Are increased fetal movements during pregnancy a predictor of neonatal adverse outcomes?





Objective


Maternal perception of fetal movement indicates fetal well-being and might be associated with parity, maternal body mass index and placental location, , whereas reduced fetal movements are associated with several adverse neonatal outcomes, including stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, fetal distress, and preterm birth. , Little is known about maternal perceptions of increased fetal movement (IFM).


Previous reports have suggested a single episode of IFM is a sign of an upcoming stillbirth. , However, data regarding an association between IFM and neonatal outcomes are limited. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies with perceived IFM, assuming it is a poor predictor of adverse neonatal outcomes.


Study Design


This retrospective cohort included singleton pregnancies delivered in a tertiary referral hospital from January 2014 to September 2020. Patients presenting to our obstetrical triage with a single, isolated complaint of IFM at > 24 weeks of gestation (IFM group) were compared with a control group of patients presenting for routine fetal assessment during pregnancy or labor, reporting regular fetal movements. Patients presenting with reduced fetal movements during their pregnancies were excluded. The primary outcome was the severe composite adverse neonatal outcome of sepsis, respiratory distress or mechanical ventilation, cerebral injury, anemia or blood transfusion, or intrapartum death. The secondary outcome was the mild composite adverse outcome, including hypoglycemia, need for phototherapy, hypothermia, meconium aspiration syndrome, need for noninvasive ventilation, or umbilical cord pH of <7.1.


Results


Overall, 43,714 women were in the study cohort, including 282 (0.65%) presenting with IFM who were compared with 43,432 (99.35%) who reported no change in fetal movement during pregnancy. Women in the IFM group were more likely to be nulliparous and to have epidural anesthesia than the control group (53.7% vs 32.3% [ P <.001] and 74.1% vs 61.3% [ P <.001], respectively). Placental locations were comparable between groups. Induction of labor and vacuum-assisted delivery were more common in the IFM group than in the control group (30.5% vs 21.7% [ P =.001] and 13.1% vs 8.0% [ P =.001], respectively). However, these 2 differences were not seen after subgroup analysis for nulliparas. No difference was found between groups in terms of the severe and mild composite adverse neonatal outcomes and any other neonatal complication, including umbilical cord complications (around the neck, around the body, around body or neck, or true cord knot) ( Table ). No case of stillbirth or intrapartum death was found in the IFM group. A relatively large proportion of women (23 [8.2%]) in the IFM group had a previous visit (2 weeks earlier or more) with an abdominal injury because of an accidental fall or motor vehicle accident. Multivariable logistic regression found that IFM was a nonsignificant risk factor for composite adverse neonatal outcomes, induction of labor, and vacuum-assisted deliveries.



Table

Neonatal outcomes of the IFM group compared with that of the control group








































































































































Variable IFM group (n=282) Control group (no IFM) (n=43,432) P value
Apgar score<7 at 5 min 3 (1.1) 270 (0.6) .259
pH<7.1 6 (7.2) 510 (4.9) .316
pH<7.0 2 (2.4) 124 (1.2) .259
Umbilical cord complications
True knot 4 (1.6) 550 (1.4) .787
Cord around body or neck 81 (32.3) 11,246 (29.6) .363
Cord around body 7 (2.8) 1179 (3.1) .772
Cord around neck 74 (29.5) 10,067 (26.5) .292
Birthweight (g) 3261.4±413.3 3228.4±491.9 .183
Small for gestational age 22 (7.8) 3370 (7.8) .979
Large for gestational age 22 (7.8) 4138 (9.5) .325
Macrosomia 8 (2.8) 2049 (4.7) .137
NICU hospitalization 7 (2.5) 1068 (2.5) .980
Stillbirth 0 (0.0) 89 (0.2) 1.000
Sepsis 0 (0.0) 5 (0.0) 1.000
Respiratory distress 1 (0.4) 154 (0.0) 1.000
Cerebral injury 0 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1.000
Anemia or blood transfusion 0 (0.0) 14 (0.0) 1.000
Intrapartum death 0 (0.0) 9 (0.0) 1.000
Severe composite neonatal outcome 1 (0.4) 185 (0.6) 1.000
Neonatal hypoglycemia 0 (0.0) 239 (0.7) .272
Need for phototherapy 13 (4.7) 1823 (5.3) .680
Hypothermia 0 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1.000
Meconium aspiration 0 (0.0) 11 (0.0) 1.000
Need for noninvasive ventilation 0 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1.000
Mild composite neonatal outcome 19 (6.9) 2503 (7.2) .827

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Aug 28, 2022 | Posted by in GYNECOLOGY | Comments Off on Are increased fetal movements during pregnancy a predictor of neonatal adverse outcomes?

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access