Prenatal prognosis is an important part of obstetric care, which aims to reduce fetal and neonatal losses. A differentiated approach to the management of different risk groups allows you to optimize existing approaches.
The objective: сomparison of pregnancy results in the high perinatal risk group using the proposed monitoring algorithms and the traditional method of management in a prospective cohort study.
Materials and methods. The prospective cohort study was conducted from 2016 to 2018 on the basis of the medical center LLC «Uniclinica», Medical Genetics Center «Genome», Clinic of Reproductive Genetics «Victoria», Kyiv City Maternity Hospital №2. 580 women were included in the final analysis. Exclusion criteria were: low risk (0–2) according to the adapted antenatal risk scale (Alberta perinatal health program), multiple pregnancy, critical malformations and chromosomal abnormalities of the fetus, lack of complete information about the outcome of pregnancy, lack of results of all intermediate clinical and laboratory surveys.
Results. The introduction of a comprehensive differentiated approach has improved the diagnosis of late forms of growth retardation (OR 4,14 [1.42–12.09]; p=0,009), reduced the frequency of urgent cesarean sections (OR 1,61 [1,03–2,49]; p=0,046) and reduced perinatal mortality [1,09–21,3]; р=0,041) due to reduction of antenatal losses (OR 2,2 [1,06–4,378]; р=0,045). There was a significant increase in the frequency of planned cesarean sections (p<0,0001, without affecting the total number of operative deliveries) and statistically insignificant, but tendentiously clear shifts to the increase in the frequency of preterm birth between 34–37 weeks of pregnancy and intensive care unit. The latter observation can be explained by better diagnosis of threatening fetal conditions and an increase in the frequency of active obstetric tactics, which in turn affects the number of premature infants, the involvement of the neonatal service, and thus the intensification of the load on intensive.
Conclusions. Adequate enhanced monitoring should combine ultrasound, cardiotocography, actography and laboratory techniques, each of which will have a clearly defined purpose in a combined approach to fetal assessment.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the first publication of original scientific articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to distribute work with acknowledgment of authorship and first publication in this journal.
Practice Bulletin No. 163 Summary: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;127(5):979-981.
Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005;353(19):2001-2011.
Grace MR, Hardisty E, Dotters-Katz SK, Vora NL, Kuller JA. Cell-Free DNA Screening: Complexities and Challenges of Clinical Implementation. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2016;71(8):477-487.
Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;50(3):302-314.
Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;127(5):e108-122.
Van den Veyver IB. Recent advances in prenatal genetic screening and testing. F1000Research. 2016;5:2591.