Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Abdominal circumference (AC) in the fetus is the single most useful indicator of fetal growth abnormalities. Measurement of AC as well as DVP do not require extensive training. Our objective is to evaluate if introduction of bedside ultrasound during routine antenatal visits to evaluate fetal AC and amniotic fluid DVP would decrease the false positive rates of fundal height measurement in diagnosing intrauterine growth abnormalities.
The prior studies of routine ultrasound in low risk patients focused on the usual ultrasound evaluation which involves the use of advanced equipment and providers, including trained sonographers and physicians to perform and review the ultrasound, as well as a full examination with multiple fetal measurements and images. A number of recent analyses show that measurement of the abdominal circumference (AC) in the fetus is the single most useful indicator of fetal growth abnormalities. Measurement of AC as well as DVP do not require extensive training, long time to acquire, or expensive ultrasound machines. They can be easily performed in the office by providers who are specifically trained in obtaining these 2 measurements. Therefore, we intended to evaluate if introduction of bedside ultrasound during routine antenatal visits (point of care ultrasound or POC-US) to evaluate fetal AC and amniotic fluid DVP would decrease the false positive rates of fundal height measurement in diagnosing intrauterine growth abnormalities, and would improve the diagnosis of amniotic fluid volume and fetal growth deviations.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundal height | No Intervention | Patients will have routine fundal height measurement | |
| Point-of-care US | Experimental | Patients will receive POC US for DVP and AC. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point-of-care US | Diagnostic Test | The intervention includes reassuring the AC and DVP |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Growth abnormalities rate | To compare the false positive rates between clinical evaluation of uterine size by SFH versus POC-US evaluation of AC and DVP. | Up to 2 years |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| MFM ultrasounds | To compare fundal height (cm) versus bedside ultrasound on the overall rate of formal MFM ultrasound requests | Up to 2 years |
| Clinical evaluation | To compare fundal height (cm) versus bedside ultrasound (abdominal circumference and Deep vertical pocket) on the prediction of birthweight < 10th percentile or > 90th percentile |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Abnormal aneuploidy screening (1st trimester screening, 2nd trimester screening, integrated screening, NIPT)
Fetal chromosomal or genetic abnormalities
Fetal malformations or soft markers identified on fetal anatomy survey
Current pregnancy is a result of in vitro fertilization
Documented uterine bleeding after 24 weeks gestation. Unobserved self-reported bleeding with confirmed intact pregnancy on ultrasound after the bleeding episode is not an exclusion criteria.
Uterine/placental abnormalities including uterine malformations (i.e bicornuate uterus, didelpus uterus), abnormal placentation (placenta previa, accreta, percreta), uterine fibroids.
Cerclage in the current pregnancy
History of intrauterine fetal demise, small for gestational age, macrosomia or shoulder dystocia, or of traumatic delivery
Fetal isoimmunization or alloimmunization
History of medical complications such as:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Saad Antonio | UTMB | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Texas Medical Branch | Galveston | Texas | 77555 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 35032696 | Derived | Omere C, Goncharov DA, Pedroza C, La Rosa M, Munn M, Chiossi G, Longo M, Saad AF. Randomized trial of fundal height vs point-of-care ultrasound during routine antenatal visits. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 Mar;4(2):100563. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100563. Epub 2022 Jan 13. No abstract available. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Up to 2 years |
| Maternal and neonatal outcomes | To compare maternal (emergency CD for non reassuring FHT, chorioamnionitis/post partum endometritis, wound infection/hematoma/seroma, PRBC transfusion, admission to the ICU, DVT/PE, maternal death) and perinatal (fetal death, neonatal death, Apgar score >< 4 at 5 min, neonatal seizures, umbilical-artery blood pH of 7.05 or less with a base deficit of 12 mmol per liter or more, intubation at delivery, neonatal encephalopathy) outcomes between strategy of clinical evaluation of uterine size versus bedside ultrasound (abdominal circumference and Deep vertical pocket) | Up to 2 years |