Hemodynamic findings in normotensive women with small-for-gestational-age and growth-restricted fetuses

13Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) in most instances is a consequence of primary placental dysfunction due to inadequate trophoblastic invasion. Maternal cardiac maladaptation to pregnancy has been proposed as a possible determinant of placental insufficiency and impaired fetal growth. This study aimed to compare the maternal hemodynamic parameters between normotensive women with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and FGR fetuses and to evaluate their correlation with neonatal outcome. Material and methods: An observational cohort study including singleton pregnancies referred to our tertiary care center due to fetal smallness. At the time of diagnosis, fetuses were classified as SGA or FGR according to the Delphi consensus criteria, and pregnant women underwent hemodynamic assessment using a cardiac output monitor. A group of women with singleton uncomplicated pregnancies ar ≥35 weeks of gestation were recruited as controls. Cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance, stroke volume, and heart rate were measured and compared among the three groups (controls vs FGR vs SGA). The correlation between antenatal findings and neonatal outcome was also evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 51 women with fetal smallness were assessed at 34.8 ± 2.6 weeks. SGA and FGR were diagnosed in 22 and 29 cases, respectively. The control group included 61 women assessed at 36.5 ± 0.8 weeks of gestation. Women with FGR had a lower cardiac output Z-score (respectively, −1.3 ± 1.2 vs −0.4 ± 0.8 vs −0.2 ± 1.0; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Di Pasquo, E., Ghi, T., Dall’Asta, A., Angeli, L., Ciavarella, S., Armano, G., … Frusca, T. (2021). Hemodynamic findings in normotensive women with small-for-gestational-age and growth-restricted fetuses. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 100(5), 876–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14026

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free