Management of late‐onset fetal growth restriction: pragmatic approach
Authors: Peasley R. , Rangel L. A. Abrego , Casagrandi D. , Donadono V. , Willinger M. , Conti G. , Seminara Y. , Marlow N. , David A. L. , Attilakos G. , Pandya P. , Zaikin A. , Peebles D. , Napolitano R. 
Published: March 2023

ABSTRACTObjectivesThere is limited prospective evidence to guide the management of late‐onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) and its differentiation from small‐for‐gestational age. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively a novel protocol in which ultrasound criteria were used to classify women with suspected late FGR into two groups: those at low risk, who were managed expectantly until the anticipated date of delivery, and those at high risk, who were delivered soon after 37 weeks of gestation. We also compared the outcome of this prospective cohort with that of a historical cohort of women presenting similarly with suspected late FGR, in order to evaluate the impact of the new protocol.MethodsThis was a prospective study of women with a non‐anomalous singleton pregnancy at ≥ 32 weeks' gestation attending a tertiary hospital in London, UK, between February 2018 and September 2019, with estimated fetal weight (EFW) ≤ 10th centile, or EFW > 10th centile in addition to a decrease in fetal abdominal circumference of ≥ 50 centiles compared with a previous scan, umbilical artery Doppler pulsatility index > 95th centile or cerebroplacental ratio < 5th centile. Women were classified as low or high risk based on ultrasound and Doppler criteria. Women in the low‐risk group were delivered by 41 weeks of gestation, unless they subsequently met high‐risk criteria, whereas women in the high‐risk group (EFW < 3rd centile, umbilical artery Doppler pulsatility index > 95th centile or EFW between 3rd and 10th centiles (inclusive) with abdominal circumference drop or abnormal Dopplers) were delivered at or soon after 37 weeks. The primary outcome was adverse neonatal outcome and included hypothermia, hypoglycemia, neonatal unit admission, jaundice requiring treatment, suspected infection, feeding difficulties, 1‐min Apgar score < 7, hospital readmission and any severe adverse neonatal outcome (perinatal death, resuscitation using inotropes or mechanical ventilation, 5‐min Apgar score < 7, metabolic acidosis, sepsis, and cerebral, cardiac or respiratory morbidity). Secondary outcomes were adverse maternal outcome (operative delivery for abnormal fetal heart rate) and severe adverse neonatal outcome. Women managed according to the new protocol were compared with a historical cohort of 323 women delivered prior to the implementation of the new protocol, for whom management was guided by individual clinician expertise.ResultsOver 18 months, 321 women were recruited to the prospective cohort, of whom 156 were classified as low risk and 165 were high risk. Adverse neonatal outcome was significantly less common in the low‐risk compared with the high‐risk group (45% vs 58%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4–0.9); P = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse maternal outcome (18% vs 24%; aOR, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.4–1.2); P = 0.142) or severe adverse neonatal outcome (3.8% vs 8.5%; aOR, 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2–1.3); P = 0.153) between the low‐ and high‐risk groups. Compared with women in the historical cohort classified retrospectively as low risk, low‐risk women managed under the new protocol had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcome (45% vs 58%; aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4–0.9); P = 0.026).ConclusionsAppropriate risk stratification to guide management of late FGR was associated with a reduced rate of adverse neonatal outcome in low‐risk pregnancies. In clinical practice, a policy of expectantly managing women with a low‐risk late‐onset FGR pregnancy at term could improve neonatal and long‐term development. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the effect of an evidence‐based conservative management protocol for late FGR on perinatal morbidity and mortality and long‐term neurodevelopment. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.