Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:25:07.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Left ventricular dimensions, systolic functions, and mass in term neonates with symmetric and asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2013

Bahar Cinar
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
Ahmet Sert*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
Zeynel Gokmen
Affiliation:
Department of Neonatology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
Ebru Aypar
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Eyup Aslan
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
Dursun Odabas
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
*
Correspondence to: Dr A. Sert, MD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, 42080 Konya, Turkey. Tel: 903323236709; Fax: 903323236723; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated structural changes in the heart and cardiac dysfunction in foetuses with intrauterine growth restriction. There are no available data that evaluated left ventricular dimensions and mass in neonates with symmetric and asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate left ventricular dimensions, systolic functions, and mass in neonates with symmetric and asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction. We also assessed associated maternal risk factors, and compared results with healthy appropriate for gestational age neonates. Methods: In all, 62 asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction neonates, 39 symmetric intrauterine growth restriction neonates, and 50 healthy appropriate for gestational age neonates were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography. Results: The asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction group had significantly lower left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters and posterior wall diameter in systole and diastole than the control group. The symmetric intrauterine growth restriction group had significantly lower left ventricular end-diastolic diameter than the control group. All left ventricular dimensions were lower in the asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction neonates compared with symmetric intrauterine growth restriction neonates (p>0.05), but not statistically significant except left ventricular posterior wall diameter in diastole (3.08±0.83 mm versus 3.54 ±0.72 mm) (p<0.05). Both symmetric and asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction groups had significantly lower relative posterior wall thickness (0.54±0.19 versus 0.48±0.13 versus 0.8±0.12), left ventricular mass (9.8±4.3 g versus 8.9±3.4 g versus 22.2±5.7 g), and left ventricular mass index (63.6±29.1 g/m2 versus 54.5±24.4 g/m2 versus 109±28.8 g/m2) when compared with the control group. Conclusions: Our study has demonstrated that although neonates with both symmetric and asymmetric intrauterine growth restriction had lower left ventricular dimensions, relative posterior wall thickness, left ventricular mass, and mass index when compared with appropriate for gestational age neonates, left ventricular systolic functions were found to be preserved. In our study, low socio-economic level, short maternal stature, and low maternal weight were found to be risk factors to develop intrauterine growth restriction. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate left ventricular dimensions, wall thicknesses, mass, and systolic functions in neonates with intrauterine growth restriction and compare results with respect to asymmetric or symmetric subgroups.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

1. Comas, M, Crispi, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Martinez, JM, Figueras, F, Gratacós, E. Usefulness of myocardial tissue Doppler vs conventional echocardiography in the evaluation of cardiac dysfunction in early-onset intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Suhag, A, Berghella, V. Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR): etiology and diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 2013; 2: 102111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Puccio, G, Giuffré, M, Piccione, M, Piro, E, Rinaudo, G, Corsello, G. Intrauterine growth restriction and congenital malformations: a retrospective epidemiological study. Ital J Pediatr 2013; 39: 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Wollmann, HA. Intrauterine growth restriction: definition and etiology. Horm Res 1998; 49: 16.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Regnault, TRH, de Vrijer, B, Galan, HL, Wilkening, RB, Battaglia, FC, Meschia, G. Development and mechanisms of fetal hypoxia in severe fetal growth restriction. Placenta 2007; 28: 714723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Barker, DJ. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. BMJ 1990; 301: 1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Alexander, GR, Himes, JH, Kaufman, RB, Mor, J, Kogan, MA. United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 163168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Du Bois, D, Du Bois, EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Nutrition 1989; 5: 303311.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Torun, E. Socio-economic status of women according to development levels of countries and structure in Turkey. Afr J Agr Research 2010; 5: 11541161.Google Scholar
10. Sahn, DJ, De Maria, A, Kisslo, J, Weyman, A. The committee on M-mode standardization of the American society of echocardiography: results of a survey of echocardiographic measurements. Circulation 1978; 58: 10721083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Schuster, I, Karpoff, L, Perez-Martin, A, et al. Cardiac function during exercise in obese prepubertal boys: effect of degree of obesity. Obesity 2009; 17: 18781883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. de Simone, G, Daniels, SR, Devereux, RB, et al. Left ventricular mass and body size in normotensive children and adults: assessment of allometric relations and impact of overweight. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20: 12511260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Meas, T, Deghmoun, S, Alberti, C, et al. Independent effects of weight gain and fetal programming on metabolic complications in adults born small for gestational age. Diabetologia 2010; 53: 907913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Melamed, N, Yogev, Y, Glezerman, M. Fetal gender and pregnancy outcome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23: 338344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Radulescu, L, Ferechide, D, Popa, F. The importance of fetal gender in intrauterine growth restriction. J Med Life 2013; 6: 3839.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Crispi, F, Bijnens, B, Figueras, F, et al. Fetal growth restriction results in remodeled and less efficient hearts in children. Circulation 2010; 121: 24272436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Verburg, BO, Jaddoe, VW, Wladimiroff, JW, Hofman, A, Witteman, JC, Steegers, EA. Fetal hemodynamic adaptive changes related to intrauterine growth: the GenerationR Study. Circulation 2008; 117: 649659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Gardiner, H, Brodszki, J, Marsal, K. Ventriculovascular physiology of the growth restricted fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 4753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Baltabaeva, A, Marciniak, M, Bijnens, B, et al. Regional left ventricular deformation and geometry analysis provides insights in myocardial remodelling in mild to moderate hypertension. Eur J Echocardiogr 2008; 9: 501508.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Ream, M, Ray, AM, Chandra, R, Chikaraishi, DM. Early fetal hypoxia leads to growth restriction and myocardial thinning. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2008; 295: 583595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Morsing, E, Liuba, P, Fellman, V, Marsál, K, Brodszki, J. Cardiovascular function in children born very preterm after intrauterine growth restriction with severely abnormal umbilical artery blood flow. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; [Epub ahead of print].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Crispi, F, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Pelsers, MM, et al. Cardiac dysfunction and cell damage across clinical stages of severity in growth-restricted fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Robel-Tilling, E, Knüpfer, M, Voqtmann, C. Cardiac adaptation in small for gestational age neonates after prenatal hemodynamics disturbances. Early Hum Dev 2003; 72: 123129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Mikkola, K, Leipala, J, Boldt, T, Fellman, V. Fetal growth restriction in preterm infants and cardiovascular function at five years of age. J Pediatr 2007; 151: 494499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Altın, H, Karaarslan, S, Karataş, Z, Alp, H, Şap, F, Baysal, T. Evaluation of cardiac functions in term small for gestational age newborns with mild growth retardation: a serial conventional and tissue Doppler imaging echocardiographic study. Early Hum Dev 2012; 88: 757764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Aburawi, EH, Malcus, P, Thuring, A, Fellman, V, Pesonen, E. Coronary flow in neonates with impaired intrauterine growth. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25: 313318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Levy-Marchal, C, Czernichow, P. Small for gestational age and the metabolic syndrome: which mechanism is suggested by epidemiological and clinical studies? Horm Res 2006; 65: 123130.Google ScholarPubMed
28. Menendez-Castro, C, Fahlbusch, F, Cordasic, N, et al. Early and late postnatal myocardial and vascular changes in a protein restriction rat model of intrauterine growth restriction. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Martyn, CN, Greenwald, SE. Impaired synthesis of elastin in walls of aorta and large conduit arteries during early development as an initiating event in pathogenesis of systemic hypertension. Lancet 1997; 350: 953955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar