Abstract
Objectives To determine the screening performance of low fetal cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), a marker of fetal adaptation to suboptimal growth, and maternal placental growth factor (PlGF) level, both in isolation and in combination, for the prediction of Cesarean section (CS) for intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) and composite adverse neonatal outcome (CANO).
Methods This was a prospective cohort study in low-risk women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancy from 36 weeks' gestation to delivery. CPR and PlGF were assessed fortnightly and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes were recorded. CPR and PlGF values from the final assessment for each woman were corrected for gestational age and assessed for screening performance, firstly as continuous variables and then as binary predictors.
Results Of the 264 women who consented to participate in the study, 207 were included in the final analysis. Seven pregnancies required CS for IFC and 38 had CANO. Pregnancies delivered by CS for IFC had lower CPR and PlGF centiles than those in all other pregnancies. Pregnancies with CANO had a lower PlGF centile. The greatest areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUCs) for the prediction of CS for IFC (0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) and CANO (0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.74) were achieved by a combination of CPR 20th and PlGF 33rd centile thresholds. This produced sensitivities, specificities and positive likelihood ratios for the prediction of CS for IFC of 100%, 86% and 7.14, respectively, and 34.2%, 87.0% and 2.63, respectively, for the prediction of CANO. There was no statistical difference in the AUC for CS for IFC between the combined model and when CPR was used alone, or for CANO between the combined model and CPR or PlGF in isolation.
Conclusions This pilot proof-of-concept study describes the screening performance of CPR and maternal PlGF level for CS for IFC in low-risk women from 36 weeks' gestation. It was found that CPR and maternal PlGF improved the overall predictive utility for CS for IFC, as well as that for CANO. However, given the lack of significant difference between the combined model and its individual components, it is debatable whether the combined model is a superior screening test. Copyright (C) 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.