Abstract
Background
An optimal approach for providing sufficient antenatal surveillance for fetal growth restriction (FGR) has yet to be elucidated. Moreover, there is scant literature on the fetal response to betamethasone and its effect on fetal Dopplers.
Objective
To compare persistence of umbilical artery Doppler abnormalities after corticosteroid administration and adverse perinatal outcome in growth restricted fetuses.
Methods
Retrospective cohort study (2008–2018) of singleton gestations with FGR (EFW <10th percentile) and umbilical artery Doppler abnormalities (absent or reversed end diastolic velocity) between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation at two institutions. Included patients had Dopplers performed before betamethasone administration and again within 1 week. Excluded were multiple gestations, chromosomal abnormalities, fetal anomalies, or missing outcome information. Pregnancies with persistently abnormal Dopplers were compared with those in which an improvement of Dopplers was noted. The primary outcome was a composite that consisted of indicated preterm birth <32 weeks, 1 or 5 min APGAR score <7, intrauterine fetal demise, and neonatal demise. Secondary outcomes included length of NICU stay, ventilator support, gestational age at delivery, interval between steroids and delivery, and birth weight.
Results
Fifty-three FGR pregnancies met inclusion criteria. Umbilical artery Dopplers improved after steroids in 32% (n = 17). No difference in the frequency of the primary outcome was observed between the persistently abnormal Doppler and improved Doppler groups (72.2% vs. 70.6%, respectively), and there was no difference in any of the secondary outcomes.
Conclusions
Perinatal outcomes in FGR pregnancies were not affected by improved versus persistently abnormal umbilical artery Dopplers after betamethasone administration.
Acknowledgements
This study was presented in its abstract form at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) Annual Convention in New York, New York in March 2018.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).