Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T10:40:49.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Fetal Growth Disorders (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)

from Section 3 - Late Prenatal – Fetal Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Ahmet A. Baschat  and
Viola Seravalli
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

Disturbance of normal fetal growth can result in abnormal weight, body mass, or body proportion at birth. The two principal fetal growth disorders are fetal growth restriction (FGR) (also known as intrauterine growth restriction, IUGR) and macrosomia, both of which are associated with increased perinatal mortality and short- and long-term morbidity. Perinatal detection of fetal growth disorders has evolved dramatically since the late 1960s, when fetal growth was defined by birth weight before antenatal ultrasound assessment of fetal growth was clinically available. The absolute birth weight was classified as either macrosomia (> 4000 g), low birth weight, very low birth weight, or extremely low birth weight (< 2500 g, < 1500 g, and < 1000 g, respectively). The landmark observations of Lubchenco and colleagues in 1963 showed that the classification of neonates by birth-weight percentile had a significant prognostic advantage because it improved the detection of neonates with FGR and who are at increased risk for adverse health events throughout life. Neonates are now classified as very small for gestational age (< 3rd percentile), small for gestational age (< 10th percentile), appropriate for gestational age (10th–90th percentile), or large for gestational age (> 90th percentile). With the development of reference ranges for fetal measurements and the study of their growth rates with advancing gestation, it became possible to apply the concept of growth percentiles prenatally. Subsequently, it became possible to relate absolute and serial fetal measurements to their gestational age-specific percentiles in order to diagnose abnormal fetal size and growth velocity. The detection of a fetal growth disorder is further enhanced if the reference ranges for fetal biometric data and birth weight account for maternal height and race and fetal birth order and sex (growth potential). A neonate may be of normal weight but still significantly lighter than its growth potential. Growth potential percentiles are superior to conventional reference ranges for the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 225 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Further Reading

Baschat, AA, Neurodevelopment after fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36: 136–42.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Cosmi, E, Bilardo, CM, et al. Predictors of neonatal outcome in early-onset placental dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 253–61.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Harman, CR: The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 571–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baschat, AA, Viscardi, RM, Hussey-Gardner, B, et al. Infant neurodevelopment following fetal growth restriction: Relationship with antepartum surveillance parameters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frøen, JF, Gardosi, JO, Thurmann, A, Francis, A, Stray-Pedersen, B. Restricted fetal growth in sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 801–7.Google Scholar
GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110: 27–32.Google Scholar
Lees, CC, Marlow, N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A, et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2162–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzger, BE, Lowe, LP, Dyer, AR, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1991–2002.Google Scholar
Poon, L, Kametas, NA, Maiz, A, et al. First trimester prediction of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Hypertension 2009; 53: 812–18.Google Scholar
Thornton, JG, Hornbuckle, J, Vail, A, et al.; GRIT Study Group. Infant wellbeing at 2 years of age in the Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT): multicentred randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 513–20.Google Scholar
Vainio, M, Kujansuu, E, Iso-Mustajarvi, M, Maenpaa, J. Low dose acetylsalicylic acid in prevention of pregnancy-induced hypertension and intrauterine growth retardation in women with bilateral uterine artery notches. BJOG 2002; 109: 161–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Vintzileos, AM, Fleming, AD, Scorza, WE, et al. Relationship between fetal biophysical activities and umbilical cord blood gas values. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 707–13.Google Scholar

References

Lubchenco, LO, Hansman, C, Boyd, E. Intrauterine growth as estimated from live born birth-weight data at 24–42 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics 1963; 32: 793.Google Scholar
Battaglia, FC, Lubchenco, LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1967; 71: 159–63.Google Scholar
Bernstein, IM, Horbar, JD, Badger, GJ, Ohlsson, A, Golan, A. Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth-weight neonates with intrauterine growth restriction. The Vermont Oxford Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 198–206.Google Scholar
Barker, DJ. Fetal growth and adult disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 275–6.Google Scholar
Hoffman, HJ, Stark, CR, Lundin, FE, Ashbrook, JD. Analysis of birth weight, gestational age, and fetal viability, U. S. births, 1968. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1974; 29: 651–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardosi, J, Chang, A, Kalyan, B, Sahota, D, Symonds, EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339: 283–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausson, B, Gardosi, J, Francis, A, Cnattingius, S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customised versus population-based birthweight standards. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108: 830–4.Google Scholar
Bukowski, R, Burgett, AD, Gei, A, Saade, GR, Hankins, GD V. Impairment of fetal growth potential and neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1011–15.Google Scholar
Miller, HC. Fetal growth and neonatal mortality. Pediatrics 1972; 49: 392–9.Google Scholar
Weiner, CP, Robinson, D. Sonographic diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation using the postnatal ponderal index and the crown-heel length as standards of diagnosis. Am J Perinatol 1989; 6: 380–3.Google Scholar
Walther, FJ, Ramaekers, LH. The ponderal index as a measure of the nutritional status at birth and its relation to some aspects of neonatal morbidity. J Perinat Med 1982; 10: 42–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dashe, JS, McIntire, DD, Lucas, MJ, Leveno, KJ. Effects of symmetric and asymmetric fetal growth on pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 321–7.Google Scholar
Seval, Y, Sati, L, Celik-Ozenci, C, Taskin, O, Demir, R. The distribution of angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2 and their receptors Tie-1 and Tie-2 in the very early human placenta. Placenta 2008; 29: 809–15.Google Scholar
Ahmed, A, Dunk, C, Ahmad, S, Khaliq, A. Regulation of placental vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and placenta growth factor (PlGF) and soluble Flt-1 by oxygen: a review. Placenta 2000; 21 (Suppl 1): S16–24.Google Scholar
Baumann, MU, Bersinger, NA, Surbek, D V. Serum markers for predicting pre-eclampsia. Mol Aspects Med 2007; 28: 227–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pijnenborg, R, Bland, JM, Robertson, WB, Brosens, I. Uteroplacental arterial changes related to interstitial trophoblast migration in early human pregnancy. Placenta 1983; 4: 397–413.Google Scholar
Aplin, J. Maternal influences on placental development. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2000; 11: 115–25.Google Scholar
Kingdom, JC, Burrell, SJ, Kaufmann, P. Pathology and clinical implications of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 271–86.Google Scholar
Castellucci, M, Kosanke, G, Verdenelli, F, Huppertz, B, Kaufmann, P. Villous sprouting: fundamental mechanisms of human placental development. Hum Reprod Update 2000; 6: 485–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufmann, P, Scheffen, I. Placental development. In Polin, RA, Fox, WW (eds), Fetal and Neonatal Physiology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1998, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
Pardi, G, Marconi, AM, Cetin, I. Placental–fetal interrelationship in IUGR fetuses: a review. Placenta 2002; 23 (Suppl A): S136–41.Google Scholar
Battaglia, FC, Regnault, TRH. Placental transport and metabolism of amino acids. Placenta 2001; 22: 145–61.Google Scholar
Haggarty, P. Placental regulation of fatty acid delivery and its effect on fetal growth: a review. Placenta 2002; 23: S28–38.Google Scholar
Illsley, NP. Glucose transporters in the human placenta. Placenta 2000; 21: 14–22.Google Scholar
Sibley, CP, Glazier, JD, Greenwood, SL, et al. Regulation of placental transfer: the Na(+)/H(+) exchanger: a review. Placenta 2002; 23 (Suppl A): S39–46.Google Scholar
Meschia, G. Placenta respiratory gas exchange and fetal oxygenation. In Creasy, RK, Resnik, R (eds), Maternal–Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1987, pp. 274–85.Google Scholar
Carter, AM. Placental oxygen consumption. Part I: in vivo studies – a review. Placenta 2000; 21 (Suppl A): S31–7.Google Scholar
Lederman, SA, Paxton, A, Heymsfield, SB, et al. Maternal body fat and water during pregnancy: Do they raise infant birth weight? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 235–40.Google Scholar
Reece, EA, Wiznitzer, A, Le, E, et al. The relation between human fetal growth and fetal blood levels of insulin-like growth factors I and II, their binding proteins, and receptors. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 88–95.Google Scholar
Hoggard, N, Haggarty, P, Thomas, L, Lea, RG. Leptin expression in placental and fetal tissues: does leptin have a functional role? Biochem Soc Trans 2001; 29: 57–63.Google Scholar
Jansson, N, Greenwood, SL, Johansson, BR, Powell, TL, Jansson, T. Leptin stimulates the activity of the system A amino acid transporter in human placental villous fragments. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88: 1205–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudolph, AM. Distribution and regulation of blood flow in the fetal and neonatal lamb. Circ Res 1985; 57: 811–21.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA. The fetal circulation and essential organs: a new twist to an old tale. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 349–54.Google Scholar
Guyton, AC, Cowley, AW, Young, DB, et al. Integration and control of circulatory function. Int Rev Physiol 1976; 9: 341–85.Google Scholar
Winick, M, Noble, A. Quantitative changes in DNA, RNA, and protein during prenatal and postnatal growth in the rat. Dev Biol 1965; 12: 451–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snijders, RJ, Sherrod, C, Gosden, CM, Nicolaides, KH. Fetal growth retardation: associated malformations and chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 547–55.Google Scholar
Khoury, MJ, Erickson, JD, Cordero, JF, McCarthy, BJ. Congenital malformations and intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics 1988; 82: 83–90.Google Scholar
Sickler, GK, Nyberg, DA, Sohaey, R, Luthy, DA. Polyhydramnios and fetal intrauterine growth restriction: ominous combination. J Ultrasound Med 1997; 16: 609–14.Google Scholar
Ødegård, RA, Vatten, LJ, Nilsen, ST, Salvesen, KÅ, Austgulen, R. Preeclampsia and fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 950–5.Google Scholar
Kupferminc, MJ, Peri, H, Zwang, E, et al. High prevalence of the prothrombin gene mutation in women with intrauterine growth retardation, abruptio placentae and second trimester loss. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 963–7.Google Scholar
Weiner, CP. Pathogenesis, evaluation, and potential treatments for severe, early onset growth retardation. Semin Perinatol 1989; 13: 320–7.Google Scholar
Cliver, SP, Goldenberg, RL, Cutter, GR, et al. The effect of cigarette smoking on neonatal anthropometric measurements. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 625–30.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, RL, Cliver, SP, Cutter, GR, et al. Blood pressure, growth retardation, and preterm delivery. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8 (Suppl 1): 82–90.Google Scholar
Ferrazzi, E, Bulfamante, G, Mezzopane, R, et al. Uterine Doppler velocimetry and placental hypoxic-ischemic lesion in pregnancies with fetal intrauterine growth restriction. Placenta 1999; 20: 389–94.Google Scholar
Harrington, K, Carpenter, RG, Goldfrad, C, Campbell, S. Transvaginal Doppler ultrasound of the uteroplacental circulation in the early prediction of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 674–81.Google Scholar
Bower, S, Kingdom, J, Campbell, S. Objective and subjective assessment of abnormal uterine artery Doppler flow velocity waveforms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 260–4.Google Scholar
Rigano, S, Bozzo, M, Ferrazzi, E, et al. Early and persistent reduction in umbilical vein blood flow in the growth-restricted fetus: a longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 834–8.Google Scholar
Morrow, RJ, Adamson, SL, Bull, SB, Ritchie, JW. Effect of placental embolization on the umbilical arterial velocity waveform in fetal sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1055–60.Google Scholar
Wilcox, GR, Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Wilcox, WR, Connelly, AJ. Reduced fetal platelet counts in pregnancies with abnormal Doppler umbilical flow waveforms. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 639–43.Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Yu, CKH, Cicero, S, Bower, S, Nicolaides, KH. Second-trimester uterine artery Doppler screening in unselected populations: a review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002; 12: 78–88.Google Scholar
Weiner, CP. The relationship between the umbilical artery systolic/diastolic ratio and umbilical blood gas measurements in specimens obtained by cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1198–202.Google Scholar
Bilardo, CM, Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S. Doppler measurements of fetal and uteroplacental circulations: relationship with umbilical venous blood gases measured at cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 115–20.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Spernol, R, Stettner, H, Szalay, S. Potential for diagnosing imminent risk to appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetuses by Doppler sonographic examination of umbilical and cerebral arterial blood flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2: 266–71.Google Scholar
Crimmins, S, Desai, A, Block-Abraham, D, et al. A comparison of Doppler and biophysical findings between liveborn and stillborn growth-restricted fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 669.e1–10.Google Scholar
Jones, CT, Ritchie, JW, Walker, D. The effects of hypoxia on glucose turnover in the fetal sheep. J Dev Physiol 1983; 5: 223–35.Google Scholar
Nicolini, U, Hubinont, C, Santolaya, J, et al. Maternal–fetal glucose gradient in normal pregnancies and in pregnancies complicated by alloimmunization and fetal growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 924–7.Google Scholar
Economides, DL, Nicolaides, KH. Blood glucose and oxygen tension levels in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 385–9.Google Scholar
Hubinont, C, Nicolini, U, Fisk, NM, Tannirandorn, Y, Rodeck, CH. Endocrine pancreatic function in growth-retarded fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 541–4.Google Scholar
Van Assche, FA, Aerts, L, De Prins, FA. The fetal endocrine pancreas. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1984; 18: 267–72.Google Scholar
Soothill, PW, Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S. Prenatal asphyxia, hyperlacticaemia, hypoglycaemia, and erythroblastosis in growth retarded fetuses. Br Med J 1987; 294: 1051–3.Google Scholar
Owens, JA, Falconer, J, Robinson, JS. Effect of restriction of placental growth on fetal and utero-placental metabolism. J Dev Physiol 1987; 9: 225–38.Google Scholar
Paolini, CL, Marconi, AM, Ronzoni, S, et al. Placental transport of leucine, phenylalanine, glycine, and proline in intrauterine growth-restricted pregnancies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001; 86: 5427–32.Google Scholar
Economides, DL, Nicolaides, KH, Gahl, WA, Bernardini, I, Evans, MI. Plasma amino acids in appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1219–27.Google Scholar
Bernstein, IM, Silver, R, Nair, KS, Stirewalt, WS. Amniotic fluid glycine-valine ratio and neonatal morbidity in fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 933–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vannucci, RC, Vannucci, SJ. Glucose metabolism in the developing brain. Semin Perinatol 2000; 24: 107–15.Google Scholar
Fisher, DJ, Heymann, MA, Rudolph, AM. Fetal myocardial oxygen and carbohydrate consumption during acutely induced hypoxemia. Am J Physiol 1982; 242: H657–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Spahr, R, Probst, I, Piper, HM. Substrate utilization of adult cardiac myocytes. Basic Res Cardiol 1985; 80 (Suppl 1): 53–6.Google Scholar
Fant, ME, Weisoly, D. Insulin and insulin-like growth factors in human development: implications for the perinatal period. Semin Perinatol 2001; 25: 426–35.Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Arduini, D. Fetal cardiac function in intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 876–82.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Gortner, L, et al. Coronary artery blood flow visualization signifies hemodynamic deterioration in growth-restricted fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 425–31.Google Scholar
Reed, KL, Anderson, CF, Shenker, L. Changes in intracardiac Doppler blood flow velocities in fetuses with absent umbilical artery diastolic flow. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 774–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
al-Ghazali, W, Chita, SK, Chapman, MG, Allan, LD. Evidence of redistribution of cardiac output in asymmetrical growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 697–704.Google Scholar
Griffin, D, Bilardo, K, Masini, L, et al. Doppler blood flow waveforms in the descending thoracic aorta of the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 997–1006.Google Scholar
Akalin-Sel, T, Nicolaides, KH, Peacock, J, Campbell, S. Doppler dynamics and their complex interrelation with fetal oxygen pressure, carbon dioxide pressure, and pH in growth-retarded fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 439–44.Google Scholar
Wladimiroff, JW, Tonge, HM, Stewart, PA. Doppler ultrasound assessment of cerebral blood flow in the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 471–5.Google Scholar
Arbeille, P, Maulik, D, Fignon, A, Stale, H, Berson, M, Bodard, S, et al. Assessment of the fetal PO2 changes by cerebral and umbilical Doppler on lamb fetuses during acute hypoxia. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995; 21: 861–70.Google Scholar
Fouron, JC, Skoll, A, Sonesson, SE, et al. Relationship between flow through the fetal aortic isthmus and cerebral oxygenation during acute placental circulatory insufficiency in ovine fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 1102–7.Google Scholar
Boito, S, Struijk, PC, Ursem, NTC, Fedele, L, Wladimiroff, JW. Fetal brain/liver volume ratio and umbilical volume flow parameters relative to normal and abnormal human development. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 256–61.Google Scholar
Manning, FA. Fetal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 557–77.Google Scholar
Arduini, D, Rizzo, G, Romanini, C, Mancuso, S. Computerized analysis of behavioural states in asymmetrical growth retarded fetuses. J Perinat Med 1988; 16: 357–63.Google Scholar
Arduini, D, Rizzo, G, Caforio, L, et al. Behavioural state transitions in healthy and growth retarded fetuses. Early Hum Dev 1989; 19: 155–65.Google Scholar
Nijhuis, IJM, Ten Hof, J, Nijhuis, JG, et al. Temporal organization of fetal behavior from 24-weeks gestation onwards in normal and complicated pregnancies. Dev Psychobiol 1999; 34: 257–68.Google Scholar
Vindla, S, James, D, Sahota, D. Computerised analysis of unstimulated and stimulated behaviour in fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 83: 37–45.Google Scholar
Yum, MK, Park, EY, Kim, CR, Hwang, JH. Alterations in irregular and fractal heart rate behavior in growth restricted fetuses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 94: 51–8.Google Scholar
Ribbert, LS, Nicolaides, KH, Visser, GH. Prediction of fetal acidaemia in intrauterine growth retardation: comparison of quantified fetal activity with biophysical profile score. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 653–6.Google Scholar
Nijhuis, IJM, Ten Hof, J, Mulder, EJH, et al. Fetal heart rate in relation to its variation in normal and growth retarded fetuses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 89: 27–33.Google Scholar
Henson, G, Dawes, GS, Redman, CW. Characterization of the reduced heart rate variation in growth-retarded fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 751–5.Google Scholar
Ribbert, LS, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH, Visser, GH. 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.Google Scholar
Smith, JH, Anand, KJ, Cotes, PM, et al. Antenatal fetal heart rate variation in relation to the respiratory and metabolic status of the compromised human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 980–9.Google Scholar
Ribbert, LSM, Visser, GHA, Mulder, EJH, Zonneveld, MF, Morssink, LP. Changes with time in fetal heart rate variation, movement incidences and haemodynamics in intrauterine growth retarded fetuses: A longitudinal approach to the assessment of fetal well being. Early Hum Dev 1993; 31: 195–208.Google Scholar
Pillai, M, James, D. Continuation of normal neurobehavioural development in fetuses with absent umbilical arterial end diastolic velocities. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 277–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzo, G, Arduini, D, Pennestri, F, Romanini, C, Mancuso, S. Fetal behaviour in growth retardation: its relationship to fetal blood flow. Prenat Diagn 1987; 7: 229–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arduini, D, Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Rinaldo, D, Romanini, C. Fetal pH value determined by cordocentesis: an independent predictor of the development of antepartum fetal heart rate decelerations in growth retarded fetuses with absent end-diastolic velocity in umbilical artery. J Perinat Med 1996; 24: 601–7.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA. Integrated fetal testing in growth restriction: combining multivessel Doppler and biophysical parameters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 1–8.Google Scholar
Weiner, CP, Williamson, RA. Evaluation of severe growth retardation using cordocentesis–hematologic and metabolic alterations by etiology. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 225–9.Google Scholar
Thilaganathan, B, Athanasiou, S, Ozmen, S, et al. Umbilical cord blood erythroblast count as an index of intrauterine hypoxia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1994; 70: F192–4.Google Scholar
Maier, RF, Günther, A, Vogel, M, Dudenhausen, JW, Obladen, M. Umbilical venous erythropoietin and umbilical arterial pH in relation to morphologic placental abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 81–7.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Reiss, I, et al. Neonatal nucleated red blood cell counts in growth-restricted fetuses: Relationship to arterial and venous Doppler studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 190–5.Google Scholar
Bernstein, PS, Minior, VK, Divon, MY. Neonatal nucleated red blood cell counts in small-for-gestational age fetuses with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 1079–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trudinger, B, Song, JZ, Wu, ZH, Wang, J. Placental insufficiency is characterized by platelet activation in the fetus. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 975–81.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Reiss, I, et al. Absent umbilical artery end-diastolic velocity in growth-restricted fetuses: a risk factor for neonatal thrombocytopenia. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 162–6.Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Rinaldo, D, Arduini, D, Romanini, C. Ventricular ejection force in growth-retarded fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 247–55.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Campbell, S, Doyle, P, Harrington, K, Nicolaides, K. Assessment of fetal compromise by Doppler ultrasound investigation of the fetal circulation. Arterial, intracardiac, and venous blood flow velocity studies. Circulation 1995; 91: 129–38.Google Scholar
Kiserud, T, Eik-Nes, SH, Blaas, HG, Hellevik, LR, Simensen, B. Ductus venosus blood velocity and the umbilical circulation in the seriously growth-retarded fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 109–14.Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Talone, PE, Arduini, D, Romanini, C. Doppler indices from inferior vena cava and ductus venosus in predicting pH and oxygen tension in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth-retarded fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 401–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gudmundsson, S, Tulzer, G, Huhta, JC, Marsal, K. Venous Doppler in the fetus with absent end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 262–7.Google Scholar
Vintzileos, AM, Fleming, AD, Scorza, WE, et al. Relationship between fetal biophysical activities and umbilical cord blood gas values. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 707–13.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Snijders, R, Harman, CR, et al. Fetal biophysical profile score. VI. Correlation with antepartum umbilical venous fetal pH. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 755–63.Google Scholar
Guzman, ER, Vintzileos, AM, Martins, M, et al. The efficacy of individual computer heart rate indices in detecting acidemia at birth in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 969–74.Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Pietropolli, A, et al. Fetal cardiac and extracardiac flows preceding intrauterine death. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 139–42.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Harman, CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 571–7.Google Scholar
James, DK, Parker, MJ, Smoleniec, JS. Comprehensive fetal assessment with three ultrasonographic characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1486–95.Google Scholar
Harrington, K, Thompson, MO, Carpenter, RG, Nguyen, M, Campbell, S. Doppler fetal circulation in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia or delivery of a small for gestational age baby: 2. Longitudinal analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 453–66.Google Scholar
Ferrazzi, E, Bozzo, M, Rigano, S, et al. Temporal sequence of abnormal Doppler changes in the peripheral and central circulatory systems of the severely growth-restricted fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 140–6.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Bilardo, CM, Stigter, RH, et al. Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 564–70.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Reiss, I, et al. Relationship between arterial and venous Doppler and perinatal outcome in fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 407–13.Google Scholar
Hershkovitz, R, Kingdom, JCP, Geary, M, Rodeck, CH. Fetal cerebral blood flow redistribution in late gestation: Identification of compromise in small fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 209–12.Google Scholar
Vainio, M, Kujansuu, E, Iso-Mustajarvi, M, Maenpaa, J. Low dose acetylsalicylic acid in prevention of pregnancy-induced hypertension and intrauterine growth retardation in women with bilateral uterine artery notches. BJOG 2002; 109: 161–7.Google Scholar
Poon, LC, Nicolaides, KH. First-trimester maternal factors and biomarker screening for preeclampsia. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 618–27.Google Scholar
Seravalli, V, Block-Abraham, DM, Turan, OM, et al. First-trimester prediction of small-for-gestational age neonates incorporating fetal Doppler parameters and maternal characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 261.Google Scholar
Odibo, AO, Zhong, Y, Goetzinger, KR, et al. First-trimester placental protein 13, PAPP-A, uterine artery Doppler and maternal characteristics in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. Placenta 2011; 32: 598–602.Google Scholar
Schneuer, FJ, Nassar, N, Khambalia, AZ, et al. First trimester screening of maternal placental protein 13 for predicting preeclampsia and small for gestational age: In-house study and systematic review. Placenta 2012; 33: 735–40.Google Scholar
Soregaroli, M, Valcamonico, A, Scalvi, L, Danti, L, Frusca, T. Late normalisation of uterine artery velocimetry in high risk pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 95: 42–5.Google Scholar
Coleman, MAG, McCowan, LME, North, RA. Mid-trimester uterine artery Doppler screening as a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome in high-risk women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 7–12.Google Scholar
Yu, CKH, Papageorghiou, AT, Parra, M, Palma, Dias R, Nicolaides, KH. Randomized controlled trial using low-dose aspirin in the prevention of pre-eclampsia in women with abnormal uterine artery Doppler at 23 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 233–9.Google Scholar
Seravalli, V, Block-Abraham, DM, Turan, OM, et al. Second-trimester prediction of delivery of a small-for-gestational-age neonate: integrating sequential Doppler information, fetal biometry, and maternal characteristics. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 1037–43.Google Scholar
Warsof, SL, Cooper, DJ, Little, D, Campbell, S. Routine ultrasound screening for antenatal detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 33–9.Google Scholar
Bakketeig, LS, Eik-Nes, SH, Jacobsen, G. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1984; 2: 207–11.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Deter, RL, Carpenter, RJ, Park, SK. Estimating fetal age: effect of head shape on BPD. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981; 137: 83–5.Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma, EO, Altman, DG, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014; 384: 869–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61490-2.Google Scholar
Tamura, RK, Sabbagha, RE, Pan, WH, Vaisrub, N. Ultrasonic fetal abdominal circumference: comparison of direct versus calculated measurement. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 833–5.Google Scholar
Smith, PA, Johansson, D, Tzannatos, C, Campbell, S. Prenatal measurement of the fetal cerebellum and cisterna cerebellomedullaris by ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 1986; 6: 133–41.Google Scholar
Campbell, S, Thoms, A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977; 84: 165–74.Google Scholar
Gray, DL, Songster, GS, Parvin, CA, Crane, JP. Cephalic index: a gestational age-dependent biometric parameter. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 600–3.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Harrist, RB, Shah, Y, Park, SK. The femur length/head circumference relation in obstetric sonography. J Ultrasound Med 1984; 3: 439–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarmandal, P, Grant, JM. Effectiveness of ultrasound determination of fetal abdominal circumference and fetal ponderal index in the diagnosis of asymmetrical growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 118–23.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Deter, RL, Harrist, RB, Roecker, E, Park, SK. A date-independent predictor of intrauterine growth retardation: Femur length/abdominal circumference ratio. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141: 979–84.Google Scholar
Shepard, MJ, Richards, VA, Berkowitz, RL, Warsof, SL, Hobbins, JC. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 47–54.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Harrist, RB, Sharman, RS, Deter, RL, Park, SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4.Google Scholar
Weiner, CP, Sabbagha, RE, Vaisrub, N, Socol, ML. Ultrasonic fetal weight prediction: role of head circumference and femur length. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 812–17.Google Scholar
Stirnemann, J, Villar, J, Salomon, LJ, et al. International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st project. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 478–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17347.Google Scholar
Salomon, LJ, Alfirevic, Z, Da Silva Costa, F, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 715–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20272.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, PF, Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Harman, CR, Lange, IR. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume. II. The relationship of increased amniotic fluid volume to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 250–4.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Hill, LM, Platt, LD. Qualitative amniotic fluid volume determination by ultrasound: antepartum detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139: 254–8.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U. The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio revisited. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 124–7.Google Scholar
Reed, KL, Appleton, CP, Anderson, CF, Shenker, L, Sahn, DJ. Doppler studies of vena cava flows in human fetuses. Insights into normal and abnormal cardiac physiology. Circulation 1990; 81: 498–505.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Campbell, S, Snijders, R, Nicolaides, K. Reference ranges for fetal venous and atrioventricular blood flow parameters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 381–90.Google Scholar
Kanzaki, T, Chiba, Y. Evaluation of the preload condition of the fetus by inferior vena caval blood flow pattern. Fetal Diagn Ther 1990; 5: 168–74.Google Scholar
DeVore, GR, Horenstein, J. Ductus venosus index: a method for evaluating right ventricular preload in the second-trimester fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993; 3: 338–42.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Güclü, S, Kush, ML, et al. Venous Doppler in the prediction of acid-base status of growth-restricted fetuses with elevated placental blood flow resistance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 277–84.Google Scholar
Ott, WJ. Intrauterine growth restriction and Doppler ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19: 661–5.Google Scholar
Strigini, FAL, De Luca, G, Lencioni, G, et al. Middle cerebral artery velocimetry: Different clinical relevance depending on umbilical velocimetry. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 953–7.Google Scholar
Severi, FM, Bocchi, C, Visentin, A, et al. Uterine and fetal cerebral Doppler predict the outcome of third-trimester small-for-gestational age fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 225–8.Google Scholar
McCowan, LM, Harding, JE, Roberts, AB, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of two regimens of fetal surveillance for small-for-gestational-age fetuses with normal results of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 81–6.Google Scholar
Westergaard, HB, Langhoff-Roos, J, Lingman, G, Marsál, K, Kreiner, S. A critical appraisal of the use of umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies: Use of meta-analyses in evidence-based obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 466–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flood, K, Unterscheider, J, Daly, S, et al. The role of brain sparing in the prediction of adverse outcomes in intrauterine growth restriction: Results of the multicenter PORTO Study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014; 211: 288.e1–5.Google Scholar
Bahado-Singh, RO, Kovanci, E, Jeffres, A, et al. The Doppler cerebroplacental ratio and perinatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 750–6.Google Scholar
Ribbert, LS, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH, Visser, GH. Relationship of fetal biophysical profile and blood gas values at cordocentesis in severely growth-retarded fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 569–71.Google Scholar
Clausson, B, Cnattingius, S, Axelsson, O. Outcomes of post-term births: the role of fetal growth restriction and malformations. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 758–62.Google Scholar
Frøen, JF, Gardosi, JO, Thurmann, A, Francis, A, Stray-Pedersen, B. Restricted fetal growth in sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 801–7.Google Scholar
Kupferminc, MJ, Many, A, Bar-Am, A, Lessing, JB, Ascher-Landsberg, J. Mid-trimester severe intrauterine growth restriction is associated with a high prevalence of thrombophilia. BJOG 2002; 109: 1373–6.Google Scholar
Doubilet, PM, Benson, CB, Wilkins-Haug, L, Ringer, S. Fetuses subsequently born premature are smaller than gestational age-matched fetuses not born premature. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22: 359–63.Google Scholar
Gordijn, SJ, Beune, IM, Thilaganathan, B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 333–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15884.Google Scholar
Van den Veyver, IB, Ni, J, Bowles, N, et al. Detection of intrauterine viral infection using the polymerase chain reaction. Mol Genet Metab 1998; 63: 85–95.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Towbin, J, Bowles, NE, Harman, CR, Weiner, CP. Is adenovirus a fetal pathogen? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 758–63.Google Scholar
Gudmundsson, S, Lindblad, A, Marsál, K. Cord blood gases and absence of end-diastolic blood velocities in the umbilical artery. Early Hum Dev 1990; 24: 231–7.Google Scholar
Yoon, BH, Romero, R, Roh, CR, et al. Relationship between the fetal biophysical profile score, umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry, and fetal blood acid-base status determined by cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 1586–94.Google Scholar
Nicolini, U, Nicolaidis, P, Fisk, NM, et al. Limited role of fetal blood sampling in prediction of outcome in intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1990; 336: 768–72.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Snijders, R, Campbell, S, Nicolaides, K. Fetal venous, intracardiac, and arterial blood flow measurements in intrauterine growth retardation: Relationship with fetal blood gases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 10–15.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Weiner, CP, Harman, CR. Qualitative venous Doppler waveform analysis improves prediction of critical perinatal outcomes in premature growth-restricted fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 240–5.Google Scholar
Ley, D, Tideman, E, Laurin, J, Bjerre, I, Marsal, K. Abnormal fetal aortic velocity waveform and intellectual function at 7 years of age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 160–5.Google Scholar
Škrablin, S, Kalafatić, D, Banović, I, et al. Antenatal predictors of the neurologic sequelae at 3 years of age: a multivariate analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 93: 173–80.Google Scholar
Fouron, JC, Gosselin, J, Raboisson, MJ, et al. The relationship between an aortic isthmus blood flow velocity index and the postnatal neurodevelopmental status of fetuses with placental circulatory insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 497–503.Google Scholar
Thornton, JG, Hornbuckle, J, Vail, A, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Levene, M.; GRIT Study Group. Infant wellbeing at 2 years of age in the Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT): multicentred randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 513–20.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Viscardi, RM, Hussey-Gardner, B, Hashmi, N, Harman, C. Infant neurodevelopment following fetal growth restriction: Relationship with antepartum surveillance parameters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 44–50.Google Scholar
Schreuder, AM, McDonnell, M, Gaffney, G, Johnson, A, Hope, PL. Outcome at school age following antenatal detection of absent or reversed end diastolic flow velocity in the umbilical artery. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2002; 86: F108–14.Google Scholar
Eixarch, E, Meler, E, Iraola, A, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in 2-year-old infants who were small-for-gestational age term fetuses with cerebral blood flow redistribution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 894–9.Google Scholar
Scherjon, S, Briët, J, Oosting, H, Kok, J. The discrepancy between maturation of visual-evoked potentials and cognitive outcome at five years in very preterm infants with and without hemodynamic signs of fetal brain-sparing. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 385–91.Google Scholar
Manning, FA. Fetal biophysical profile: a critical appraisal. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 5: 975–85.Google Scholar
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 stress tests and Doppler ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993; 8: 234–40.Google Scholar
Ott, WJ, Mora, G, Arias, F, Sunderji, S, Sheldon, G. Comparison of the modified biophysical profile to a “new” biophysical profile incorporating the middle cerebral artery to umbilical artery velocity flow systolic/diastolic ratio. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 1346–53.Google Scholar
Weiner, Z, Farmakides, G, Schulman, H, Lopresti, S, Schneider, E. Surveillance of growth-retarded fetuses with computerized fetal heart rate monitoring combined with Doppler velocimetry of the umbilical and uterine arteries. J Reprod Med 1996; 41: 112–18.Google Scholar
Arabin, B, Snyjders, R, Mohnhaupt, A, Ragosch, V, Nicolaides, K. Evaluation of the fetal assessment score in pregnancies at risk for intrauterine hypoxia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 549–54.Google Scholar
Turan, S, Turan, OM, Berg, C, et al. Computerized fetal heart rate analysis, Doppler ultrasound and biophysical profile score in the prediction of acid-base status of growth-restricted fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 750–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turan, OM, Turan, S, Gungor, S, et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 160–7.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ, Martin, CL, Levy, B, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175–84.Google Scholar
GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110: 27–32.Google Scholar
Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Thompson, RS, Giles, WB, Connelly, A. Low-dose aspirin therapy improves fetal weight in umbilical placental insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 681–5.Google Scholar
Newnham, JP, Godfrey, M, Walters, BJ, Phillips, J, Evans, SF. Low dose aspirin for the treatment of fetal growth restriction: a randomized controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 35: 370–4.Google Scholar
CLASP (Collaborative Low-dose Aspirin Study in Pregnancy) Collaborative Group. CLASP: a randomised trial of low-dose aspirin for the prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia among 9364 pregnant women. Lancet 1994; 343: 619–29.Google Scholar
Kozer, E, Nikfar, S, Costei, A, et al. Aspirin consumption during the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital anomalies: A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 1623–30.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S, Bradley, RJ, et al. Maternal oxygen therapy for intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1987; 1: 942–5.Google Scholar
Battaglia, C, Artini, PG, D’Ambrogio, G, et al. Maternal hyperoxygenation in the treatment of intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 430–5.Google Scholar
Karsdorp, VH, van Vugt, JM, Dekker, GA, van Geijn, HP. Reappearance of end-diastolic velocities in the umbilical artery following maternal volume expansion: a preliminary study. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 679–83.Google Scholar
Ronzoni, S, Marconi, AM, Paolini, CL, et al. The effect of a maternal infusion of amino acids on umbilical uptake in pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 741–6.Google Scholar
Ley, D, Wide-Swensson, D, Lindroth, M, Svenningsen, N, Marsal, K. Respiratory distress syndrome in infants with impaired intrauterine growth. Acta Paediatr 1997; 86: 1090–6.Google Scholar
Unterscheider, J, O’Donoghue, K, Daly, S, et al. Fetal growth restriction and the risk of perinatal mortality-case studies from the multicentre PORTO study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 63.Google Scholar
Lees, C, Marlow, N, Arabin, B, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 400–8.Google Scholar
Unterscheider, J, Daly, S, Geary, MP, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 290.e1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Divon, MY, Girz, BA, Lieblich, R, Langer, O. Clinical management of the fetus with markedly diminished umbilical artery end-diastolic flow. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1523–7.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Harman, CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 571–7.Google Scholar
Cosmi, E, Ambrosini, G, D’Antona, D, Saccardi, C, Mari, G. Doppler, cardiotocography, and biophysical profile changes in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 1240–5.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Andrade, E, Stampalija, T, Figueras, F. Cerebral blood flow studies in the diagnosis and management of intrauterine growth restriction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013; 25: 138–44.Google Scholar
Cruz-Martínez, R, Figueras, F, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Oros, D, Gratacos, E. Fetal brain Doppler to predict cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 618–26.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Cosmi, E, Bilardo, CM, et al. Predictors of neonatal outcome in early-onset placental dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 253–61.Google Scholar
Soothill, PW, Ajayi, RA, Campbell, S, Ross, EM, Nicolaides, KH. Fetal oxygenation at cordocentesis, maternal smoking and childhood neuro-development. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 59: 21–4.Google Scholar
Kahn, B, Lumey, LH, Zybert, PA, et al. Prospective risk of fetal death in singleton, twin, and triplet gestations: implications for practice. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 685–92.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA. Planning management and delivery of the growth-restricted fetus. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 49: 53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.02.009.Google Scholar
Lees, CC, Marlow, N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A, et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2162–72.Google Scholar
Trudell, AS, Cahill, AG, Tuuli, MG, Macones, GA, Odibo, AO. Risk of stillbirth after 37 weeks in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 376.e1–7.Google Scholar
Boers, KE, van Wyk, L, van der Post, JAM, et al. Neonatal morbidity after induction vs expectant monitoring in intrauterine growth restriction at term: a subanalysis of the DIGITAT RCT. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 344.e1–7.Google Scholar
Sotiriadis, A, Tsiami, A, Papatheodorou, S, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome after a single course of antenatal steroids in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 1385–96.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA. Neurodevelopment after fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36: 136–42.Google Scholar
Arcangeli, T, Thilaganathan, B, Hooper, R, Khan, KS, Bhide, A. Neurodevelopmental delay in small babies at term: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 267–75.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Oros, D, Cruz-Martinez, R, et al. Neurobehavior in term, small-for-gestational age infants with normal placental function. Pediatrics 2009; 124: e934–41.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Eixarch, E, Meler, E, et al. Small-for-gestational-age fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler have suboptimal perinatal and neurodevelopmental outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136: 34–8.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Sanz-Cortes, M, et al. Neurobehavioral outcomes in preterm, growth-restricted infants with and without prenatal advanced signs of brain-sparing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 288–94.Google Scholar
Llurba, E, Baschat, AA, Turan, OM, Harding, J, McCowan, LM. Childhood cognitive development after fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 383–9.Google Scholar
Savchev, S, Sanz-Cortes, M, Cruz-Martinez, R, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome of full-term small-for-gestational-age infants with normal placental function. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 201–6.Google Scholar
Van Wyk, L, Boers, KE, Van Der Post, JAM, et al. Effects on (neuro)developmental and behavioral outcome at 2 years of age of induced labor compared with expectant management in intrauterine growth-restricted infants: long-term outcomes of the DIGITAT trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 406.e1–7.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Weiner, CP. Umbilical artery Doppler screening for detection of the small fetus in need of antepartum surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 154–8.Google Scholar
Spellacy, WN, Miller, S, Winegar, A, Peterson, PQ. Macrosomia: maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 158–61.Google Scholar
Menticoglou, SM, Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Harman, CR. Must macrosomic fetuses be delivered by a caesarean section? A review of outcome for 786 babies greater than or equal to 4,500 g. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 32: 100–3.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, KR, Gregory, K, Shaw, K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles county + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 558–64.Google Scholar
Babinszki, A, Kerenyi, T, Torok, O, et al. Perinatal outcome in grand and great-grand multiparity: Effects of parity on obstetric risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 669–74.Google Scholar
Dooley, SL, Metzger, BE, Cho, NH. Gestational diabetes mellitus: influence of race on disease prevalence and perinatal outcome in a U.S. population. Diabetes 1991; 40 (Suppl 2): 25–9.Google Scholar
Okun, N, Verma, A, Mitchell, BF, Flowerdew, G. Relative importance of maternal constitutional factors and glucose intolerance of pregnancy in the development of newborn macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6: 285–90.Google Scholar
Black, MH, Sacks, DA, Xiang, AH, Lawrence, JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG-defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabetes Care 2013; 36: 56–62.Google Scholar
Gaudet, L, Ferraro, ZM, Wen, SW, Walker, M. Maternal obesity and occurrence of fetal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 640291.Google Scholar
Cogswell, ME, Serdula, MK, Hungerford, DW, Yip, R. Gestational weight gain among average-weight and overweight women–what is excessive? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 705–12.Google Scholar
Ogunyemi, D, Hullett, S, Leeper, J, Risk, A. Prepregnancy body mass index, weight gain during pregnancy, and perinatal outcome in a rural black population. J Matern Fetal Med 1998; 7: 190–3.Google Scholar
Lazer, S, Biale, Y, Mazor, M, Lewenthal, H, Insler, V. Complications associated with the macrosomic fetus. J Reprod Med 1986; 31: 501–5.Google Scholar
Klebanoff, MA, Mills, JL, Berendes, HW. Mother’s birth weight as a predictor of macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 253–7.Google Scholar
Langer, O, Levy, J, Brustman, L, et al. Glycemic control in gestational diabetes mellitus–how tight is tight enough: small for gestational age versus large for gestational age? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 646–53.Google Scholar
Carpenter, MW, Canick, JA, Hogan, JW, et al. Amniotic fluid insulin at 14–20 weeks’ gestation: Association with later maternal glucose intolerance and birth macrosomia. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 1259–63.Google Scholar
Metzger, BE, Lowe, LP, Dyer, AR, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1991–2002.Google Scholar
Nasrat, H, Abalkhail, B, Fageeh, W, Shabat, A, El Zahrany, F. Anthropometric measurements of newborns of gestational diabetic mothers: does it indicate disproportionate fetal growth? J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6: 291–5.Google Scholar
McFarland, MB, Trylovich, CG, Langer, O. Anthropometric differences in macrosomic infants of diabetic and nondiabetic mothers. J Matern Fetal Med 1998; 7: 292–5.Google Scholar
Ferber, A. Maternal complications of fetal macrosomia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43: 335–9.Google Scholar
Boulet, SL, Alexander, GR, Salihu, HM, Pass, M. Macrosomic births in the United States: Determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1372–8.Google Scholar
Perlow, JH, Wigton, T, Hart, J, et al. Birth trauma. A five-year review of incidence and associated perinatal factors. J Reprod Med 1996; 41: 754–60.Google Scholar
Acker, DB, Gregory, KD, Sachs, BP, Friedman, EA. Risk factors for Erb-Duchenne palsy. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 389–92.Google Scholar
Ecker, JL, Greenberg, JA, Norwitz, ER, Nadel, AS, Repke, JT. Birth weight as a predictor of brachial plexus injury. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 643–7.Google Scholar
Esakoff, TF, Cheng, YW, Sparks, TN, Caughey, AB. The association between birthweight 4000 g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 672.e1–4.Google Scholar
Chez, RA, Carlan, S, Greenberg, SL, Spellacy, WN. Fractured clavicle is an unavoidable event. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 797–8.Google Scholar
Gherman, RB, Ouzounian, JG, Goodwin, TM. Brachial plexus palsy: an in utero injury? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 1303–7.Google Scholar
Bérard, J, Dufour, P, Vinatier, D, Subtil, D, Vanderstichèle, S, Monnier, JC, et al. Fetal macrosomia: Risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases >4500 g. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 77: 51–9.Google Scholar
Catalano, PM, Ehrenberg, HM. The short- and long-term implications of maternal obesity on the mother and her offspring. BJOG 2006; 113: 1126–33.Google Scholar
Stones, RW, Paterson, CM, Saunders, NJ. Risk factors for major obstetric haemorrhage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 48: 15–8.Google Scholar
El Madany, AA, Jallad, KB, Radi, FA, El Hamdan, H, O’deh, HM. Shoulder dystocia: Anticipation and outcome. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1991; 34: 7–12.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Harman, CR, Farid, G, Chodirker, BN, Evans, JA. Very low second-trimester maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein: Association with high birth weight. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 531–6.Google Scholar
Wikström, I, Bergström, R, Bakketeig, L, Jacobsen, G, Lindmark, G. Prediction of high birthweight from maternal characteristics, symphysis fundal height and ultrasound biometry. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1993; 35: 27–33.Google Scholar
Neilson, JP. Symphysis–fundal height measurement in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000944.Google Scholar
Gonen, R, Spiegel, D, Abend, M. Is macrosomia predictable, and are shoulder dystocia and birth trauma preventable? Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 526–9.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Hendrix, NW, Magann, EF, et al. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: Experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 72–7.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Sullivan, CA, Lutton, TC, Magann, EF, Morrison, JC. Parous patients’ estimate of birth weight in postterm pregnancy. J Perinatol 1995; 15: 192–4.Google Scholar
Sherman, DJ, Arieli, S, Tovbin, J, Siegel, G, Caspi, E, Bukovsky, I. A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 212–17.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Cowan, BD, Magann, EF, Bradford, TH, Roberts, WE, Morrison, JC. Intrapartum detection of a macrosomic fetus: clinical versus 8 sonographic models. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 35: 266–70.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, BR, Gelman, R, Frigoletto, FD. Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 1118–21.Google Scholar
Smith, GC, Smith, MF, McNay, MB, Fleming, JE. The relation between fetal abdominal circumference and birthweight: findings in 3512 pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 186–90.Google Scholar
O’Reilly-Green, CP, Divon, MY. Receiver operating characteristic curves of sonographic estimated fetal weight for prediction of macrosomia in prolonged pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 403–8.Google Scholar
Alsulyman, OM, Ouzounian, JG, Kjos, SL. The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 503–6.Google Scholar
Rigano, S, Ferrazzi, E, Radaelli, T, Cetin, ET, Pardi, G. Sonographic measurements of subcutaneous fetal fat in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes and in normal pregnancies. Croat Med J 2000; 41: 240–4.Google Scholar
Combs, CA, Jaekle, RK, Rosenn, B, Pope, M, Miodovnik, M, Siddiqi, TA. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight based on a model of fetal volume. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 365–70.Google Scholar
Hawkins, JS, Casey, BM, Lo, JY, Moss, K, McIntire, DD, Leveno, KJ. Weekly compared with daily blood glucose monitoring in women with diet-treated gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 1307–12.Google Scholar
Gonen, O, Rosen, DJD, Dolfin, Z, et al. Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: A randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 913–17.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Ramos, L, Bernstein, S, Kaunitz, AM. Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 997–1002.Google Scholar
Rouse, DJ, Owen, J, Goldenberg, RL, Cliver, SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996; 276: 1480–6.Google Scholar
Flamm, BL, Goings, JR. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is suspected fetal macrosomia a contraindication? Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 694–7.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×