Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cerebroplacental versus Umbilicocerebral Ratio—Analyzing the Predictive Value Regarding Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Low- and High-Risk Fetuses at Term
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cerebroplacental versus Umbilicocerebral Ratio—Analyzing the Predictive Value Regarding Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Low- and High-Risk Fetuses at Term
Do you wish to request the book?
Cerebroplacental versus Umbilicocerebral Ratio—Analyzing the Predictive Value Regarding Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Low- and High-Risk Fetuses at Term
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cerebroplacental versus Umbilicocerebral Ratio—Analyzing the Predictive Value Regarding Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Low- and High-Risk Fetuses at Term
2023
Overview
Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes using the cerebroplacental (CPR) and umbilicocerebral (UCR) ratios in different cohorts of singleton pregnancies. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we established our own Multiple of Median (MoM) for CPR and UCR. The predictive value for both ratios was studied in the following outcome parameters: emergency cesarean delivery, operative intervention (OI), OI due to fetal distress, 5-min Apgar < 7, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, and composite adverse perinatal outcome. The performance of the ratios was assessed in the following cohorts: total cohort (delivery ≥ 37 + 0 weeks gestation, all birth weight centiles), low-risk cohort (delivery ≥ 37 + 0 weeks gestation, birth weight ≥ 10. centile), prolonged pregnancy cohort (delivery ≥ 41 + 0 weeks gestation, birth weight ≥ 10. centile) and small-for-gestational-age fetuses (delivery ≥ 37 + 0 weeks gestation, birth weight < 10. centile). The underlying reference values for MoM were estimated using quantile regression depending on gestational age. Prediction performance was evaluated using logistic regression models assessing the corresponding Brier score, combining discriminatory power and calibration. Results: Overall, 3326 cases were included. Across all cohorts, in the case of a significant association between a studied outcome parameter and CPR, there was an association with UCR, respectively. The Brier score showed only minimal differences for both ratios. Conclusions: Our study provides further evidence regarding predictive values of CPR and UCR. The results of our study suggest that reversal of CPR to UCR does not improve the prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
