Perinatal Outcomes in Isolated Single Umbilical Artery

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We sought to determine the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies diagnosed with an isolated single umbilical artery (SUA). We performed a retrospective review comparing 68 pregnancies with an isolated SUA to 68 pregnancies with a three-vessel cord (3VC). Pregnancies with structural or karyotypic anomalies were excluded. Gestational age at delivery, birth weight, SGA rate, ponderal index, and rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were compared between groups. Student t test and chi-square analysis were performed. Neonates with isolated SUA had a significantly smaller birth weight than those with a 3VC (3279 ± 404 g versus 3423 ± 374 g, p = 0.0168). There was no significant difference in rates of SGA (17.6% versus 8.8%, p = 0.06). Ponderal index was significantly less in those with SUA compared with 3VC (24.2 ± 1.1 g/cm³ versus 26.1 ± 1.3 g/cm³, p = 0.001). SUA neonates had a significantly longer length of neonatal intensive care unit stay than 3VC neonates (1.25 ± 2.2 days versus 0.48 ± 1.25 days, p < 0.023). Fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of isolated umbilical artery have a significantly lower ponderal index compared with fetuses with a 3VC. Pregnancies with isolated SUA should undergo serial assessments for fetal growth.

REFERENCES

• 1 Volpe G, Volpe P, Boscia F M, Volpe N, Buonadonna A L, Gentile M. [“Isolated” single umbilical artery: incidence, cytogenetic abnormalities, malformation and perinatal outcome].  Minerva Ginecol. 2005;  57 189-198
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Gornall A S, Kurinczuk J J, Konje J C. Antenatal detection of a single umbilical artery: does it matter?.  Prenat Diagn. 2003;  23 117-123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Chow J S, Benson C B, Doubilet P M. Frequency and nature of structural anomalies in fetuses with single umbilical arteries.  J Ultrasound Med. 1998;  17 765-768
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Granese R, Coco C, Jeanty P. The value of single umbilical artery in the prediction of fetal aneuploidy: findings in 12,672 pregnant women.  Ultrasound Q. 2007;  23 117-121
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Mu S C, Lin C H, Chen Y L, Sung T C, Bai C H, Jow G M. The perinatal outcomes of asymptomatic isolated single umbilical artery in full-term neonates.  Pediatr Neonatol. 2008;  49 230-233
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bombrys A E, Neiger R, Hawkins S et al.. Pregnancy outcome in isolated single umbilical artery.  Am J Perinatol. 2008;  25 239-242
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Parilla B V, Tamura R K, MacGregor S N, Geibel L J, Sabbagha R E. The clinical significance of a single umbilical artery as an isolated finding on prenatal ultrasound.  Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  85 570-572
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Predanic M, Perni S C, Friedman A, Chervenak F A, Chasen S T. Fetal growth assessment and neonatal birth weight in fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105(5 Pt 1) 1093-1097
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Lubchenco L O, Hansman C, Boyd E. Intrauterine growth in length and head circumference as estimated from live births at gestational ages from 26 to 42 weeks.  Pediatrics. 1966;  37 403-408
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Wiegand S, McKenna D S, Croom C, Ventolini G, Sonek J D, Neiger R. Serial sonographic growth assessment in pregnancies complicated by an isolated single umbilical artery.  Am J Perinatol. 2008;  25 149-152
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Catanzarite V A, Hendricks S K, Maida C, Westbrook C, Cousins L, Schrimmer D. Prenatal diagnosis of the two-vessel cord: implications for patient counselling and obstetric management.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  5 98-105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lehingue Y, Remontet L, Munoz F, Mamelle N. Birth ponderal index and body mass index reference curves in a large population.  Am J Hum Biol. 1998;  10 327-340
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 O'Brien P M, Wheeler T, Barker D J. Fetal programming: influences on development and disease in later life. Proceedings of the 36th Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Study Group London; RCOG 1999
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Hales C N, Barker D J. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis.  Br Med Bull. 2001;  60 5-20
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Yajnik C S, Fall C H, Vaidya U et al.. Fetal growth and glucose and insulin metabolism in four-year-old Indian children.  Diabet Med. 1995;  12 330-336
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Albertsson-Wikland K, Wennergren G, Wennergren M, Vilbergsson G, Rosberg S. Longitudinal follow-up of growth in children born small for gestational age.  Acta Paediatr. 1993;  82 438-443
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Widdowson E M, Crabb D E, Milner R D. Cellular development of some human organs before birth.  Arch Dis Child. 1972;  47 652-655
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Jaquet D, Gaboriau A, Czernichow P, Levy-Marchal C. Insulin resistance early in adulthood in subjects born with intrauterine growth retardation.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;  85 1401-1406
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Ibáñez L, Ong K, Dunger D B, de Zegher F. Early development of adiposity and insulin resistance after catch-up weight gain in small-for-gestational-age children.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;  91 2153-2158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Hediger M L, Overpeck M D, Kuczmarski R J, McGlynn A, Maurer K R, Davis W W. Muscularity and fatness of infants and young children born small- or large-for-gestational-age.  Pediatrics. 1998;  102 E60
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Amanda L HortonM.D. 

NorthShore University Health System

2650 Ridge Ave., Evanston, IL 60201

Email: Horton.alm@gmail.com