1
|
Relph S, Vieira MC, Copas A, Winsloe C, Coxon K, Alagna A, Briley A, Johnson M, Page L, Peebles D, Shennan A, Thilaganathan B, Marlow N, Lees C, Lawlor DA, Khalil A, Sandall J, Pasupathy D. Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial. BJOG 2023. [PMID: 36999234 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17453] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2023] [Indexed: 04/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0 weeks of gestation. METHODS Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0 weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Relph
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Matias C Vieira
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), School of Medical Sciences, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Andrew Copas
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chivon Winsloe
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Kirstie Coxon
- Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston and St George's University, London, UK
| | | | - Annette Briley
- Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Mark Johnson
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Louise Page
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, UK
| | - Donald Peebles
- UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Shennan
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Baskaran Thilaganathan
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Neil Marlow
- UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Christoph Lees
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Deborah A Lawlor
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Asma Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Jane Sandall
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Dharmintra Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
- Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vieira MC, Relph S, Muruet-Gutierrez W, Elstad M, Coker B, Moitt N, Delaney L, Winsloe C, Healey A, Coxon K, Alagna A, Briley A, Johnson M, Page LM, Peebles D, Shennan A, Thilaganathan B, Marlow N, McCowan L, Lees C, Lawlor DA, Khalil A, Sandall J, Copas A, Pasupathy D. Evaluation of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age: The DESiGN cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1004004. [PMID: 35727800 PMCID: PMC9212153 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. METHODS AND FINDINGS This was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24+1 weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster-summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4% to 10.7%; p = 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN67698474.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matias C. Vieira
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
| | - Sophie Relph
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Walter Muruet-Gutierrez
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Maria Elstad
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bolaji Coker
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie Moitt
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Louisa Delaney
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chivon Winsloe
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Healey
- Centre for Implementation Science and King’s Health Economics, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kirstie Coxon
- Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alessandro Alagna
- London Perinatal Morbidity and Mortality Working Group (NHS), London, United Kingdom
| | - Annette Briley
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Caring Futures Institute Flinders University and North Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Mark Johnson
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Louise M. Page
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, United Kingdom
| | - Donald Peebles
- UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Shennan
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Baskaran Thilaganathan
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neil Marlow
- UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lesley McCowan
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Christoph Lees
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Deborah A. Lawlor
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Asma Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jane Sandall
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Copas
- Centre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Dharmintra Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kingdon C, Roberts D, Turner MA, Storey C, Crossland N, Finlayson KW, Downe S. Inequalities and stillbirth in the UK: a meta-narrative review. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e029672. [PMID: 31515427 PMCID: PMC6747680 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2019] [Revised: 07/25/2019] [Accepted: 08/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review what is known about the relationship between stillbirth and inequalities from different disciplinary perspectives to inform stillbirth prevention strategies. DESIGN Systematic review using the meta-narrative method. SETTING Studies undertaken in the UK. DATA SOURCES Scoping phase: experts in field, exploratory electronic searches and handsearching. Systematic searches phase: Nine databases with no geographical or date restrictions. Non-English language studies were excluded. STUDY SELECTION Any investigation of stillbirth and inequalities with a UK component. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Three authors extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were summarised, tabulated and presented graphically before synthesis of the unfolding storyline by research tradition; and then of the commonalities, differences and interplays between narratives into resultant summary meta-themes. RESULTS Fifty-four sources from nine distinctive research traditions were included. The evidence of associations between social inequalities and stillbirth spanned 70 years. Across research traditions, there was recurrent evidence of the social gradient remaining constant or increasing, fuelling repeated calls for action (meta-theme 1: something must be done). There was less evidence of an effective response to these calls. Data pertaining to socioeconomic, area and ethnic disparities were routinely collected, but not consistently recorded, monitored or reported in relation to stillbirth (meta-theme 2: problems of precision). Many studies stressed the interplay of socioeconomic status, deprivation or ethnicity with aggregated factors including heritable, structural, environmental and lifestyle factors (meta-theme 3: moving from associations towards intersectionality and intervention(s)). No intervention studies were identified. CONCLUSION Research investigating inequalities and stillbirth in the UK is underdeveloped. This is despite repeated evidence of an association between stillbirth risk and poverty, and stillbirth risk, poverty and ethnicity. A specific research forum is required to lead the development of research and policy in this area, which can harness the multiple relevant research perspectives and address the intersections between different policy areas. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42017079228.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol Kingdon
- Research in childbirth and health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
| | - Devender Roberts
- Department of Obstetrics, Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Mark A Turner
- Department of Women's and Childrens Health, Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Nicola Crossland
- Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
| | | | - Soo Downe
- Research in childbirth and health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Heazell AEP, Budd J, Li M, Cronin R, Bradford B, McCowan LME, Mitchell EA, Stacey T, Martin B, Roberts D, Thompson JMD. Alterations in maternally perceived fetal movement and their association with late stillbirth: findings from the Midland and North of England stillbirth case-control study. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e020031. [PMID: 29982198 PMCID: PMC6042603 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To report perception of fetal movements in women who experienced a stillbirth compared with controls at a similar gestation with a live birth. DESIGN Case-control study. SETTING 41 maternity units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Cases were women who had a late stillbirth ≥28 weeks gestation (n=291) and controls were women with an ongoing pregnancy at the time of the interview (n=733). Controls were frequency matched to cases by obstetric unit and gestational age. METHODS Data were collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire which included questions on maternal perception of fetal movement (frequency, strength, increased and decreased movements and hiccups) in the 2 weeks before the interview/stillbirth. Five fetal movement patterns were identified incorporating the changes in strength and frequency in the last 2 weeks by combining groups of similar pattern and risk. Multivariable analysis adjusted for known confounders. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE Association of maternally perceived fetal movements in relation to late stillbirth. RESULTS In multivariable analyses, women who reported increased strength of movements in the last 2 weeks had decreased risk of late stillbirth compared with those whose movements were unchanged (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.26). Women with decreased frequency (without increase in strength) of fetal movements were at increased risk (aOR 4.51, 95% CI 2.38 to 8.55). Daily perception of fetal hiccups was protective (aOR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.56). CONCLUSIONS Increased strength of fetal movements and fetal hiccups is associated with decreased risk of stillbirth. Alterations in frequency of fetal movements are important in identifying pregnancies at increased risk of stillbirth, with the greatest risk in women noting a reduction in fetal activity. Clinical guidance should be updated to reflect that increase in strength and frequency of fetal movements is associated with the lowest risk of stillbirth, and that decreased fetal movements are associated with stillbirth. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02025530.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander E P Heazell
- Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biological, Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, St. Mary's Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Jayne Budd
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, St. Mary's Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Minglan Li
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Robin Cronin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Billie Bradford
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Edwin A Mitchell
- Department of Paediatrics, Child Health and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Bill Martin
- Department of Obstetrics, Birmingham Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Devender Roberts
- Department of Obstetrics, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - John M D Thompson
- Department of Paediatrics, Child Health and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|