Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep;310(3):1631-1637.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07623-x. Epub 2024 Jul 30.

Pregnancy outcomes in correlation with placental histopathology in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction with vs. without reduced fetal movements

Liat Mor  1 , Tamar Rabinovitch  2 , Letizia Schreiber  3 , Yael Ganor Paz  1 , Giulia Barda  1 , Ilia Kleiner  1 , Eran Weiner  1 , Michal Levy  1
Affiliations

Pregnancy outcomes in correlation with placental histopathology in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction with vs. without reduced fetal movements

Liat Mor et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: Fetal movements are crucial indicators of fetal well-being, with reduced fetal movements (RFM) suggesting potential fetal compromise. Fetal growth restriction (FGR), often linked to placental insufficiency, is a major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to investigate the neonatal, labor, and placental outcomes of FGR pregnancies with and without RFM at term.

Methods: In this retrospective study, data from all term, singleton deliveries with FGR and concomitant RFM were obtained and compared to an equal control group of FGR without RFM. Maternal characteristics, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, and placental histology were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify independent associations with adverse neonatal outcomes.

Results: During the study period, 250 FGR neonates with concomitant RFM and an equal control group were identified. The groups did not differ in maternal demographics aside from significantly higher rates of maternal smoking in the RFM group (p < 0.001). Polyhydramnios and oligohydramnios (p = 0.032 and p = 0.007, respectively) and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (p < 0.001) were more prevalent in the FGR+RFM group. Additionally, the RFM group showed higher rates of adverse neonatal outcomes despite having larger neonates (p = 0.047 and p < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences were observed in placental findings. Logistic regression identified RFM as an independent predictor of adverse neonatal outcomes (aOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.27-4.73, p = 0.008).

Conclusion: Reduced fetal movements are significant and independent predictors of worse neonatal outcomes in FGR pregnancies, suggesting an additional acute insult on top of underlying placental insufficiency.

Keywords: Fetal growth restriction; Neonatal outcomes; Placental pathology; Reduced fetal movements.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Lai J, Nowlan NC, Vaidyanathan R et al (2016) Fetal movements as a predictor of health. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95:968–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12944 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turner JM, Flenady V, Ellwood D et al (2021) Evaluation of pregnancy outcomes among women with decreased fetal movements. JAMA Netw Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5071 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Stacey T, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA et al (2011) Maternal perception of fetal activity and late stillbirth risk : findings from the auckland stillbirth study. Birth 38:311–316 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heazell AEP, Froen JF (2008) Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610801912618 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carroll L, Gallagher L, Smith V (2023) Pregnancy, birth and neonatal outcomes associated with reduced fetal movements: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomised studies. Midwifery 116:2–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103524 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources