Advertisement

Management of Late Gestation lUGR: Induction or Caesarean Section?

  • Stephen C. Robson
  • Duncan W. Irons

Abstract

The principal aim of antepartum fetal monitoring is the early detection and timely delivery of fetuses with progressive acidaemia. Most fetuses with antepartum hypoxia and acidaemia will be growth restricted, secondary to placental insufficiency, and many will be SGA. In this group of fetuses, the only widely available treatment is delivery (though see Ch. 16) but the timing of this intervention remains controversial. The Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT) is currently addressing the role of early delivery in the preterm growth-restricted infant [1]. However, we are unaware of any comparable study in the term or near-term small fetus. Thus at present there are no useful data to guide clinicians as to the optimal time to deliver the SGA fetus.

Keywords

Fetal Heart Rate Umbilical Artery Fetal Distress Emergency Caesarean Section Bishop Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    The GRIT study group. When do obstetricians recommend delivery for a high risk preterm growth retarded fetus? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;67:121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Low JA, Pancham SR, Worthington D. Fetal heart deceleration patterns in relation to asphyxia and weight-gestational age percentile of the fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1976;47:14–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kramer MS, Olivier M, McLean FH, Willis DM, Usher RH. Impact of intrauterine growth retardation and body proportionality on fetal and neonatal outcome. Pediatrics 1990;86:707–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steer PJ. Intrapartum monitoring in IUGR. In: Sharp F, Fraser RB, Milner RDG, editors. Fetal growth. London: RCOG, 1989;381–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Low JA, Karchmar J, Broekhoven L, Leonard T, McGrath MJ, Pancham SR, et al. The probability of fetal metabolic acidosis during labor in a population at risk as determined by clinical factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;141:941–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robson SC, Chang TC. Intrauterine growth retardation. In: Reed G, Claireaux A, Cockburn F, Connor M, editors. Diseases of the fetus and newborn, 2nd edn. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995;275–83.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fay RA, Dey PL, Saadie CMJ, Buhl JA, Gebski VJ. Ponderal index: a better definition of the “at risk” group with intrauterine growth problems than birth-weight for gestational age in term infants. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 1991;31:17–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burke G, Stuart B, Crowley P, Scanaill SN, Drumm J. Is intrauterine growth retardation with normal umbilical artery Doppler blood flow a benign condition? BMJ 1990;300:1044–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arabin B, Becker R, Mohnhaupt A, Entezami M, Weitzel HK. Prediction of fetal distress and poor outcome in intrauterine growth retardation — a comparison of fetal heart rate monitoring combined with stresss tests and Doppler ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:234–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S. Prediction of perinatal morbidity at term in small fetuses: comparison of fetal growth and Doppler ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:422–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Owen P, Harrold AJ, Farrell T. Fetal size and growth velocity in the prediction of intrapartum caesarean section for fetal distress. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:445–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicolaides KH, Economides DL, Soothill PW. Blood gases, pH and lactate in appropriate and small for gestational age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:996–1001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nieto A, Villar J, Matorras R, Serra R, Valenzuela P, Kellar J. Intrauterine growth retardation: fluctuation of fetal pH measured between beginning and at completion of labour. J Perinat Med 1994;22:329–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robson SC, Crawford RA, Spencer JAD, Lee A. Intrapartum amniotic fluid index and its relationship to fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:78–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin CC, Moawad AH, Rosenow PJ, River P. Acid-base characteristics of fetuses with intrauterine growth retardation during labour and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;137:553–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Low JA, Handley-Derry MH, Burke SO, Peters RD, Pater EA, Killen HL, et al. Association of intrauterine growth retardation and learning deficits at age 9 to 11 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1499–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hutton JL, Pharoah POD, Cooke RWI, Stevenson RC (1997). Differential effects of preterm birth and small gestational age on cognitive and motor development. Arch Dis Child 75: F75–81.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ajayi RA, Soothill PW. Ultrasound assessment of amniotic fluid volume: a comparison of the single deepest pool and amniotic fluid index to predict perinatal morbidity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991;1:401–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varma TR, Bateman S, Patel RH, Chamberlain GVP, Pillai U. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid: outcome of pregnancies with severe oligohydramnios. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1988;27:185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anandakumar C, Biswas A, Arulkumaran S, Wong YC, Malarvishy G, Ratnam SS. Should assessment of amniotic fluid volume form an integral part of antenatal fetal assessment of high risk pregnancy? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;33:272–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Flack, NJ, Sepulveda, W, Bower S, Fisk, NM. Acute maternal hydration in third-trimester oligo-hydramnios: effects on amniotic fluid volume, uteroplacental perfusion, and fetal blood flow and urine output. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:1186–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarno AP, Ahm MO, Brar HS, Phelan JP, Platt LD. Intrapartum Doppler velocimetry, amniotic fluid volume and fetal heart rate as predictors of subsequent fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1508–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Brien JM, Mercer BM, Friedman SA, Sibai BM. Amniotic fluid index in hospitalised hyper¬tensive patients managed expectantly. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:247–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tongsong T, Srisomboon J. Amniotic fluid as a predictor of fetal distress in intrauterine growth retardation. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1993;40:131–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miyamura T, Masuzaki H, Miyamoto M, Ishimaru T. Comparison between the single deepest pocket and amniotic fluid index in predicting fetal distress in small for gestational age fetuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:123–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strong TH, Hetzler G, Sarno AP, Paul RH. Prophylactic intrapartum amnioinfusion; a randomised clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1370–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hofmeyer GJ. Amnioinfusion in intrapartum umbilical cord compression (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Update Software, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neilson JP. Cardiotocography for antepartum fetal assessment (Cochrane review), In: The Cochrane Library, Updated Software, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schneider EP, Hutson JM, Petrie RH. An assessment of the first decade's experience with antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Am J Perinatol 1988;5:134–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boehm FH, Salyer S, Shah DM, Vaughn WK. Improved outcome of twice weekly nonstress testing. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:566–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    FIGO. Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1987;25:159–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Druzin ML, Fox A, Kogut E, Carlson C. The relationship of the nonstress test to gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:386–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Visser GHA, Sadovsky G, Nicolaides KH. Antepartum heart rate patterns in small-for-gestational age third-trimester fetuses: correlation with blood gas values obtained at cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:698–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flynn AM, Kelly J. Evaluation of fetal wellbeing by antepartum fetal heart monitoring.BMJ 1977;i:936–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keegan KA, Paul RH. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing IV. The nonstress test as a primary approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Visser GHA, Huisjes HJ. Diagnostic value of the unstressed antepartum cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977;84:321–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freeman RK, Anderson G, Dorchester W. A prospective multi-institutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring I. Risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity according to antepartum fetal heart rate results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143:771–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Visser GHA, Redman CWG, Huisjes HJ, Turnbull AC. Nonstressed antepartum heart rate monitoring: implications of decelerations after spontaneous contractions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;138:429–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meis PJ, Ureda JR, Swain M, Kelly RT, Penry M, Sharp P. Variable decelerations during nonstress tests are not a sign of fetal compromise. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154:586–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guzman ER, Vintzileos AM. Computerized analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings. Fetal Matern Med Rev 1997;9:19–34.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ribbert LSM, Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH, Visser GHA. Relation of fetal blood gases and data from computer-assisted analysis of fetal heart rate patterns in small for gestation fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:820–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guzman ER, Vintzileos AM, Martins M, Benito C, Houlihan C, Hanley M. The efficacy of individual computer heart rate indices in detecting acidemia at birth in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:969–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Snijders RJM, Ribbert LSM, Visser GHA, Mulder EJH. Numeric analysis of heart rate variation in intrauterine growth-retarded fetuses: a longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:22–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soothill PW, Ajayi RA, Campbell S. (1991) Prediction of morbidity in small and normally grown fetuses by fetal heart rate variability, biophysical profile score and umbilical artery Doppler studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100:742–745.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chang TC. Computerised analysis of fetal heart rate variation: prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in pateints undergoing prostaglandin induction of labour at term. Ann Acad Med (Singapore) 1997;26:772–5.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hoskins IA, Frieden FJ, Young BK. Variable decelerations in reactive nonstress tests with decreased amniotic fluid index predict fetal compromise. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:1094–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: the development of a fetal biophysical profile score. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:787–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile; a critical appraisal. Fetal Matern Med Rev 1997;9:103–23.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Manning FA, Snijders RJM, Harman CR, Nicolaides KH, Menticoglou S, Morrison I. Fetal biophysical profile scoring. VI. Correlation with antepartum umbilical venous fetal pH. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:755–763.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vintzileos AM, Fleming AD, Scorza WE, Wolf EJ, Balducci J, Campbell WA, et al. Relationship between fetal biophysical activities and umbilical cord blood gas values. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:707–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Baskett TF, Gray JH, Prewett SJ, Young LM, Allen AC. Antepartum fetal assessment using a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:630–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Manning FA, Harman CR, Morrison I, Menticoglou S. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring. III. Positive predictive accuracy of the very abnormal test (biophysical profile score = 0). Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:398–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Alfirevic Z, Neilson JP. Doppler ultrasonography in high risk pregnancies: systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1379–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nicolini U, Nicolaidis P, Fisk NM, Vaughan JI, Fusi L, Gleeson R, et al. Limited role of fetal blood sampling in prediction of outcome in intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1990;336:768–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tyrell S, Obaid AH, Lilford RJ. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry as a predictor of fetal hypoxia and acidosis at delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:332–7.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nicolaides KH, Bilardo CM, Soothill PW, Campbell S. Absence of end diastolic frequencies in umbilical artery: a sign of fetal hypoxia and acidosis. BMJ 1988;297:1026–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vyas S, Nicolaides KH, Bower S, Campbell S. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in fetal hypoxaemia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:797–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hornbuckle J, Thornton JG. The fetal circulatory response to chronic placental insufficiency and relation to pregnancy outcome. Fetal Matern Med Rev 1999; in press.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rizzo G, Capponi A, Soregaroli M, Arduinin D, Romanini C. Umbilical vein pulsations and acid-base status at cordocentesis in growth-retarded fetuses with absent end-diastolic velocity in umbilical artery. Biol Neonate 1995;68:163–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rizzo G, Capponi A, Arduini D, Romanini C. The value of fetal arterial, cardiac and venous flows in predicting pH and blood gases measured in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth retarded fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:963–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mires GJ, Patel NB, Dempster J. The value of fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms in the prediction of adverse fetal outcome in high risk pregnancies. J Obstet Gynecol 1990;10:261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Forouzan I. Absence of end diastolic flow velocity in the umblical artery: A review. Obstet Gynaecol Survey 1995;50:219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Karsdrop VHM, van Vugt JMG, van Geijn HP, Kostense PJ, Arduini D, et al. Clinical significance of absent or reversed end diastolic velocity waveforms in umbilical artery. Lancet 1994;344:1664–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, Vadora E, Merialdi A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:416–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Farmakides G, Schulman H, Winter D, Ducey J, Guzman E, Penny B. Prenatal surveillance using nonstress testing and Doppler velocimetry. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:184–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Arduini D, Rizzo G, Romanini C. The development of abnormal heart rate patterns after absent end-diastolic velocity in umbilical artery; analysis of risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Almstrom H, Axelsson O, Cnattingius S, Ekman G, Maesel A, Ulmsten U, et al. Comparison of umbilical-artery velocimetry and cardiotocography for surveillance of small-for-gestational age fetuses. Lancet 1992;340:936–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    RCOG.Induction of labour. Guideline no 16. London: RCOG, 1998;1–10.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brennand J, Greer I. Induction of labour: new horizons. Hosp Med 1998; 59: 856–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Xenakis EMJ, Piper JM, Conway DL, Langer O. Induction of labour in the nineties: Conquering the unfavourable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:235–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shepherd JH, Bennett MJ, Laurence D, Moore F, Sims CD. Prostaglandin vaginal suppositories; a simple and safe approach to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1981;58:596–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Larsen T, Larsen JF, Petersen S, Greisen G. Detection of small-for-gestational-age fetuses by ultrasound screening in a high risk population: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:469–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Almstrom H, Ekman G, Granstrom L. Preinductive cervical ripening with PGE2 gel in term pregnant women with ultrasonically diagnosed intrauterine growth-retarded. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:555–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ferrazzani S, Caruso A, De Carolis S, Martino IV, Mancuso S. Proteinuria and outcome of 444 pregnancies complicated by hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:366–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Xenakis EMJ, Piper JM, Field N, Conway D, Langer O. Preeclampsia: Is induction of labor more successful? Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:600–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Regenstein AC, Laros RK, Wakeley A, Kitterman JA, Tooley WH. Mode of delivery in pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia with very low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 1995;15:2–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Dickinson JE. Cesarean section. In: James DK, Steer PJ, Weiner CP, Gonik B, editors. High risk pregnancy, 2nd edn. London: WB Saunders, 1999;1153–65.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Taffei SM, Placek PJ, Liss T. Trends in the United States caesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980–1985 rise. Am J Public Health 1985;77:955–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Leitch CR. Walker JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:621–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    HMSO. Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom 1994–1996. London: HMSO, 1998.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nielson TF, Hokegard KH. Postoperative caesarean section morbidity: A prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;146:911–16.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Farrell SJ, Anderson HF, Work BA. Caesarean section: indications and post operative morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1980;56:696–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Langhoff Roos J, Lindmark G. Obstetric interventions and perinatal asphyxia in growth retarded term infants. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (Suppl 165) 1997;76:39–43.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ringa V, Carrat F, Blodel B, Breart G. Consequences of misdiagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation on preterm cesarean section Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:325–30.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Depp R.Cesarian delivery in: Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies, edited by Gabbe SG, Niebyl J and Simpson JL, 3rd Ed. 1996. Churchill Livingstone, New York. Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Howell R Spinal anaesthesia in severe preeclampsia: time for reappraisal, or time for caution? Int J Obstet Anaesth 1998;7:217–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mueller MD, Bruhwiler H, Schupfer GK, Luscher KR Higher rate of fetal acidemia after regional anaesthesia for elective cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:131–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Robson SC, Boys RJ, Rodeck C, Morgan B. Maternal and fetal haemodynamic effects of spinal and extradural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Br J Anaesth 1992;68:54–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Robson
  • Duncan W. Irons

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations