Comparing population-based fetal growth standards in a US cohort.

BACKGROUND: No fetal growth standard is currently endorsed for universal use in the United States. Newer standards improve upon the methodologic limitations of older studies; however, before adopting into practice, it is important to know how recent standards perform at identifying fetal undergrowth or overgrowth and at predicting subsequent neonatal morbidity or mortality in US populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare classification of estimated fetal weight that is <5th or 10th percentile or >90th percentile by 6 population-based fetal growth standards and the ability of these standards to predict a composite of neonatal morbidity and mortality. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be cohort, which recruited nulliparous women in the first trimester at 8 US clinical centers (2010-2014). Estimated fetal weight was obtained from ultrasounds at 16 to 21 and 22 to 29 weeks of gestation (N=9534 women). We calculated rates of fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <5th and 10th percentiles; fetal growth restriction<5 and fetal growth restriction<10) and estimated fetal weight >90th percentile (estimated fetal weight>90) from 3 large prospective fetal growth cohorts with similar rigorous methodologies: INTERGROWTH-21, World Health Organization-sex-specific and combined, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific and unified, and the historic Hadlock reference. To determine whether differential classification of fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight >90 among standards was clinically meaningful, we then compared area under the curve and sensitivity of each standard to predict small for gestational age or large for gestational age at birth, composite perinatal morbidity and mortality alone, and small for gestational age or large for gestational age with composite perinatal morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The standards classified different proportions of fetal growth restriction and estimated fetal weight>90 for ultrasounds at 16 to 21 (visit 2) and 22 to 29 (visit 3) weeks of gestation. At visit 2, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific, World Health Organization sex-specific and World Health Organization-combined identified similar rates of fetal growth restriction<10 (8.4%-8.5%) with the other 2 having lower rates, whereas Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific identified the highest rate of fetal growth restriction<5 (5.0%) compared with the other references. At visit 3, World Health Organization sex-specific classified 9.2% of fetuses as fetal growth restriction<10, whereas the other 5 classified a lower proportion as follows: World Health Organization-combined (8.4%), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific (7.7%), INTERGROWTH (6.2%), Hadlock (6.1%), and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development unified (5.1%). INTERGROWTH classified the highest (21.3%) as estimated fetal weight>90 whereas Hadlock classified the lowest (8.3%). When predicting composite perinatal morbidity and mortality in the setting of early-onset fetal growth restriction, World Health Organization had the highest area under the curve of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53) for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, but the areas under the curve were similar among standards (0.52). Sensitivity was generally low across standards (22.7%-29.1%). When predicting small for gestational age birthweight with composite neonatal morbidity or mortality, for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, World Health Organization sex-specific had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.67) and INTERGROWTH had the lowest (area under the curve=0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.62), though all standards had low sensitivity (7.0%-9.6%). CONCLUSION: Despite classifying different proportions of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90, all standards performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity and mortality. Classification of different percentages of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90 among references may have clinical implications in the management of pregnancies, such as increased antenatal monitoring for fetal growth restriction or cesarean delivery for suspected large for gestational age. Our findings highlight the importance of knowing how standards perform in local populations, but more research is needed to determine if any standard performs better at identifying the risk of morbidity or mortality.

Umbilical Venous Volume Flow in Late-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction.

OBJECTIVES: Umbilical vein flow (UVF) is reduced in fetal growth restriction (FGR). We compared absolute and size-adjusted UVF (estimated fetal weight [EFW] and abdominal circumference [AC]) and rates of abnormal UVF parameters (<10th percentile) among FGR fetuses meeting Delphi criteria (FGR-D) against small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses and appropriate for gestational age (AGA) controls. METHODS: Absolute UVF, UVF/EFW, and UVF/AC were compared between 73 FGR pregnancies (35 FGR-D, 38 SGA) and 108 AGA controls. Rates of abnormal UVF were compared to abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index (UAPI). Independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U, odds ratio (OR), chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Mean absolute UVF was significantly decreased in FGR-D compared to AGA (P = .0147), but not between SGA and AGA fetuses. The incidence of both abnormal absolute UVF and UVF/AC values (<10th centile) was higher among late-onset FGR fetuses versus AGA fetuses (UVF: OR 2.7, confidence interval [CI] 1.37-5.4; UVF/AC: OR 2.73, CI 1.37-5.4). UVF was more frequently abnormal than UAPI and in only two fetuses were both Doppler values abnormal. CONCLUSION: Absolute UVF is altered in late-onset FGR, and most pronounced among FGR-D. UVF may provide additional insight into fetal compromise in those affected by growth restriction.

Patterns of Brain Sparing in a Fetal Growth Restriction Cohort.

Objective: Our objective was to compare differences in Doppler blood flow in four fetal intracranial blood vessels in fetuses with late-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) vs. those with small for gestational age (SGA). Methods: Fetuses with estimated fetal weight (EFW) <10th percentile were divided into SGA (n = 30) and FGR (n = 51) via Delphi criteria and had Doppler waveforms obtained from the middle cerebral artery (MCA), anterior cerebral artery (ACA), posterior cerebral artery (PCA), and vertebral artery (VA). A pulsatility index (PI) <5th centile was considered "abnormal". Outcomes included birth metrics and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Results: There were more abnormal cerebral vessel PIs in the FGR group versus the SGA group (36 vs. 4; p = 0.055). In FGR, ACA + MCA vessel abnormalities outnumbered PCA + VA abnormalities. All 8 fetuses with abnormal VA PIs had at least one other abnormal vessel. Fetuses with abnormal VA PIs had lower BW (1712 vs. 2500 g; p < 0.0001), delivered earlier (35.22 vs. 37.89 wks; p = 0.0052), and had more admissions to the NICU (71.43% vs. 24.44%; p = 0.023). Conclusions: There were more anterior vessels showing vasodilation than posterior vessels, but when the VA was abnormal, the fetuses were more severely affected clinically than those showing normal VA PIs.

Doppler velocimetry discordance between paired umbilical artery vessels and clinical implications in fetal growth restriction.

BACKGROUND: Studies revealing a discrepancy in umbilical artery Dopplers between the two umbilical arteries in normally-grown fetuses necessitates further evaluation of the paired umbilical arteries in the setting of fetal growth restriction as this is a critical component in the surveillance of this population. OBJECTIVE: Umbilical artery Doppler sampling in fetal growth restriction is typically assessed in 1 umbilical artery in a free loop of cord. Although discrepancies of >20% between the 2 umbilical arteries occur in 1 of 3 normal pregnancies, this has not been assessed in fetal growth restriction. Our objectives were to determine the frequency of discordant Doppler pulsatility indices between paired umbilical arteries in a fetal growth restriction cohort and to determine if sampling of 1 or both arteries alters surveillance or timing of delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 425 growth-restricted fetuses between 25 and 39 weeks of gestation had umbilical artery Doppler pulsatility indices determined from both umbilical arteries in a midsegment of the cord to determine: (1) the discrepancy percentage between paired umbilical artery pulsatility indices and (2) the frequency of both arteries being normal, abnormal, or discordant (pulsatility index < and >95th percentile). To determine what sampling method increased the detection of an abnormal Doppler index, 3 sampling methods were compared: (1) average pulsatility index from both umbilical arteries, (2) pulsatility index from 1 umbilical artery chosen randomly, and (3) highest pulsatility index of the 2 umbilical arteries. RESULTS: The mean percentage difference between umbilical artery pulsatility indices was 11.7%, and in 15.8% of cases, it exceeded 20%. Both umbilical artery pulsatility indices were normal in 71.1% (302/425), abnormal in 12.2% (52/425), and discordant in 16.7% (71/425) of cases (P<.0001). Of the 3 sampling methods, the pulsatility index was abnormal in: (1) 19.2% (82/425) of cases when averaged from both umbilical arteries, (2) 22.1% (94/425) of cases when choosing 1 umbilical artery at random, and (3) 28.9% (123/425) of cases when the highest umbilical artery pulsatility index was used (P=.003). CONCLUSION: In this large fetal growth restriction cohort, the overall discrepancy between the 2 umbilical artery pulsatility indices was 11.7%. Among fetuses with at least 1 abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index, 71 of 123 (57.7%) had 1 normal pulsatility index and 1 abnormal. Thus, the number of arteries sampled and the sampling method used may alter clinical decision-making, including frequency of surveillance and timing of delivery.

Gynecologic Risk Mitigation Considerations for Long-Duration Spaceflight.

INTRODUCTION: As NASA and its international partners, as well as the commercial spaceflight industry, prepare for missions of increasing duration and venturing outside of low-Earth orbit, mitigation of medical risk is of high priority. Gynecologic considerations constitute one facet of medical risk for female astronauts. This manuscript will review the preflight, in-flight, and postflight clinical evaluation, management, and prevention considerations for reducing gynecologic and reproductive risks in female astronauts.METHODS: Relevant gynecological articles from databases including Ovid, Medline, Web of Science, various medical libraries, and NASA archives were evaluated for this review. In particular, articles addressing preventive measures or management of conditions in resource-limited environments were evaluated for applicability to future long-duration exploration spaceflight.RESULTS: Topics including abnormal uterine bleeding, anemia, bone mineral density, ovarian cysts, venous thromboembolism, contraception, fertility, and health maintenance were reviewed. Prevention and treatment strategies are discussed with a focus on management options that consider limitations of onboard medical capabilities.DISCUSSION: Long-duration exploration spaceflight will introduce new challenges for maintenance of gynecological and reproductive health. The impact of the space environment outside of low-Earth orbit on gynecological concerns remains unknown, with factors such as increased particle radiation exposure adding complexity and potential risk. While the most effective means of minimizing the impact of gynecologic or reproductive pathology for female astronauts is screening and prevention, gynecological concerns can arise unpredictably as they do on Earth. Careful consideration of gynecological risks and potential adverse events during spaceflight is a critical component to risk analysis and preventive medicine for future exploration missions.Steller JG, Blue RS, Burns R, Bayuse TM, Antonsen EL, Jain V, Blackwell MM, Jennings RT. Gynecologic risk mitigation considerations for long-duration spaceflight. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(7):543-564.

Oxidative Stress as Cause, Consequence, or Biomarker of Altered Female Reproduction and Development in the Space Environment.

Oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathophysiology of numerous terrestrial disease processes and associated with morbidity following spaceflight. Furthermore, oxidative stress has long been considered a causative agent in adverse reproductive outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the pathogenesis of oxidative stress caused by cosmic radiation and microgravity, review the relationship between oxidative stress and reproductive outcomes in females, and explore what role spaceflight-induced oxidative damage may have on female reproductive and developmental outcomes.