Prediction of Perinatal Outcome in Preeclampsia Based on Doppler Parameters
https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2022-21-5-13-17
Abstract
Objective of the Review: To present current literature data on the prediction of perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with preeclampsia and on potential strategies for improving the prediction of outcomes of pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia based on Doppler parameters.
Key points. The results of studies devoted to the choice of the most optimal Doppler indicators that can be used to predict perinatal outcome are presented. This review presents an analysis of the accuracy of Doppler parameters (pulsation index in the middle cerebral and umbilical arteries, resistance index, cerebroplacental ratio) in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia. A review of the current literature on the prediction of perinatal outcomes and management of pregnant women with preeclampsia and potential strategies improving the prediction of outcomes of pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia.
Conclusion. Currently, dopplerometry in obstetric practice is a highly accurate prognostic method for determining the perinatal outcome in complicated pregnancy. This method allows to predict the actual risk to the fetus, monitor and evaluate its degree along with other methods of antenatal care, and also allows you to choose the time and method of delivery if the risk of intrauterine death of the fetus is high.
About the Authors
G. A. Lazareva
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Kursk State Medical University” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 Karl Marx Str., Kursk, 305041
E. L. Chebysheva
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Kursk State Medical University” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 Karl Marx Str., Kursk, 305041
References
1. Dobrokhotova Yu.E., Dzhokhadze L.S., Kuznetsov P.A., Osmanova A.P. et al. Preeclampsia: from history to the present day. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2015; 21(5): 120–6. (in Russian) DOI: 10.17116/repro2015215120-126
2. Ivanova O.Yu., Ponomareva N.A., Aleksashkina K.A., Kulakova M.V. Characteristics of blood flowin the fetal venous duct during pregnancy complicated by pre-eclampsia. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2019; 19(4): 53–7. (in Russian) DOI: 10.17116/rosakush20191904153
3. Ivanova O.Yu., Gazazyan M.G., Ponomaryova N.A. Condition of vasoregulative function of endothelium in case of uncomplicated and complicated pregnancies. Humans and their Health. 2010; 4: 67–72. (in Russian)
4. Sibai B.M. Preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders. In: Gabbe S.G., Niebyl J.R., Simpson J.L., Landon M.B. et al., eds. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017: 662.
5. Adiga P., Kantharaja I., Hebbar S., Rai L. et al. Predictive value of middle cerebral artery to uterine artery pulsatility index ratio in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Int. J. Reprod. Med. 2015; 2015: 614747. DOI: 10.1155/2015/614747
6. El Guindy A.E., Nawara M., El Santer O. Cerebroplacental ratio and cerebrouterine ratio in predicting neonatal outcome in preeclamptic pregnant women. Int. J. Reprod. Med. Gynecol. 2018; 4(1): 022–7.
7. Alanwar A.E., Nour A.A., Mandooh M.Е., Abdelazim I.A. et al. Prognostic accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio for adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated with severe preeclampsia: a prospective cohort study. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018; 14: 86–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2018.08.446
8. Lalthantluanga C., Devi N.R., Singh N.J., Shugeta N.D. et al. Study on role of obstetrical Doppler in pregnancies with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. J. Med. Soc. 2015; 29(2): 79–82.
9. Patil V., Gowda S., Das S., Suma K.B. et al. Cerebro-placental ratio in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a reliable predictor of neonatal outcome. J. Clin. Diag. Res. 2019; 13(5): 6–10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2019/41185.12862
10. Garovic V.D., White W.M., Vaughan L., Saiki M. et al. Incidence and long-term outcomes of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020; 75(18): 2323–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.028
11. Magee L.A., Sharma S., Nathan H.L., Adetoro O.O. et al. The incidence of pregnancy hypertension in India, Pakistan, Mozambique, and Nigeria: a prospective population-level analysis. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(4): e1002783. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002783
12. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 203 summary: chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 133(1): 215–19. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003021
13. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 202 summary: gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 133(1): 211–14. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003019
14. Brown M.A., Magee L.A., Kenny L.C., Karumanchi S.A. et al. The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis & management recommendations for international practice. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018; 13: 291–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2018.05.004
15. Webster K., Fishburn S., Maresh M., Findlay S.C. et al. Diagnosis and management of hypertension in pregnancy: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2019; 366: l5119. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5119
16. Duffy J., Cairns A.E., Richards-Doran D., van't Hooft J. et al. A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study. BJOG. 2020; 127(12): 1516–26. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16319
17. Scott G., Gillon T.E., Pels A., von Dadelszen P. et al. Guidelines — similarities and dissimilarities: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines for pregnancy hypertension. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 226(2S): S1222–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.018
18. Valiño N., Giunta G., Gallo D.M., Akolekar R. et al. Uterine artery pulsatility index at 30–34 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 47(3): 308–15. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14898
19. Gramellini D., Folli M.C., Raboni S., Vadora E. et al. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 1992; 79(3): 416–20. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-199203000-00018
20. Dall'Asta A., Ghi T., Rizzo G., Cancemi A. et al. Cerebroplacental ratio assessment in early labor in uncomplicated term pregnancy and prediction of adverse perinatal outcome: prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 53: 481–7. DOI: 10.1002/uog.19113
21. Baschat A.A., Gembruch U., Reiss I., Gortner L. et al. Relationship between arterial and venous Doppler and perinatal outcome in fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 407–13. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00284.x
22. Bligh L.N., Alsolai A.A., Greer R.M., Kumar S. Cerebroplacental ratio thresholds measured within 2 weeks before birth and risk of Cesarean section for intrapartum fetal compromise and adverse neonatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(3): 340–6. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17542
23. Zarean E., Shabaninia S. The assessment of association between uterine artery pulsatility index at 30–34 week's gestation and adverse perinatal outcome. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2018; 7: 111. DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_112_17
24. Akolekar R., Ciobanu A., Zingler E., Syngelaki A. et al. Routine assessment of cerebroplacental ratio at 35–37 weeks' gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 221(1): 65.e1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.002
25. Triunfo S., Crispi F., Gratacos E., Figueras F. Prediction of delivery of small-for-gestational-age neonates and adverse perinatal outcome by fetoplacental Doppler at 37 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 49(3): 364–71. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15979
26. Fiolna M., Kostiv V., Anthoulakis C., Akolekar R. et al. Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by cerebroplacental ratio in women undergoing induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 53(4): 473–80. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20173
27. Bligh L.N., Al Solai A., Greer R.M., Kumar S. Diagnostic performance of cerebroplacental ratio thresholds at term for prediction of low birthweight and adverse intrapartum and neonatal outcomes in a term, low-risk population. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2018; 43(3): 191–8. DOI: 10.1159/000477932
28. Arabin B., Goerges J., Bilardo C.M. The importance of the cerebro-placental ratio in the evaluation of fetal well-being in SGA and AGA fetuses. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 214(2): 298–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.09.098
29. Khalil A., Morales-Rosello J., Khan N., Nath M. et al. Is cerebro-placental ratio a marker of impaired fetal growth velocity and adverse pregnancy outcome? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 216(6): 606.e1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.005
30. Ciobanu A., Wright A., Syngelaki A., Wright D. et al. Fetal Medicine Foundation reference ranges for umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index and cerebroplacental ratio. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 53(4): 465–72. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20157
31. MacDonald T.M., Hui L., Robinson A.J., Dane K.M. et al. Cerebral-placental-uterine ratio as novel predictor of late fetal growth restriction: prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 54(3): 367–75. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20150
32. Monaghan C., Binder J., Thilaganathan B., Morales-Roselló J. et al. Perinatal loss at term: role of uteroplacental and fetal Doppler assessment. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 72–7. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17500
33. Zohav E., Zohav E., Rabinovich M., Shenhav S. et al. Local cerebroplacental ratio reference ranges are better predictors for adverse delivery outcomes in normal weight fetuses during pregnancy. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021; 34(21): 3475–80. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1685968
Review
For citations:
Lazareva G.A., Chebysheva E.L. Prediction of Perinatal Outcome in Preeclampsia Based on Doppler Parameters. Title. 2022;21(5):13-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2022-21-5-13-17
Views:
10
Email this article 