Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy of Umbilical Artery and Middle Cerebral Artery Waveform with Color Doppler Study for Detection of Intrauterine Growth Restriction

  • Sachin Khanduri
  • Umesh C. Parashari
  • Shazia Bashir
  • Samarjit Bhadury
  • Anurag Bansal
Original Article

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Intrauterine growth restriction is associated with increased perinatal mortality and morbidity, possibly extending also in adult life, as compared to fetuses and newborns presenting characteristics of normal growth. The present study had been planned to measure the pulsatility index (PI) and resistive index of the middle cerebral artery with pulsatility and resistive index of the umbilical artery in predicting fetal growth restriction.

Materials and Methods

A total of 60 pregnant women with a clinical history and grayscale-screened patients were taken for Doppler analysis, and a final comparison of accuracy of Doppler indices was done with perinatal outcome.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 15.0 statistical analysis software. The values were represented in number (%) and mean ± SD.

Observation and Results

The umbilical artery PI had maximum sensitivity at the third visit (32–37 weeks) and maximum specificity also at the third visit (32–37 weeks). The umbilical artery resistive index had maximum sensitivity at the second visit (28–32 weeks) and maximum specificity at the third visit (32–37 weeks). The MCA PI had an overall diagnostic accuracy of 52.8 %.

Conclusion

The PI of the umbilical artery was more sensitive than the PI of the middle cerebral artery. Umbilical artery PI has the maximum overall diagnostic accuracy of 75 %.

Keywords

Pulsatility index Resistive index Sensitivity Diagnostic accuracy Obstetrical Doppler 

Abbreviations

MCA

Middle cerebral artery

UA

Umblical artery

PI

Pulsatility index

RI

Resistive index

S/D

Systolic/diastolic

IUGR

Intrauterine growth retardation

PPV

Positive predictive value

NPV

Negative predictive value

Sens

Sensitivity

Spec

Specificity

References

  1. 1.
    Arduini D, Rizzo G. Prediction of fetal outcome in small for gestational age fetus: comparison of Doppler measurements obtained from different fetal vessels. J Perinat Med. 1992;20:29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurmanavicius J, Florio I, Wisser J, et al. Reference resistance indices of the umbilical, fetal middle cerebral and uterine arteries at 24–42 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;10:112–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahlmann F, Reinhard I, Krummenauer F, et al. Blood flow velocity waveforms of the fetal middle cerebral artery in a normal population: reference values from 18 weeks to 42 weeks of gestation. J Perinat Med. 2002;30:490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gudmundsson S, Marsal K. Umbilical artery and uteroplacental blood flow velocity waveforms in normal pregnancy—a cross-sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;67(4):347–54.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dhand H, Kansal HK, Dave A. Middle cerebral artery doppler indices better predictor for fetal outcome in IUGR. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2011;61:166–71.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathai A, Parikh S, Chandra Sekhar G, et al. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56(1):45–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Narula H, Kapila AK, Mohi MK. Cerebral and umbilical arterial blood flow velocity in normal and growth retarded pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2009;59(1):47–52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mulders LG, Wijn PF, Jongsma HW, et al. A comparative study of three indices of umbilical blood flow in relation to prediction of growth retardation. J Perinat Med. 1987;15(1):3–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lakhkar BN, Rajagopal KV, Gourisankar PT. Doppler prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in PIH and IUGR. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2006;16(1):10–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aali BS, Narooi S, Mojtabaean B, et al. Screening utility of umbilical artery Doppler indices in patients with preeclampsia. Iran J Reprod Med. 2010;8(4):167–72.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bano S, Chaudhary V, Pande S, et al. Color Doppler evaluation of cerebral-umbilical pulsatility ratio and its usefulness in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation and prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20(1):20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, et al. Cerebral umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:416–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fong KW, Ohlsson A, Hannah ME, et al. Prediction of perinatal outcome in Fetuses suspected to have intrauterine growth restriction: Doppler US study of fetal cerebral, renal and umbilical arteries. Radiology. 1999;213:681–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarzamni MK, Nezami N, Sobhani N, et al. Nomograms of Iranian fetal middle cerebral artery Doppler waveforms and uniformity of their pattern with other populations’ nomograms. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008;12(8):50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sachin Khanduri
    • 1
  • Umesh C. Parashari
    • 1
  • Shazia Bashir
    • 1
  • Samarjit Bhadury
    • 1
  • Anurag Bansal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyEra’s Lucknow Medical College and HospitalLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations