham S, Randall W, Davies R, Impey L (2019) The outcomes of pregnancies with reduced fetal movements: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 98:1450–1454. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heazell AEP, Sumathi GM, Bhatti NR (2005) What investigation is appropriate following maternal perception of reduced fetal movements? J Obstet Gynaecol 25:648–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610500278303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded by any organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Edith Wolfson Medical Center (affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, P.O Box 5, 58100, Holon, Israel

    Michal Levy, Michal Kovo, Giulia Barda, Ohad Gluck, Liron Koren, Jacob Bar & Eran Weiner

Authors
  1. Michal Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michal Kovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giulia Barda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ohad Gluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liron Koren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacob Bar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eran Weiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ML: project development, data collection, manuscript writing; GB: data collection; MK: data analysis; OG: data analysis; LK: data collection; JB: manuscript editing; EW: project development, manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Levy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional ethical review board (Decision: 0022-19-WOMC, date of issue: 25th February 2019).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levy, M., Kovo, M., Barda, G. et al. Reduced fetal movements at term, low-risk pregnancies: is it associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes? Ten years of experience from a single tertiary center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301, 987–993 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05516-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05516-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation