Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101:626-632
© 2003 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, D.
Right arrow Articles by Dornan, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, D.
Right arrow Articles by Dornan, J.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Randomized Trial Using Ultrasound to Identify the High-Risk Fetus in a Low-Risk Population

Daniel McKenna, MB, MRCOG, Suresh Tharmaratnam, MB, MRCOG, Samina Mahsud, MB, MRCOG, Carolyn Bailie, MB, MRCOG, Ann Harper, MD, FRCOG and James Dornan, MD, FRCOG

From The Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.

Address reprint requests to: Daniel McKenna, MB, MRCOG, 88A Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5HP, United Kingdom; E-mail: dan.mckenna{at}virgin.net.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of introducing two biophysical ultrasound examinations in a low-risk antenatal population.

METHODS: Scans were performed at 30–32 weeks’ gestation and 36–37 weeks’ gestation. Scans assessed placental maturity, amniotic fluid volume, and estimated fetal weight. One thousand nine hundred ninety-eight low-risk patients were randomized at 30 weeks’ gestation to a control group receiving standard antenatal care, or to the study group who also received an ultrasound scan. Outcome measures were frequency of small for dates (less than 10th percentile at birth), intervention rates, and admissions to neonatal intensive care.

RESULTS: The proportion of infants assessed as small for dates at birth in the study group was 6.9% (69 of 994) compared with 10.4% (104 of 999) in the control group (P = 008). The rates of intervention in the study and control groups were 31.3% (313 of 999) and 16.9% (169 of 999), respectively (P < .001). Twenty-eight (2.8%) neonates in the study group were admitted to the neonatal unit compared with 34 (3.4%) in the control group (P = .532).

CONCLUSION: Introduction of an ultrasound scan at 30–32 weeks’ and 36–37 weeks’ gestation may reduce the risk of a growth-restricted infant and increases antenatal interventions. Rates of admission to a neonatal unit are not significantly affected.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
J. Drife
Do we have enough evidence to judge midwife led maternity units safe? No
BMJ, September 29, 2007; 335(7621): 643 - 643.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
Minerva
BMJ, April 19, 2003; 326(7394): 890 - 890.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.