Intrauterine Foetal Death: Prognosis and Prevention
https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2025-24-5-18-27
Abstract
Aim. The aim of the study was improving the possibilities of predicting intrapartum fetal death by conducting a comprehensive assessment of clinical, anamnestic, biochemical and morphological risk factors.
Design. A retrospective cohort study.
Materials and methods. The data of 208 birth histories of patients for 2021-2023 whose pregnancies ended in intrapartum fetal death (155 women — the main group) and 53 histories of patients with uncomplicated pregnancy and childbirth (comparison group) were analyzed. We searched information of family, obstetric-gynecological and somatic anamnesis, the results of the first prenatal screening with an assessment of the functional activity of the trophoblast (в human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A). Retrospectively, a point assessment of the degree of perinatal risk was carried out (the scale of perinatal risk factors by V.E. Radzinsky et al., 2018), according to which patients who scored up to 15 points were regarded as belonging to alow degree, from 15 to 24 points — to an average, and above 25 points — to a high degree of perinatal risk). In the postpartum period, a morphological examination of the placenta was performed with macroand microscopic analysis.
Results. In the group of women whose pregnancy was complicated by antenatal fetal death, a combination of preplacental, placental and post-placental risk factors was noted. According to the ROC-curve analysis, with a combination of socio-demographic, somatic, gynecological and gravidary factors, the value of perinatal risk exceeding 9 points increases thelikelihood of antenatal fetal death.
Conclusion. The analysis of clinical and anamnestic data followed by a comprehensive dynamic assessment of risk factors will allow not only the identification of risk groups, but also significantly objectify the prognosis of pregnancy outcomes, timing and methods of delivery.
About the Authors
O. Yu. IvanovaRussian Federation
Kursk
A. S. Rubtsova
Russian Federation
Kursk
N. A. Ponomareva
Russian Federation
Kursk
Yu. S. Nikulina
Russian Federation
Kursk
References
1. Page J.M., Blue N.R., Silver R.M. Fetal growth and stillbirth. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2021;48(2):297–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.03.001
2. Heazell A.E.P., Barron R., Fockler M.E. Care in pregnancy after stillbirth. Semin. Perinatol. 2024;48(1):151872. DOI: 10.1016/j.semperi.2023.151872
3. Graham N., Stephens L., Johnstone E.D., Heazell A.E.P. Can information regarding the index stillbirth determine risk of adverse outcome in a subsequent pregnancy? Findings from a single-center cohort study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2021;100(7):1326–35. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14076
4. Management of stillbirth. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 10. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020. 135(3):e110–32. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.000000000000371975
5. Liang C., Chung H.F., Dobson A.J., Mishra G.D. Infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and the risk of stroke among women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2022;53(2):328–37. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.036271
6. Barrett P.M., McCarthy F.P., Evans M., Kublickas M. et al. Stillbirth is associated with increased risk of longterm maternal renal disease: a nationwide cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;223(3):427. e1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.031
7. McNamara K., Meaney S., O’Donoghue K. Intrapartum fetal death and doctors: a qualitative exploration. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2018;97(7):890–8. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13354
8. Sexton J.K., Coory M., Kumar S., Smith G. et al. Protocol for the development and validation of a risk prediction model for stillbirths from 35 weeks gestation in Australia. Diagn. Progn. Res. 2020;4(1):21. DOI: 10.1186/s41512-020-00089-w
9. Gibbins K.J., Pinar H., Reddy U.M., Saade G.R. et al. Findings in stillbirths associated with placental disease. Am. J. Perinatol. 2020;37(7):708–15. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688472
10. Milovanov A.P. Pathology of the mother — placenta — fetus system: a guide for doctors. M.; 1999. 448 p. (in Russian)
11. Adams A., Dongarwar D., Shay L., Baroni M. et al. Social determinants of health and risk of stillbirth in the United States. Am. J. Perinatol. 2024;41(S01):e477–85. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756141
12. Khalil A., Sotiriadis A., Chaoui R., da Silva Costa F. et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in congenital infection. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;56(1):128–51. DOI: 10.1002/uog.21991
13. Hromadnikova I., Kotlabova K., Krofta L. First-trimester screening for miscarriage or stillbirth — prediction. Model Based on MicroRNA Biomarkers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24(12):10137. DOI: 10.3390/ijms241210137
14. Mastrodima S., Akolekar R., Yerlikaya G., Tzelepis T. et al. Prediction of stillbirth from biochemical and biophysical markers at 11–13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016;48(5):613–17. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17289
15. Smith G.C.S. Predicting and preventing stillbirth at term. Semin. Perinatol. 2024;48(1):151869. DOI: 10.1016/j.semperi.2023.151869
16. Tokoro S., Koshida S., Tsuji S., Katsura D. et al. Insufficient antenatal identification of fetal growth restriction leading to intrauterine fetal death: a regional population-based study in Japan. J. Mater. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36(1):2167075. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2167075
17. Hammad I.A., Blue N.R., Allshouse A.A., Silver R.M. et al. Umbilical cord abnormalities and stillbirth. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;135(3):644–52. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.00000000000036761
Review
For citations:
Ivanova O.Yu., Rubtsova A.S., Ponomareva N.A., Nikulina Yu.S. Intrauterine Foetal Death: Prognosis and Prevention. Title. 2025;24(5):18-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2025-24-5-18-27
















