Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 3, pp 575–581 | Cite as

Correlation of short-term variation and Doppler parameters with adverse perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational age fetuses at term

  • Florian M. StumpfeEmail author
  • Florian Faschingbauer
  • Sven Kehl
  • Jutta Pretscher
  • Patrick Stelzl
  • Andreas Mayr
  • Ralf L. Schild
  • Matthias Schmid
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
  • Michael O. Schneider
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



To evaluate the association of short-term variation (STV) and Doppler parameters with adverse perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses at term.


In this retrospective single-center study 97 patients with singleton SGA fetuses at term (≥ 37 + 0 weeks’ gestation) were examined. Inclusion criteria were a birth weight < 10th centile, cephalic presentation and planned vaginal birth. Only cases with available Doppler measurements of umbilical artery (UA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) with calculated cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) in combination with a computerized CTG (cCTG) and STV 72 h prior to delivery were eligible for analysis. Pulsatility indices (PI) were converted into multiples of median (MoM), adjusted for gestational age.

The association between Doppler indices and STV values with mode of delivery [secondary cesarean delivery (CD), operative vaginal delivery (OVD), as well as secondary CD and OVD due to fetal distress] and neonatal outcome [UA blood pH ≤ 7.15 and the need of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)] was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.


There was a significant association between UA PI MoM and the rate of CD. CD due to fetal distress, OVD and OVD due to fetal distress did not show a correlation with the evaluated Doppler parameters. Furthermore, we did not find an association between low UA birth pH and Doppler parameters while neonates with the need of admission to NICU had significant higher UA PI MoM and significant lower MCA PI MoM and CPR MoM. Regarding STV, a significant effect of low STV on NICU admission was found while none of the other assessed outcome parameters were significantly associated with STV.


STV and Doppler parameters in SGA fetuses at term are significantly associated to the rate of NICU admission.


Doppler Cerebroplacental ratio Fetal distress Short-term variation Computerized CTG Cardiotocography SGA small-for-gestational age 


Author contributions

FMS: project development, data collection, data interpretation, manuscript writing—original draft. FF: project development, date interpretation, supervision, manuscript writing: review and editing. SK: data interpretation, and critical revision of the manuscript. JP: data collection, and critical revision of the manuscript. PS: data collection, and critical revision of the manuscript. AM: data analysis, data interpretation, and critical revision of the manuscript. RLS: supervision, and critical revision of the manuscript. MS: data analysis, and critical revision of the manuscript. MWB: supervision, and critical revision of the manuscript. MOS: data collection, and manuscript writing—original draft.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author FMS declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author FF declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author SK declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author JP declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author PS declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author AM declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author RLS declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author MS declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author MWB declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author MOS declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Klinisches Ethikkomitee des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) ACOG practice bulletin no. 134: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 121(5):1122–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morales-Rosello J et al (2014) Changes in fetal Doppler indices as a marker of failure to reach growth potential at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(3):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordijn SJ et al (2016) Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(3):333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graupner O et al (2018) Performance of computerized cardiotocography-based short-term variation in late-onset small-for-gestational-age fetuses and reference ranges for the late third trimester. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khalil AA et al (2015) The association between fetal Doppler and admission to neonatal unit at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(1):57 e1–57.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khalil AA et al (2015) Is fetal cerebroplacental ratio an independent predictor of intrapartum fetal compromise and neonatal unit admission? Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(1):54 e1–54 e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morales-Rosello J et al (2015) Poor neonatal acid-base status in term fetuses with low cerebroplacental ratio. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45(2):156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prior T et al (2013) Prediction of intrapartum fetal compromise using the cerebroumbilical ratio: a prospective observational study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(2):124 e1–124 e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prior T et al (2015) Are fetuses that fail to achieve their growth potential at increased risk of intrapartum compromise? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(4):460–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hecher K et al (2001) Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(6):564–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galazios G et al (2010) Fetal distress evaluation using and analyzing the variables of antepartum computerized cardiotocography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 281(2):229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anceschi MM et al (2003) Validity of short term variation (STV) in detection of fetal acidemia. J Perinat Med 31(3):231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Street P et al (1991) Short-term variation in abnormal antenatal fetal heart rate records. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165(3):515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lees CC et al (2015) 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet 385(9983):2162–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stampalija T et al (2017) Is middle cerebral artery Doppler related to neonatal and 2-year infant outcome in early fetal growth restriction? Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:521 e1–521 e13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stumpfe FM et al (2019) Correlation of short-term variation and Doppler parameters with adverse perinatal outcome in low-risk fetuses at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(2):411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiermeier S, Westhof G, Daumer M, Scholz M, Hatzmann W (2006) Short-time variations of fetal heart rate and the FIGO-CTG-Score—first experience with a combination of these two parameters. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 66:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bahlmann F et al (2002) Blood flow velocity waveforms of the fetal middle cerebral artery in a normal population: reference values from 18 weeks to 42 weeks of gestation. J Perinat Med 30(6):490–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baschat AA, Gembruch U (2003) The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio revisited. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21(2):124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Villar J et al (2014) International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the newborn cross-sectional study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 384(9946):857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (2017) Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth (NICE Guideline 190). RCOG PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Genuttis N, Bolz M, Briese V (2017) Can the rate of C-sections performed in a level I perinatal center be reduced?—an analysis of the University Gynecology Clinic Rostock, 2008–2014. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77(7):771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cruz-Martinez R et al (2011) Fetal brain Doppler to predict cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 117(3):618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Figueras F et al (2015) An integrated model with classification criteria to predict small-for-gestational-age fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45(3):279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garcia-Simon R et al (2015) Cervical condition and fetal cerebral Doppler as determinants of adverse perinatal outcome after labor induction for late-onset small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(6):713–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sirico A et al (2018) Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by cerebroplacental ratio adjusted for estimated fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(3):381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flatley C, Kumar S (2018) Is the fetal cerebroplacental ratio better that the estimated fetal weight in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes in a low risk cohort? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 32:1–7Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amorim-Costa C, Campos DA, Bernardes J (2017) Cardiotocographic parameters in small-for-gestational-age fetuses: how do they vary from normal at different gestational ages? A study of 11687 fetuses from 25 to 40 weeks of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 43(3):476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian M. Stumpfe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Florian Faschingbauer
    • 1
  • Sven Kehl
    • 1
  • Jutta Pretscher
    • 1
  • Patrick Stelzl
    • 1
  • Andreas Mayr
    • 2
  • Ralf L. Schild
    • 3
  • Matthias Schmid
    • 2
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
    • 1
  • Michael O. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical FacultyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Perinatal MedicinePerinatalzentrum HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations