Care-related factors associated with antepartal diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction: a case–control study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Hajo Zeeb²  Tilman Brand⁵  Knud Petersen³  Jacob Spallek⁴  Anna Reeske¹  Sinja Alexandra Ernst⁵ 

[1] Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1-25, Dortmund, 44149, Germany;Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Klinikum links der Weser, Senator-Weßling-Straße 1, Bremen, 28277, Germany;Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, Bielefeld University, School of Public Health, Universitätsstraße 25, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany;Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Achterstraße 30, Bremen, 28359, Germany

关键词: Prenatal ultrasonography;    Intrauterine growth restriction;    Prenatal care;    Case–control study;   

Others  :  1092055
DOI  :  10.1186/s12884-014-0371-5

 received in 2014-10-01, accepted in 2014-10-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Antenatal care is of core importance for maternal and child health and is therefore a central aspect of mother and child health care. One of the main goals of effective screening in antenatal care is the detection of suboptimal fetal growth. However, the sensitivity of antenatal diagnostic of suboptimal fetal growth (i.e. intrauterine growth restriction; IUGR) through clinical routine fetal ultrasonography has been observed to be low. A study conducted in Germany found that only 30% of IUGR cases and 40% of congenital malformations were diagnosed antenatally. Reasons for this low detection rate remain unclear.

Methods/Design

In the first of two study components, all mothers who delivered or will deliver a small for gestational age (SGA) newborn in one of three hospitals in Bremen (Germany) during recruitment phase are eligible for inclusion in a hospital based case–control study. Cases are defined as neonates with an IUGR that was not detected antenatally, while controls are defined as neonates whose IUGR was identified or at least suspected antenatally. Data collection instruments include a newborn documentation sheet, a standardized, computer-assisted personal interview with mothers, and a copy of pregnancy record books. The second component is a survey among all private practice-based gynecologists in the federal states of Bremen and Lower Saxony. The aim of this survey was to obtain detailed information e.g. on quality of ultrasonography equipment and examiner’s ultrasonography experience and qualification level.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is one of the few German studies explicitly addressing care-related as well as maternal-related factors influencing the (non-) detection of IUGR by conducting comprehensive interviews with mothers and private practice-based gynecologists. Over the last 15 years there have been substantial technological advances in ultrasonography equipment in gynecological practices; hence there is the need to evaluate whether the detection rates of IUGR in Germany are still as low as previously reported in the late 1990ies. Our study results will contribute to a better understanding of core risk factors for low early detection rates of intrauterine growth restrictions and may support quality development in this important health care sector.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ernst et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kady S, Gardosi J: Perinatal mortality and fetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 18:397-410.
• [2]Figueras F, Gardosi J: Intrauterine growth restriction: new concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 204:288-300.
• [3]Mandruzzato G, Antsaklis A, Botet F, Chervenak FA, Figueras F, Grunebaum A, Puerto B, Skupski D, Stanojevic M: Intrauterine restriction (IUGR). J Perinat Med 2008, 36(4):277-281.
• [4]Jacobsson B, Ahlin K, Francis A, Hagberg G, Hagberg H, Gardosi J: Cerebral palsy and restricted growths status at birth: population-based case–control study. BJOG 2008, 115:1250-1255.
• [5]Salam RA, Das JK, Bhutta ZA: Impact of intrauterine growth restriction on long-term health. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2014, 17(3):249-254.
• [6]Crombach G: Intrauterine wachstumsrestriktion. Teil I: klassifikation, pathogenese und diagnose. Gynäkologie 2007, 40(11):891-90.
• [7]Wollmann HA: Intrauterine growth restriction: definition and etiology. Horm Res 1998, 49(2):1-6.
• [8]Gembruch U, Baschat AA, Harman CR: Diagnostik und fetale Überwachung bei intrauteriner Wachstumsrestriction. Gynakologe 2001, 34:1128-1137.
• [9]Manning FA: General Principles and Applications of Ultrasonography. In Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. Edited by Creasy RK, Resnik R. Saunders, Philadelphia; 2004.
• [10]Bakketeig LS: Current growth standards, definitions, diagnosis and classification of fetal growth retardation. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998, 52(Suppl 1):S1-S4.
• [11]Stratton JF, Scanaill SN, Stuart B, Turner MJ: Are babies of normal birth weight who fail to reach their growth potential as diagnosed by ultrasound at increased risk? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995, 5:114-118.
• [12]Sheridan C: Intrauterine growths restriction-diagnosis and management. Aust Fam Physician 2005, 34:717-723.
• [13]Vetter K: Therapieoption bei Wachstumsrestriktion des Fetus (IUGR). Gynakologe 2001, 34:1124-1127.
• [14]Rosendahl H, Kivinen S: Detection of small for gestational age fetuses by the combination of clinical risk factors and ultrasonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991, 39(1):7-11.
• [15]Neilson JP, Munjana SP, Whitfield CR: Screening for small for date fetuses: a controlled trial. Brit Med J 1984, 289:1179-1182.
• [16]Jahn A, Razum O, Berle P: Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Germany: low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998, 77(6):643-648.
• [17]Bais JMJ, Eskes M, Pel M, Bonsel GJ, Bleker OP: Effectiveness of detection of intrauterine growth retardation by abdominal palpation as screening test in a low risk population: an observational study. Eur J Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2004, 116:164-169.
• [18]Jahn A, Razum O, Berle P: Routine-Ultraschall in der deutschen Schwangerenvorsorge: Ist die Effektivität gesichert. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1999, 59(3):97-102.
• [19]Petersen J, Jahn A: Suspicious findings in antenatal care and their implications from the mothers’ perspective: a prospective study in Germany. Birth 2008, 35(1):41-49.
• [20]Queisser-Luft A, Stopfkuchen H, Stolz G, Schlaefer K, Merz E: Prenatal diagnosis of major malformations: quality control of routine ultrasound examinations based on a five-year study of 20248 newborn fetuses and infants. Prenat Diagn 1998, 18:567-576.
• [21]Behrens O, Steiner C, Böhmer S, Mühlhaus K: Qualität des Ultraschall-Screenings in der Schwangerenvorsorge. Zentralbl Gynakol 1999, 121(5):228-232.
• [22]Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T: Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 4:Art No. CD007058.
• [23]Randall P, Brealey S, Hahn S, Khan KS, Parsons JM: Accuracy of fetal echocardiography in the routine detection of congenital heart disease among unselected and low risk populations: a systematic review. BJOG 2005, 112(1):24-30.
• [24]Rosery H, Maxio-Bergemann S, Rosery B, Bergemann R: HTA Bericht Bd. 10: Ultraschall in der Schwangerschaft - Beurteilung der routinemäßigen Schwangerschaftsultraschalluntersuchungen unter Maßgabe der Mutterschaftsrichtlinie. DIMDI, Köln; 2004.
• [25]Vos JM, Offringa M, Bilardo CM, Lijmer JG, Barth PG: Sensitive and specific screening for detection of spina bifida by echography in the second trimester: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000, 144(36):1736-1741.
• [26]Levi S, Hyjazi Y, Schaaps JP, Defoort P, Coulon R, Buekens P: Sensitivity and specifity of routine antenatal screening for congenital anomalies by ultrasound. The Belgian multicentric study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991, 1:102-110.
• [27]Tegnander E, Eik-Nes SH: The examiner’s ultrasound experience has a significant impact on the detection rate of congenital heart defects at the second-trimester fetal examination. Ultra-sound Obstet Gynecol 2006, 28(1):8-14.
• [28]Rustico MA, Benettoni A, D’Ottavio G, Fischer-Tamaro L, Conoscenti GC, Meir Y, Natale R, Bussani R, Mandruzzato GP: Early screening for fetal cardiac anomalies by transvaginal echocardiography in an unselected population: the role of operator experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000, 16(7):614-619.
• [29]Bernaschek G, Stuempflen I, Deutinger J: The influence of the experience of the investigator on the rate of sonographic diagnosis of fetal malformations in Vienna. Prenat Diagn 1996, 16(9):807-811.
• [30]Vial Y, Tran C, Addor MC, Hohlfeld P: Screening for foetal malformations: performance of routine ultrasonography in the population of the Swiss canton of Vaud. Swiss Med Wkly 2001, 131(33–34):490-494.
• [31]Ultraschallscreening in der Schwangerschaft: Testgüte Hinsichtlich der Entdeckungsrate Fetaler Anomalien. Abschlussbericht S05-03. IQWiG, Köln; 2008.
• [32]Reeske A, Kutschmann M, Razum O, Spallek J: Stillbirth differences according to regions of origin: an analysis of the German perinatal database, 2004–2007. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 11:63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Koller D, Lack N, Mielck A: Soziale Unterschiede bei der Inanspruchnahme der Schwangerschafts-Vorsorgeuntersuchungen, beim Rauchen der Mutter während der Schwangerschaft und beim Geburtsgewicht des Neugeborenen. Empirische Analyse auf Basis der Bayerischen Perinatal-Studie. Gesundheitswesen 2009, 71:10-18.
• [34]David M, Pachaly J, Vetter K: Perinatal outcome in Berlin (Germany) among immigrants from Turkey. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006, 247:271-278.
• [35]Simoes E, Kunz S, Bosing-Schwenkglenks M, Schwoerer P, Schmahl FW: Inanspruchnahme der Schwangerschaftsvorsorge – ein Spiegel gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen und Aspekte der Effizienz. Untersuchung auf Basis der Perinatalerhebung Baden-Württemberg 1998–2001. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2003, 61:538-545.
• [36]Spallek J, Zeeb H, Razum O: Prevention among immigrants: the example of Germany. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:92. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Tadesse R, Jahn A, Razum O: How well do doctors document their findings in antenatal care – and are their differences between women of German and non-German nationality? ᅟ 1999, 5:ᅟ. Arbeitstagung der FIDE. [Personal communication]
• [38]Voigt M, Schneider KTM, Jährig K: Analyse des Geburtengutes des Jahrgangs 1992 der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Teil I: Neue Perzentilwerte für die Körpermaße von Neugeborenen. Geburtsh u Frauenheilk 1996, 56:550-558.
• [39]Bamberg C, Kalache KD: Prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2004, 9:387-394.
• [40]Law TL, Korte JE, Katikaneni LD, Wagner CL, Ebeling MD, Newman RB: Ultrasound assessment of intrauterine growth restriction: relationship to neonatal body composition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205:255.e1-6.
• [41]Ferro-Luzzi A, Ashworth A, Martorell R, Scrimshaw N: Report of the IDECG Working Group on effects of IUGR on infants, children and adolescents: immunocompetence, mortality, morbidity, body size, body composition, and physical performance. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998, 52(Suppl 1):S97-S99.
• [42]Gardosi J, Figueras F, Clausson B, Francis A: The costumised growth potential: an international research tool to study the epidemiology of fetal growth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2010, 25:2-10.
• [43]Gardosi J: Intrauterine growth restriction: new standards for assessing adverse outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 23(6):741-749.