How to monitor pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction and delivery before 32 weeks: post‐hoc analysis of TRUFFLE study
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: In the recent TRUFFLE study, it appeared that, in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction (FGR) between 26 and 32 weeks' gestation, monitoring of the fetal ductus venosus (DV) waveform combined with computed cardiotocography (CTG) to determine timing of delivery increased the chance of infant survival without neurological impairment. However, concerns with the interpretation were raised, as DV monitoring appeared to be associated with a non‐significant increase in fetal death, and some infants were delivered after 32 weeks, at which time the study protocol no longer applied. This secondary sensitivity analysis of the TRUFFLE study focuses on women who delivered before 32 completed weeks' gestation and analyzes in detail the cases of fetal death. Methods: Monitoring data of 317 pregnancies with FGR that delivered before 32 weeks were analyzed, excluding those with absent outcome data or inevitable perinatal death. Women were allocated randomly to one of three groups of indication for delivery according to the following monitoring strategies: (1) reduced fetal heart rate short‐term variation (STV) on CTG; (2) early changes in fetal DV waveform; and (3) late changes in fetal DV waveform. Primary outcome was 2‐year survival without neurological impairment. The association of the last monitoring data before delivery and infant outcome was assessed by multivariable analysis. Results: Two‐year survival without neurological impairment occurred more often in the two DV groups (both 83%) than in the CTG‐STV group (77%), however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). Among the surviving infants in the DV groups, 93% were free of neurological impairment vs 85% of surviving infants in the CTG‐STV group (P = 0.049). All fetal deaths (n = 7) occurred in the groups with DV monitoring. Of the monitoring parameters obtained shortly before fetal death in these seven cases, an abnormal CTG was observed in only one case. Multivariable regression analysis of factors at study entry demonstrated that a later gestational age, higher estimated fetal weight‐to‐50 th percentile ratio and lower umbilical artery pulsatility index (PI)/fetal middle cerebral artery‐PI ratio were significantly associated with normal outcome. Allocation to DV monitoring had a smaller effect on outcome, but remained in the model (P < 0.1). Abnormal fetal arterial Doppler before delivery was significantly associated with adverse outcome in the CTG‐STV group. In contrast, abnormal DV flow was the only monitoring parameter associated with adverse outcome in the DV groups, while fetal arterial Doppler, STV below the cut‐off used in the CTG‐STV group and recurrent decelerations in fetal heart rate were not. Conclusions: In accordance with the findings of the TRUFFLE study on monitoring and intervention management of very preterm FGR, we found that the proportion of infants surviving without neuroimpairment was not significantly different when the decision for delivery was based on changes in DV waveform vs reduced STV on CTG. The uneven distribution of fetal deaths towards the DV groups was probably a chance effect, and neurological outcome was better among surviving children in these groups. Before 32 weeks, delaying delivery until abnormalities in DV‐PI or STV and/or recurrent decelerations in fetal heat rate occur, as defined by the study protocol, is likely to be safe and possibly benefits long‐term outcome. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In TRUFFLE, delivery decisions guided by ductus venosus Doppler findings accounted for about 11% of pregnancies allocated to the late ductus venosus findings group because most delivered due to other fetal or maternal indications.
“In TRUFFLE, delivery decisions guided by ductus venosus Doppler findings only accounted for about 11% of pregnancies allocated to the late ductus venosus findings group because most delivered due to other fetal or maternal indications.115,120,121”
From Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction (2020) · cites this paper as [115]
The Introduction says that only a proportion of fetuses allocated to delivery for ductus venosus changes were delivered on that criterion; the majority were delivered under safety-net criteria. It does not give the claimed 11% figure for the late ductus venosus group or specify that the other deliveries were due to fetal or maternal indications. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Customised antenatal growth charts
Gardosi, J. O., Chang, A., Kalyan, B., Sahota, D. S., & Symonds, M. E. (1992) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(92)91342-6 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Lees, C., Marlow, N., Arabin, B., Bilardo, C. M., Brezinka, C., Derks, J. B., Duvekot, J., Frusca, T., Diemert, A., Ferrazzi, E., et al. (2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.13190 · Cited by 540 · see citing works
Self-citationMonitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study
Hecher, K., Bilardo, C. M., Stigter, R. H., Ville, Y. G., Hackelöer, B.-J., Kok, H. J., Sénat, M., & Visser, G. H. A. (2001) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00590.x · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Self-citationLees, C. C., Marlow, N., van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A., Arabin, B., Bilardo, C. M., Brezinka, C., Calvert, S., Derks, J. B., Diemert, A., Duvekot, J. J., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62049-3 · Cited by 479 · see citing works
Self-citationBaschat, A. A., Gembruch, U., & Harman, C. R. (2001) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00591.x · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Bilardo, C. M., Wolf, H., Stigter, R. H., Ville, Y. G., Baez, E., Visser, G. H. A., & Hecher, K. (2004) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.965 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Self-citationFlood, K., Unterscheider, J., Daly, S., Geary, M. P., Kennelly, M. M., McAuliffe, F. M., O'Donoghue, K., Hunter, A., Morrison, J. J., Burke, G., et al. (2014) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.008 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Baschat, A., Viscardi, R. M., Hussey-Gardner, B. T., Hashmi, N., & Harman, C. R. (2008) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.6286 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Morris, R. K., Selman, T. J., Verma, M., Robson, S. C., Kleijnen, J., & Khan, K. S. (2010) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.04.017 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [10]10. Frauenschuh I, Frambach T, Karl S, Dietl J, M üller T. [Ductus venosus blood flow prior to intrauterine foetal death in severe placental insufficiency can be unaffected as shown by doppler sonography]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2014; 218: 218-222.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Martins, J. G., Biggio, J. R., & Abuhamad, A. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.010 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
Caradeux, J., Martinez-Portilla, R. J., Basuki, T. R., Kiserud, T., & Figueras, F. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.566 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Severe fetal growth restriction at 26-32 weeks: key messages from the TRUFFLE study
Bilardo, C. M., Hecher, K., Visser, G. H. A., Papageorghiou, A. T., Marlow, N., Thilaganathan, B., Van Wassenaer‐Leemhuis, A., Todros, T., Marsal, K., Frusca, T., et al. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.18815 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Self-citationThe role of the fetal biophysical profile in the management of fetal growth restriction
Baschat, A. A., Galan, H. L., Lee, W., DeVore, G. R., Mari, G., Hobbins, J., Vintzileos, A., Platt, L. D., & Manning, F. A. (2022) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.020 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ganzevoort, W., Mensing Van Charante, N., Thilaganathan, B., Prefumo, F., Arabin, B., Bilardo, C. M., Brezinka, C., Derks, J. B., Diemert, A., Duvekot, J. J., Ferrazzi, E., Frusca, T., Hecher, K., Marlow, N., Martinelli, P., Ostermayer, E., Papageorghiou, A. T., Schlembach, D., Schneider, K. T. M., Todros, T., Valcamonico, A., Visser, G. H. A., Van Wassenaer‐Leemhuis, A., Lees, C. C., Wolf, H., & on behalf of the TRUFFLE Group
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam The Netherlands
- St George's, University of London (GB)
- University of Brescia (IT)
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
- Wilhelmina Children's Hospital (NL)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- University of Milan (IT)
- University of Parma (IT)
- University College London (GB)
- Federico II University Hospital (IT)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Vivantes Klinikum (DE)
- University of Turin (IT)
- Department of Neonatology Emma Children's Hospital Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam The Netherlands
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lees, C. C.
- Wolf, H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 769-777
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2586399514
- Semantic Scholar
- 9ef1c9c83a18c9898093423497be218852eff318
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 8.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10034)
- Imperial College London
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
- ZonMw (94506556, 2509 AE)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal and fetal brain pathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
- Keywords
- fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, fetal heart rate monitoring, cardiotocography, fetal death, neurological outcome, umbilical artery pulsatility index, gestational age, estimated fetal weight, perinatal outcome prediction, sensitivity analysis, neonatal survival
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Central Nervous System Diseases, Child, Preschool, Female, Fetal Growth Retardation, Premature Rupture of Fetal Membranes, Gestational Age, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Infant, Male, Pregnancy, Pulsatile Flow, Cardiotocography, Survival Analysis, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Treatment Outcome, Middle Cerebral Artery, Uterine Artery, Infant, Extremely Premature
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review