Does a first trimester dating scan using crown rump length measurement reduce the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy? An uncompleted randomised controlled trial of 463 women

Routine ultrasound for fetal assessment before 24 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound examination of pregnancy before 24 weeks gestation may lead to more accurate dating and earlier diagnosis of pathology, but may also give false reassurance. It can be used to monitor development or diagnose conditions of an unborn baby. This review compares the effect of routine or universal, ultrasound examination, performed before 24 completed weeks' gestation, with selective or no ultrasound examination.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of routine pregnancy ultrasound before 24 weeks as part of a screening programme, compared to selective ultrasound or no ultrasound, on the early diagnosis of abnormal pregnancy location, termination for fetal congenital abnormality, multiple pregnancy, maternal outcomes and later fetal compromise. To assess the effect of first trimester (before 14 weeks) and second trimester (14 to 24 weeks) ultrasound, separately.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 11 August 2020. We also examined the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and RCTs published in abstract form. We included all trials with pregnant women who had routine or revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound, no ultrasound, or concealed ultrasound, before 24 weeks' gestation. All eligible studies were screened for scientific integrity and trustworthiness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data and checked extracted data for accuracy. Two review authors independently used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome MAIN RESULTS: Our review included data from 13 RCTs including 85,265 women. The review included four comparisons. Four trials were assessed to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment and two as high risk. The nature of the intervention made it impossible to blind women and staff providing care to treatment allocation.  Sample attrition was low in the majority of trials and outcome data were available for most women. Many trials were conducted before it was customary for trials to be registered and protocols published. First trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: four studies, 1791 women, from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). First trimester scans probably reduce short-term maternal anxiety about pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not have information on whether the reduction was sustained.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of first trimester scans on perinatal loss (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.73; 648 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence) or induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 1474 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine first trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality was not reported. Second trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: seven studies, 36,053 women, from Finland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the US. Second trimester scans probably make little difference to perinatal loss (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.20; 17,918 participants, three studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or intrauterine fetal death (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.42; 29,584 participants, three studies; low-certainty evidence). Second trimester scans may reduce induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; 24,174 participants, six studies; low-certainty evidence), presumably by more accurate dating. Routine second trimester ultrasound may improve detection of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; 274 participants, five studies; low-certainty evidence). Routine second trimester ultrasound may increase detection of major fetal abnormality before 24 weeks (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.67 to 7.12; 387 participants, two studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the number of women terminating pregnancy for major anomaly (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.93; 26,893 participants, four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up of children exposed to scans before birth did not indicate harm to children's physical or intellectual development (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.34; 603 participants, one study; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine second trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or maternal anxiety was not reported. Standard care plus two ultrasounds and referral for complications versus standard care: one cluster-RCT, 47,431 women, from Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia. This trial included a co-intervention, training of healthcare workers and referral for complications and was, therefore, assessed separately. Standard pregnancy care plus two scans, and training and referral for complications, versus standard care probably makes little difference to whether women with complications give birth in a risk appropriate setting with facilities for caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.19; 11,680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  The intervention also probably makes little to no difference to low birthweight (< 2500 g) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 47,312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about whether the community intervention (including ultrasound) makes any difference to maternal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.55; 46,768 participants; low-certainty evidence). Revealed ultrasound results (communicated to both patient and doctor) versus concealed ultrasound results (blinded to both patient and doctor at any time before 24 weeks): one study, 1095 women, from the UK. The evidence was very uncertain for all results relating to revealed versus concealed ultrasound scan (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early scans probably reduce short term maternal anxiety.  Later scans may reduce labour induction for post-maturity. They may improve detection of major fetal abnormalities and increase the number of women who choose termination of pregnancy for this reason. They may also reduce the number of undetected twin pregnancies. All these findings accord with observational data.  Neither type of scan appears to alter other important maternal or fetal outcomes, but our review may underestimate the effect in modern practice because trials were mostly  from relatively early in the development of the technology, and many control participants also had scans. The trials were also underpowered to show an effect on other important maternal or fetal outcomes.

The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth

BACKGROUND

The impact of using the Intergrowth (IG) dating formulae in comparison to the commonly used Robinson dating on the evaluation of biometrics and estimated fetal weight (EFW) has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Nationwide cross-sectional study of routine fetal ultrasound biometry in low-risk pregnant women whose gestational age (GA) had been previously assessed by a first trimester CRL measurement. We compared the CRL-based GA according to the Robinson formula and the IG formula. We evaluated the fetal biometric measurements as well as the EFW taken later in pregnancy depending on the dating formula used. Mean and standard deviation of the Z scores as well as the number and percentage of cases classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile were compared.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred twenty-two low-risk women with scans carried out after 18 weeks were included. There were differences of zero, one and 2 days in 642 (18.2%), 2700 (76.7%) and 180 (5%) when GA was estimated based on the Robinson or the IG formula, respectively. The biometry Z scores assessed later in pregnancy were all statistically significantly lower when the Intergrowth-based dating formula was used (p < 10- 4). Likewise, the number and percentage of foetuses classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile demonstrated significant differences. As an example, the proportion of SGA foetuses varied from 3.46 to 4.57% (p = 0.02) and that of LGA foetuses from 17.86 to 13.4% (p < 10- 4).

CONCLUSION

The dating formula used has a quite significant impact on the subsequent evaluation of biometry and EFW. We suggest that the combined and homogeneous use of a recent dating standard, together with prescriptive growth standards established on the same low-risk pregnancies, allows an optimal assessment of fetal growth.

Guideline No. 388-Determination of Gestational Age by Ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

To assist clinicians in assigning gestational age based on ultrasound biometry.

OUTCOMES

To determine whether ultrasound dating provides more accurate gestational age assessment than menstrual dating with or without the use of ultrasound. To provide maternity health care providers and researchers with evidence-based guidelines for the assignment of gestational age. To determine which ultrasound biometric parameters are superior when gestational age is uncertain. To determine whether ultrasound gestational age assessment is cost effective.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed or MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library in 2013 using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (gestational age, ultrasound biometry, ultrasound dating). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English. There were no date restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to July 31, 2013. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALUES

The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1).

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Accurate assignment of gestational age may reduce post-dates labour induction and may improve obstetric care through allowing the optimal timing of necessary interventions and the avoidance of unnecessary ones. More accurate dating allows for optimal performance of prenatal screening tests for aneuploidy. A national algorithm for the assignment of gestational age may reduce practice variations across Canada for clinicians and researchers. Potential harms include the possible reassignment of dates when significant fetal pathology (such as fetal growth restriction or macrosomia) result in a discrepancy between ultrasound biometric and clinical gestational age. Such reassignment may lead to the omission of appropriate-or the performance of inappropriate-fetal interventions.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Détermination de l'âge gestationnel par échographie

OBJECTIF

Aider les cliniciens à attribuer un âge gestationnel en fonction des résultats de la biométrie échographique.

ISSUES

Déterminer si la datation par échographie offre une évaluation plus précise de l'âge gestationnel que la datation en fonction des dernières règles avec ou sans recours à l'échographie. Offrir, aux praticiens et aux chercheurs du domaine des soins de maternité, des lignes directrices factuelles en matière d'attribution de l'âge gestationnel. Identifier les paramètres biométriques échographiques qui sont de fiabilité supérieure lorsque l'âge gestationnel est incertain. Déterminer la rentabilité de l'évaluation de l'âge gestationnel par échographie. RéSULTATS: La littérature publiée a été récupérée par l'intermédiaire de recherches menées dans PubMed ou MEDLINE et The Cochrane Library en 2013 au moyen d'un vocabulaire contrôlé et de mots clés appropriés (p. ex. « gestational age », « ultrasound biometry » et « ultrasound dating »). Les résultats ont été restreints aux analyses systématiques, aux essais comparatifs randomisés / essais cliniques comparatifs et aux études observationnelles rédigés en anglais. Aucune restriction n'a été appliquée en matière de dates. Les recherches ont été mises à jour de façon régulière et intégrées à la directive clinique jusqu'au 31 juillet 2013. La littérature grise (non publiée) a été identifiée par l'intermédiaire de recherches menées dans les sites Web d'organismes s'intéressant à l'évaluation des technologies dans le domaine de la santé et d'organismes connexes, dans des collections de directives cliniques, dans des registres d'essais cliniques et auprès de sociétés de spécialité médicale nationales et internationales.

VALEURS

La qualité des résultats est évaluée au moyen des critères décrits dans le rapport du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (Tableau 1). AVANTAGES, DéSAVANTAGES ET COûTS: L'attribution précise d'un âge gestationnel pourrait réduire l'incidence du déclenchement mené en raison d'une grossesse prolongée et améliorer les soins obstétricaux en nous permettant de planifier la chronologie des interventions nécessaires de façon optimale et d'éviter les interventions inutiles. Une datation plus précise permet l'optimisation de la tenue de tests prénataux de dépistage de l'aneuploïdie. Un algorithme national d'attribution de l'âge gestationnel pourrait atténuer les variations pancanadiennes en matière de pratique pour les cliniciens et les chercheurs. Parmi les désavantages potentiels, on trouve la réattribution possible des dates lorsqu'une pathologie fœtale importante (comme le retard de croissance intra-utérin ou la macrosomie) donne lieu à une divergence entre les résultats de la biométrie échographique et l'âge gestationnel clinique. Une telle réattribution pourrait mener à l'omission d'interventions fœtales justifiées ou à la tenue d'interventions fœtales injustifiées. DéCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: RECOMMANDATIONS.

Dating of Pregnancy in First versus Second Trimester in Relation to Post-Term Birth Rate: A Cohort Study

Objectives

To evaluate in a national standardised setting whether the performance of ultrasound dating during the first rather than the second trimester of pregnancy had consequences regarding the definition of pre- and post-term birth rates.

Methods

A cohort study of 8,551 singleton pregnancies with spontaneous delivery was performed from 2006 to 2012 at Copenhagen University Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark. We determined the duration of pregnancy calculated by last menstrual period, crown rump length (CRL), biparietal diameter (1^st trimester), BPD (2^nd trimester), and head circumference and compared mean and median durations, the mean differences, the systematic discrepancies, and the percentages of pre-term and post-term pregnancies in relation to each method. The primary outcomes were post-term and pre-term birth rates defined by different dating methods.

Results

The change from use of second to first trimester measurements for dating was associated with a significant increase in the rate of post-term deliveries from 2.1–2.9% and a significant decrease in the rate of pre-term deliveries from 5.4–4.6% caused by systematic discrepancies. Thereby 25.1% would pass 41 weeks when GA is defined by CRL and 17.3% when BPD (2^nd trimester) is used. Calibration for these discrepancies resulted in a lower post-term birth rate, from 3.1–1.4%, when first compared to second trimester dating was used.

Conclusions

Systematic discrepancies were identified when biometric formulas were used to determine duration of pregnancy. This should be corrected in clinical practice to avoid an overestimation of post-term birth and unnecessary inductions when first trimester formulas are used.

Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic ultrasound is a sophisticated electronic technology, which utilises pulses of high-frequency sound to produce an image. Diagnostic ultrasound examination may be employed in a variety of specific circumstances during pregnancy such as after clinical complications, or where there are concerns about fetal growth. Because adverse outcomes may also occur in pregnancies without clear risk factors, assumptions have been made that routine ultrasound in all pregnancies will prove beneficial by enabling earlier detection and improved management of pregnancy complications. Routine screening may be planned for early pregnancy, late gestation, or both. The focus of this review is routine early pregnancy ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether routine early pregnancy ultrasound for fetal assessment (i.e. its use as a screening technique) influences the diagnosis of fetal malformations, multiple pregnancies, the rate of clinical interventions, and the incidence of adverse fetal outcome when compared with the selective use of early pregnancy ultrasound (for specific indications).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials that compared outcomes in women who experienced routine versus selective early pregnancy ultrasound (i.e. less than 24 weeks' gestation). We have included quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used the Review Manager software to enter and analyse data.

MAIN RESULTS

Routine/revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound/concealed: 11 trials including 37,505 women. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy reduces the failure to detect multiple pregnancy by 24 weeks' gestation (risk ratio (RR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.17; participants = 295; studies = 7), moderate quality of evidence). Routine scans improve the detection of major fetal abnormality before 24 weeks' gestation (RR 3.46, 95% CI 1.67 to 7.14; participants = 387; studies = 2,moderate quality of evidence). Routine scan is associated with a reduction in inductions of labour for 'post term' pregnancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; participants = 25,516; studies = 8), but the evidence related to this outcome is of low quality, because most of the pooled effect was provided by studies with design limitation with presence of heterogeneity (I² = 68%). Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy does not impact on perinatal death (defined as stillbirth after trial entry, or death of a liveborn infant up to 28 days of age) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.12; participants = 35,735; studies = 10, low quality evidence). Routine scans do not seem to be associated with reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies. Long-term follow-up of children exposed to scan in utero does not indicate that scans have a detrimental effect on children's physical or cognitive development.The review includes several large, well-designed trials but lack of blinding was a problem common to all studies and this may have an effect on some outcomes. The quality of evidence was assessed for all review primary outcomes and was judged as moderate or low. Downgrading of evidence was based on including studies with design limitations, imprecision of results and presence of heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early ultrasound improves the early detection of multiple pregnancies and improved gestational dating may result in fewer inductions for post maturity. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the results of aspects of this review in view of the fact that there is considerable variability in both the timing and the number of scans women received.

[Using an ovarian drilling by hydrolaparoscopy or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone plus metformin to treat polycystic ovary syndrome: Why a randomized controlled trial fail?]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate pregnancy rates after randomized controlled trial (RCT) between ovarian drilling by fertiloscopy or ovarian hyperstimulation+insemination+metformine after clomifène citrate (cc) treatment fails.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trial with 126 patients in each arm in 9 university centers. After 6-9 months of stimulation by cc, 2 groups were randomized: group 1, ovarian drilling with bipolar energy versus group 2: 3 months treatment by metformine followed by 3 hyperstimulation by FSH+insemination. The success rate was pregnancy rate above 12 weeks.

RESULTS

RCT was stopped after the screening of 40 patients. In spite of the low number of patients, the pregnancy rate is significantly higher in medical group 8/16 versus 3/18 (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The causes of fail of RCT were in relationship with difficulties of inclusion, with absence of final agreement by team included. Moreover, RCT between medical and surgical management is often root of difficulties for patients who decline surgical strategy. However, medical treatment appeared better than drilling in this RCT.

Image-scoring system for crown-rump length measurement

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate an objective image-scoring system for crown-rump length (CRL) measurements and to determine how this compares with subjective assessment.

METHODS

A total of 125 CRL ultrasound images were selected from the database of the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21(st) Century study group. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the operators' and to each others' results, evaluated all images both subjectively and objectively. Subjective evaluation consisted of rating an image as acceptable or unacceptable, while objective evaluation was based on six criteria. Reviewer differences for both the subjective and objective evaluations were compared using percentage of agreement and adjusted kappa values.

RESULTS

The distribution of individual scores and differences between subjective and objective evaluation for the two reviewers was similar. Overall agreement between the reviewers was higher for objective evaluation (95.2%; adjusted κ, 0.904), than for subjective evaluation (77.6%; adjusted κ, 0.552). There was a high level of agreement for horizontal position (κ = 0.951), magnification (κ = 0.919), visualization of crown and rump (κ = 0.806) and caliper placement (κ = 0.756), while agreement for mid-sagittal section (κ = 0.629) and neutral position (κ = 0.565) were moderate and poor, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The proposed six-point scoring system for CRL image rating is more reproducible than is subjective evaluation and should be considered as a method of quality assessment and audit.

Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic ultrasound is a sophisticated electronic technology, which utilises pulses of high frequency sound to produce an image. Diagnostic ultrasound examination may be employed in a variety of specific circumstances during pregnancy such as after clinical complications, or where there are concerns about fetal growth. Because adverse outcomes may also occur in pregnancies without clear risk factors, assumptions have been made that routine ultrasound in all pregnancies will prove beneficial by enabling earlier detection and improved management of pregnancy complications. Routine screening may be planned for early pregnancy, late gestation, or both. The focus of this review is routine early pregnancy ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether routine early pregnancy ultrasound for fetal assessment (i.e. its use as a screening technique) influences the diagnosis of fetal malformations, multiple pregnancies, the rate of clinical interventions, and the incidence of adverse fetal outcome when compared with the selective use of early pregnancy ultrasound (for specific indications).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials that compared outcomes in women who experienced routine versus selective early pregnancy ultrasound (i.e. less than 24 weeks' gestation). We have included quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We used the Review Manager software to enter and analyse data.

MAIN RESULTS

Routine/revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound/concealed: 11 trials including 37505 women. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy reduces the failure to detect multiple pregnancy by 24 weeks' gestation (risk ratio (RR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.17). Routine scan is associated with a reduction in inductions of labour for 'post term' pregnancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83). Routine scans do not seem to be associated with reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies. Long-term follow up of children exposed to scan in utero does not indicate that scans have a detrimental effect on children's physical or cognitive development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early ultrasound improves the early detection of multiple pregnancies and improved gestational dating may result in fewer inductions for post maturity. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the results of aspects of this review in view of the fact that there is considerable variability in both the timing and the number of scans women received.

Variation in rates of postterm birth in Europe: reality or artefact?

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of postterm birth in Europe.

DESIGN

Analysis of data from vital statistics, birth registers, and national birth samples collected for the PERISTAT project.

SETTING

Thirteen European countries.

POPULATION

All live births or representative samples of births for the year 2000 or most recent year available.

METHODS

Comparison of national and regional rates of postterm birth. Other indicators (birthweight, deliveries with a non-spontaneous onset and mortality) were used to assess the validity of postterm rates.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of births at 42 completed weeks of gestation or later.

RESULTS

Postterm rates varied greatly, from 0.4% (Austria, Belgium) to over 7% (Denmark, Sweden) of births. Higher postterm rates were associated with a greater proportion of babies with birthweight 4500 g or more. Fetal and early neonatal mortality rates were higher among postterm births than among births at 40 weeks. Countries with higher proportions of births with a nonspontaneous onset of labour had lower postterm birth rates. The shapes of the gestational-age distributions at term varied. In some countries, there was a sharp cutoff in deliveries at 40 weeks, while elsewhere this occurred at 41 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that practices for managing pregnancies continuing beyond term differ in Europe and raise questions about the health and other impacts in countries with markedly high or low postterm rates. Some variability in these rates may also be due to methods for determining gestational age, which has broader implications for international comparisons of gestational age, including rates of postterm and preterm births and small-for-gestational-age newborns.