Skip to main content
Log in

Can Placental Histopathology Lesions Predict Recurrence of Small for Gestational Age Neonates?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To study the role of placental pathology in predicting the recurrence of delivery of small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. Methods: The medical records and placental pathological reports of normotensive women who gave birth at 24 to 42 weeks to neonates with birth weight (BW) <10th percentile were reviewed. Patients were divided according to their subsequent pregnancy into those who developed or did not develop recurrent SGA (BW < 10th percentile). The clinical and pathological characteristics of the index pregnancies were compared between the groups. A prediction model was generated for SGA recurrence. Results: The recurrent SGA group (n = 67) was characterized by a higher rate of placental weight <10th percentile (P = .01), and higher neonatal to placental weight ratio (P = .003), as compared to the nonrecurrent SGA group (n = 99). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, placental maternal and fetal vascular malperfusion lesions and higher neonatal to placental weight ratio were all independently associated with recurrent SGA. Birth weight <3rd percentile was the only clinical variable associated with recurrent SGA. A prediction model for recurrent SGA included the following independent risk factors: BW <3rd percentile, villous lesions of maternal vascular malperfusion, and neonatal to placental weight ratio. Conclusion: The presence of placental vascular malperfusion lesions and increased neonatal to placental weight ratio at index pregnancy are associated with recurrent SGA in subsequent pregnancy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barker DJ. Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(2):270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barker DJ. Fetal origins of coronary heart disease. Br Med J. 1995;311(6998):171–174. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6998.171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Baschat AA. Neurodevelopment following fetal growth restriction and its relationship with antepartum parameters of placental dysfunction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(5):501–514. doi:10.1002/uog.9008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barker DJ. Early growth and cardiovascular disease. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80(4):305–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakketeig LS, Bjerkedal T, Hoffman HJ. Small-for-gestational age births in successive pregnancy outcomes: results from a longitudinal study of births in Norway. Early Hum Dev. 1986;14(3-4): 187–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Patterson RM, Gibbs CE, Wood RC. Birth weight percentile and perinatal outcome: recurrence of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68(4):464–468.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Voskamp BJ, Kazemier BM, Ravelli AC, Schaaf J, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. Recurrence of small-for-gestational-age pregnancy: analysis of first and subsequent singleton pregnancies in the Netherlands. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(5):374.e1-6. doi:10. 1016/j.ajog.2013.01.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Basso O, Olsen J, Christensen K. Low birthweight and prematurity in relation to paternal factors: a study of recurrence. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(4):695–700. doi:10.1093/ije/28.4.695

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bakewell JM, Stockbauer JW, Schramm WF. Factors associated with repetition of low birthweight: Missouri longitudinal study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997;11(Suppl 1):119–129. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9018721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sclowitz IK, Santos IS, Domingues MR, Matijasevich A, Barros AJ. Prognostic factors for low birthweight repetition in successive pregnancies: a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13:20. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nardozza LM, Caetano AC, Zamarian AC, et al. Fetal growth restriction: current knowledge. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295(5):1061–1077. doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4341-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tyson RW, Staat BC. The intrauterine growth-restricted fetus and placenta evaluation. Semin Perinatol. 2008;32(3):166–171. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2008.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vedmedovska N, Rezeberga D, Teibe U, Melderis I, Donders GGG. Placental pathology in fetal growth restriction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155(1):36–40. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb. 2010.11.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Figueras F, Gratacos E. An integrated approach to fetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;38:48–58. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts DJ, Post MD. The placenta in pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61(12):1254–1260. doi:10.1136/jcp.2008.055236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mayhew TM, Wijesekara J, Baker PN, Ong SS. Morphometric evidence that villous development and fetoplacental angiogenesis are compromised by intrauterine growth restriction but not by pre-eclampsia. Placenta. 2004;25(10):829–833. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2004.04.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kadyrov M, Kingdom JCP, Huppertz B. Divergent trophoblast invasion and apoptosis in placental bed spiral arteries from pregnancies complicated by maternal anemia and early-onset pree-clampsia/intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):557–563. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roberts JM, Escudero C. The placenta in preeclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2012;2(2):72–83. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2012. 01.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiner E, Mizrachi Y, Grinstein E, et al. The role of placental histopathological lesions in predicting recurrence of preeclampsia. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(10):953–960. doi:10.1002/pd.4918

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ananth CV, Peltier MR, Chavez MR, Kirby RS, Getahun D, Vintzileos AM. Recurrence of ischemic placental disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):128–133. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.000026 6983.77458.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES. Birth-weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J. 2005;7(5):311–314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Redline RW, Heller D, Keating S, Kingdom J. Placental diagnostic criteria and clinical correlation—a workshop report. Placenta. 2005;26(suppl A):S114–S117. doi:10.1016/j.placenta. 2005.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khong TY, Mooney EE, Ariel I, et al. Sampling and definitions of placental lesions: Amsterdam placental workshop group consensus statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(7):698–713. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0225-CC

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kovo M, Schreiber L, Ben-Haroush A, et al. The placental factor in early- and late-onset normotensive fetal growth restriction. Placenta. 2013;34(4):320–324. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2012.11.010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pinar H, Sung CJ, Oyer CE, Singer DB. Reference values for singleton and twin placental weights. Pediatr Pathol Lab Med. 1996;16(6):901–907.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Weiner E, Schreiber L, Grinstein E, et al. The placental component and obstetric outcome in severe preeclampsia with and without HELLP syndrome. Placenta. 2016;47:99–104. doi:10.1016/j. placenta.2016.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brosens I, Pijnenborg R, Vercruysse L, Romero R. The “great obstetrical syndromes” are associated with disorders of deep placentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(3):193–201. doi:10. 1016/j.ajog.2010.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brosens JJ, Pijnenborg R, Brosens IA. The myometrial junctional zone spiral arteries in normal and abnormal pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(5):1416–1423. doi:10.1067/mob.2002. 127305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Brosens I, Dixon HG, Robertson WB. Fetal growth retardation and the arteries of the placental bed. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1977; 84(9):656–663.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Veerbeek JHW, Nikkels PGJ, Torrance HL, et al. Placental pathology in early intrauterine growth restriction associated with maternal hypertension. Placenta. 2014;35(9):696–701. doi:10. 1016/j.placenta.2014.06.375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Parra-Saavedra M, Simeone S, Triunfo S, et al. Correlation between histological signs of placental underperfusion and perinatal morbidity in late-onset small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(2):149–155. doi:10.1002/ uog.13415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Spinillo A, Gardella B, Bariselli S, Alfei A, Silini E, Dal Bello B. Placental histopathological correlates of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(13):1263–1272. doi:10.1002/pd.3988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Parra-Saavedra M, Crovetto F, Triunfo S, et al. Added value of umbilical vein flow as a predictor of perinatal outcome in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(2):189–195. doi:10.1002/uog.12380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Parra-Saavedra M, Crovetto F, Triunfo S, et al. Association of Doppler parameters with placental signs of underperfusion in late-onset small-for-gestational-age pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(3):330–337. doi:10.1002/uog.13358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stevens DU, Al-Nasiry S, Bulten J, Spaanderman ME. Decidual vasculopathy in preeclampsia: lesion characteristics relate to disease severity and perinatal outcome. Placenta. 2013; 34(9):805–809. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2013.05.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Miranda J, Triunfo S, Rodriguez-Lopez M, et al. Performance of a third trimester combined screening model for the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(3):353–360. doi:10.1002/uog.17317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Crovetto F, Triunfo S, Crispi F, et al. Differential performance of first-trimester screening in predicting small-for-gestationalage neonate or fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(3):349–356. doi:10.1002/uog.15919

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Poon LC, Lesmes C, Gallo DM, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of small-for-gestationalage neonates: screening by biophysical and biochemical markers at 19-24 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):437–445. doi:10.1002/uog.14904

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Roberge S, Nicolaides K, Demers S, Hyett J, Chaillet N, Bujold E. Systematic review the role of aspirin dose on the prevention of preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):110–120.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Parrasaavedra M, Crovetto F, Triunfo S, et al. Placental findings in late-onset SGA births without Doppler signs of placental insufficiency. Placenta. 2013;34(12):1136–1141. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2013.09.018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Levy MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levy, M., Mizrachi, Y., Leytes, S. et al. Can Placental Histopathology Lesions Predict Recurrence of Small for Gestational Age Neonates?. Reprod. Sci. 25, 1485–1491 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719117749757

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719117749757

Keywords

Navigation