RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship of umbilical vein flow (UVF) measured close to term with abnormal fetal growth and adverse perinatal outcome in a cohort of pregnancies at low risk of placental insufficiency. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter observational study conducted across two tertiary maternity units. Patients with a singleton appropriate-for-gestational-age fetus between 35 and 38 weeks' gestation were included. Pregnancies at higher risk of placental insufficiency or with fetal anomalies were excluded. At ultrasound examination, the abdominal circumference (AC), umbilical vein diameter and peak velocity of the umbilical vein were measured, and, using these variables, a new variable, UVF/AC, was calculated. The primary outcome was the occurrence of severely stunted fetal growth, defined as a greater than 40-percentile drop between estimated fetal weight at the third-trimester ultrasound and birth weight between the third-trimester ultrasound and delivery. The occurrence of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as one of the following: neonatal acidosis (umbilical artery pH < 7.15 and/or base excess > 12 mmol/L) at birth, 5-min Apgar score < 7, neonatal resuscitation or neonatal intensive care unit admission, was analyzed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and March 2023, 365 women were included in the study. The mean UVF/AC at enrolment was 6.4 ± 2.6 mL/min/cm, and 35 (9.6%) cases were affected by severely stunted fetal growth. Severely stunted fetal growth was associated with a lower mean UVF/AC (5.4 ± 2.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.6 mL/min/cm; P = 0.02) and a higher frequency of UVF/AC < 10th percentile (8/35 (22.9%) vs 28/330 (8.5%); P = 0.01). Moreover, UVF/AC showed an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55-0.75; P = 0.004) in predicting the occurrence of severely stunted fetal growth, and the optimal cut-off value of UVF/AC for discriminating between normal and severely stunted fetal growth was 7.2 mL/min/cm. This value was associated with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.90) and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.28-0.39), and positive and negative predictive values of 0.11 (95% CI, 0.07-0.15) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97), respectively. Regarding the occurrence of adverse perinatal outcome, this was associated independently with maternal age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99); P = 0.04), UVF/AC Z-score (aOR, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.30-0.87); P = 0.01) and augmentation of labor (aOR, 2.69 (95% CI, 1.28-5.69); P = 0.009). UVF/AC showed an AUC of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P = 0.005) in predicting the occurrence of adverse perinatal outcome, and the optimal cut-off value of UVF/AC for discriminating between normal and adverse perinatal outcome was 6.7 mL/min/cm. This value was associated with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.83) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.45), and positive and negative predictive values of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.19) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate an association between reduced UVF close to term, severely stunted fetal growth and adverse perinatal outcome in a cohort of low-risk pregnant women, with a moderate ability to rule out and a poor ability to rule in either outcome. Further studies are needed to establish whether the assessment of UVF can improve the identification of fetuses at risk of subclinical placental insufficiency and adverse perinatal outcome. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare prospectively indicator-condition (IC)-guided testing versus testing of those with non-indicator conditions (NICs) in four primary care centres (PCCs) in Barcelona, Spain. METHODS: From October 2009 to February 2011, patients aged from 18 to 65 years old who attended a PCC for a new herpes zoster infection, seborrhoeic eczema, mononucleosis syndrome or leucopenia/thrombopenia were included in the IC group, and one in every 10 randomly selected patients consulting for other reasons were included in the NIC group. A proportion of patients in each group were offered an HIV test; those who agreed to be tested were given a rapid finger-stick HIV test (6 per test). Epidemiological and clinical data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: During the study period, 775 patients attended with one of the four selected ICs, while 66,043 patients presented with an NIC. HIV screening was offered to 89 patients with ICs (offer rate 11.5%), of whom 85 agreed to and completed testing (94.4 and 100% acceptance and completion rates, respectively). In the NIC group, an HIV test was offered to 344 persons (offer rate 5.2%), of whom 313 accepted (90.9%) and 304 completed (97.1%) testing. HIV tests were positive in four persons [prevalence 4.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-11.6%] in the IC group and in one person in the NIC group (prevalence 0.3%; 95% CI 0.01-1.82%; P < 0.009). If every eligible person had taken an HIV test, we would have spent 4650 in the IC group and 396,258 in the NIC group, and an estimated 36 (95% CI 25-49) and 198 persons (95% CI 171-227), respectively, would have been diagnosed with HIV infection. The estimated cost per new HIV diagnosis would have been 129 (95% CI 107-153) in the IC group and 2001 (95% CI 1913-2088) in the NIC group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of patients included in the study was small and the results should be treated with caution, IC-guided HIV testing, based on four selected ICs, in PCCs seems to be a more feasible and less expensive strategy to improve diagnosis of HIV infection in Spain than a nontargeted HIV testing strategy.
