Search

Five years ago, we described the skin-to-skin caesarean section, a procedure in which parental participation, slow delivery and direct skin-to-skin contact are important aspects. By multiple research, the skin-to-skin CS has been shown to have positive outcomes for the child and parents, as long as there is attention for neonatal thermal regulation. These outcomes should lead to cost reduction, versus the extra personnel costs for the nurse. However, a proper cost-effectiveness analysis has not yet been described. There are still many local differences in availability and performance of the skin-to-skin CS in the Netherlands, often caused by logistical challenges. In the meanwhile the protocol has been further optimized. In our opinion, the skin-to-skin caesarean section is better care for parents and their child, and should be available anywhere anytime, as long as the fetal and maternal condition permits this.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted more stringent diagnostic criteria for GDM in 2013, to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, there is no global consensus on these new diagnostic criteria, because of limited evidence. The objective of the study was to evaluate maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in two cohorts in the Netherlands applying different diagnostic criteria for GDM i.e. WHO-2013 and WHO-1999. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study involving singleton GDM pregnancies in two regions, between 2011 and 2016. Women were diagnosed according to the WHO-2013 criteria in the Deventer region (WHO-2013-cohort) and according to the WHO-1999 criteria in the Groningen region (WHO-1999-cohort). After GDM diagnosis, all women were treated equally based on the national guideline. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: In total 1386 women with GDM were included in the study. Women in the WHO-2013-cohort were older and had a higher pre-gestational body mass index. They were diagnosed earlier (24.9 [IQR 23.3–29.0] versus 27.7 [IQR 25.9–30.7] weeks, p = 90th percentile, corrected for sex, ethnicity, parity, and gestational age) was lower in the WHO-2013- cohort, but not statistical significant (16.5% versus 18.5%, p = 0.379). There were no differences between the cohorts regarding stillbirth, birth trauma, low Apgar score, and preeclampsia. Conclusions: Using the new WHO-2013 criteria resulted in an earlier GDM diagnosis, less women needed insulin treatment and more spontaneous deliveries occurred when compared to the cohort diagnosed with WHO-1999 criteria. No differences were found in adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Aims/hypothesis Detection and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are crucial to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications for both mother and child. In 2013, the WHO adopted new diagnostic criteria for GDM to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the evidence supporting these criteria is limited. Consequently, these new criteria have not yet been endorsed in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of these criteria on the number of GDM diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. Methods Data were available from 10,642 women who underwent a 75 g OGTT because of risk factors or signs suggestive of GDM. Women were treated if diagnosed with GDM according to the WHO 1999 criteria. Data on pregnancy outcomes were obtained from extensive chart reviews from 4,431 women and were compared between women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and women classified into the following groups: (1) GDM according to WHO 1999 criteria; (2) GDM according to WHO 2013 criteria; (3) GDM according to WHO 2013 fasting glucose threshold, but not WHO 1999 criteria; and (4) GDM according to WHO 1999 2 h plasma glucose threshold (2HG), but not WHO 2013 criteria. Results Applying the new WHO 2013 criteria would have increased the number of diagnoses by 45% (32% vs 22%) in this population of women at higher risk for GDM. In comparison with women with NGT, women classified as having GDM based only on the WHO 2013 threshold for fasting glucose, who were not treated for GDM, were more likely to have been obese (46.1% vs 28.1%, p

Perinatal death (PD) is a devastating obstetric complication. Determination of cause of death helps in understanding why and how it occurs, and it is an indispensable aid to parents wanting to understand why their baby died and to determine the recurrence risk and management in subsequent pregnancy. Consequently, a perinatal death requires adequate diagnostic investigation. An important first step in the analysis of PD is to identify the case circumstances, including relevant details regarding maternal history, obstetric history and current pregnancy (complications are evaluated and recorded). In the next step, placental examination is suggested in all cases, together with molecular cytogenetic evaluation and fetal autopsy. Investigation for fetal maternal hemorrhage by Kleihauer is also recommended as standard. In cases where parents do not consent to autopsy, alternative approaches such as minimally invasive postmortem examination, postmortem magnetic resonance imaging, and fetal photographs are good alternatives. After all investigations have been performed it is important to combine findings from the clinical review and investigations together, to identify the most probable cause of death and counsel the parents regarding their loss. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ContextThyroid dysfunction is thought to be associated with stillbirth. Therefore, thyroid function is often recommended in the diagnostic investigations for stillbirth.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the added value of thyroid function testing in the diagnostic investigations for stillbirth.Design and patientsA nationwide multicentre prospective cohort study in 1025 women who suffered stillbirth >20 weeks of gestation performed between 2002 and 2008. In each woman, an extensive diagnostic work-up was performed, including placental examination and autopsy. TSH and FT4 values below the 25th percentile or above the 975th percentile according local laboratory reference values were regarded as abnormal. Women with a history of thyroid disease were evaluated separately.Main outcome measuresThyroid function abnormalities in women with stillbirth.ResultsOf 1025 included women, 21 had a history of thyroid disease (2%). In the 875 with TSH and FT4 results and no history of thyroid disease, 10% had hypothyroxinemia, 46% subclinical hypothyroidism, 16% overt hypothyroidism and 15% subclinical hyperthyroidism. Women with a subclinical hyperthyroidism more often had a foetal death caused by foetal hydrops: 23% vs 29% (adjusted OR 103, 95% CI 25-42).ConclusionsWomen with a stillbirth had a slightly higher prevalence of overt hypothyroidism, subclinical hypothyroidism and hypothyroxinaemia compared to previous studies on thyroid dysfunction in pregnant women. Given the absence of a strong associations with the cause of stillbirth, and no demonstrated beneficial effects of treating thyroid dysfunction in these women, routine screening after stillbirth is not justified.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD-PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention. OBJECTIVES: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD-PM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD-PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC). MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD-PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD-PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well-resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings. FUNDING: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC-CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC-CDF (APP1123611). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Background and methods Nearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long-lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high-, middle-, and low-income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. Findings We found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low-, middle-, and high-income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low-income countries, stillbirths were often attributed to Infection and Complications during labour and birth. In middle- and high-income countries, stillbirths were often reported as Placental complications. Limitations We may have missed some reports as searches were carried out in English only. The available reports were of poor quality. Implications Many countries, particularly those where the majority of stillbirths occur, do not report any information about these deaths. Where there are reports, the quality is often poor. It is important to improve the investigation and reporting of stillbirth using a standardised system so that policy makers and healthcare workers can develop effective stillbirth prevention programs. All stillbirths should be investigated and reported in line with the World Health Organization standards.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirths and neonatal deaths are devastating events for both parents and clinicians and are global public health concerns. Careful clinical management after these deaths is required, including appropriate investigation and assessment to determine cause (s) to prevent future losses, and to improve bereavement care for families. An educational programme for health care professionals working in maternal and child health has been designed to address these needs according to the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Guideline for Perinatal Mortality: IMproving Perinatal mortality Review and Outcomes Via Education (IMPROVE). The programme has a major focus on stillbirth and is delivered as six interactive skills-based stations. We aimed to determine participants' pre- and post-programme knowledge of and confidence in the management of perinatal deaths, along with satisfaction with the programme. We also aimed to determine suitability for international use.METHODS: The IMPROVE programme was delivered to health professionals in maternity hospitals in all seven Australian states and territories and modified for use internationally with piloting in Vietnam, Fiji, and the Netherlands (with the assistance of the International Stillbirth Alliance, ISA). Modifications were made to programme materials in consultation with local teams and included translation for the Vietnam programme. Participants completed pre- and post-programme evaluation questionnaires on knowledge and confidence on six key components of perinatal death management as well as a satisfaction questionnaire.RESULTS: Over the period May 2012 to May 2015, 30 IMPROVE workshops were conducted, including 26 with 758 participants in Australia and four with 136 participants internationally. Evaluations showed a significant improvement between pre- and post-programme knowledge and confidence in all six stations and overall, and a high degree of satisfaction in all settings.CONCLUSIONS: The IMPROVE programme has been well received in Australia and in three different international settings and is now being made available through ISA. Future research is required to determine whether the immediate improvements in knowledge are sustained with less causes of death being classified as unknown, changes in clinical practice and improvement in parents' experiences with care. The suitability for this programme in low-income countries also needs to be established.

Background Each year, about 5.3 million babies die in the perinatal period. Understanding of causes of death is critical for prevention, yet there is no globally acceptable classification system. Instead, many disparate systems have been developed and used. We aimed to identify all systems used or created between 2009 and 2014, with their key features, including extent of alignment with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and variation in features by region, to inform the World Health Organization’s development of a new global approach to classifying perinatal deaths. Methods A systematic literature review (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and PubMed) identified published and unpublished studies and national reports describing new classification systems or modifications of existing systems for causes of perinatal death, or that used or tested such systems, between 2009 and 2014. Studies reporting ICD use only were excluded. Data were independently double-extracted (except from non-English publications). Subgroup analyses explored variation by extent and region. Results Eighty-one systems were identified as new, modifications of existing systems, or having been used between 2009 and 2014, with an average of ten systems created/modified each year. Systems had widely varying characteristics: (i) comprehensiveness (40 systems classified both stillbirths and neonatal deaths); (ii) extent of use (systems were created in 28 countries and used in 40; 17 were created for national use; 27 were widely used); (iii) accessibility (three systems available in e-format); (iv) underlying cause of death (64 systems required a single cause of death); (v) reliability (10 systems tested for reliability, with overall Kappa scores ranging from .35–.93); and (vi) ICD alignment (17 systems used ICD codes). Regional databases were not searched, so system numbers may be underestimated. Some non-differential misclassification of systems was possible. Conclusions The plethora of systems in use, and continuing system development, hamper international efforts to improve understanding of causes of death. Recognition of the features of currently used systems, combined with a better understanding of the drivers of continued system creation, may help the development of a truly effective global system. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1071-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background To reduce the burden of 5.3 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths annually, an understanding of causes of deaths is critical. A systematic review identified 81 systems for classification of causes of stillbirth (SB) and neonatal death (NND) between 2009 and 2014. The large number of systems hampers efforts to understand and prevent these deaths. This study aimed to assess the alignment of current classification systems with expert-identified characteristics for a globally effective classification system. Methods Eighty-one classification systems were assessed for alignment with 17 characteristics previously identified through expert consensus as necessary for an effective global system. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Systems were assessed against each characteristic and weighted and unweighted scores assigned to each. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by system use, setting, type of death included and type of characteristic. Results None of the 81 systems were aligned with more than 9 of the 17 characteristics; most (82 %) were aligned with four or fewer. On average, systems were aligned with 19 % of characteristics. The most aligned system (Frøen 2009-Codac) still had an unweighted score of only 9/17. Alignment with individual characteristics ranged from 0 to 49 %. Alignment was somewhat higher for widely used as compared to less used systems (22 % v 17 %), systems used only in high income countries as compared to only in low and middle income countries (20 % vs 16 %), and systems including both SB and NND (23 %) as compared to NND-only (15 %) and SB-only systems (13 %). Alignment was higher with characteristics assessing structure (23 %) than function (15 %). Conclusions There is an unmet need for a system exhibiting all the characteristics of a globally effective system as defined by experts in the use of systems, as none of the 81 contemporary classification systems assessed was highly aligned with these characteristics. A particular concern in terms of global effectiveness is the lack of alignment with “ease of use” among all systems, including even the most-aligned. A system which meets the needs of users would have the potential to become the first truly globally effective classification system. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1040-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

${\bf Background}$ Despite the global burden of perinatal deaths, there is currently no single, globally-acceptable classification system for perinatal deaths. Instead, multiple, disparate systems are in use world-wide. This inconsistency hinders accurate estimates of causes of death and impedes effective prevention strategies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is developing a globally-acceptable classification approach for perinatal deaths. To inform this work, we sought to establish a consensus on the important characteristics of such a system. ${\bf Methods}$ A group of international experts in the classification of perinatal deaths were identified and invited to join an expert panel to develop a list of important characteristics of a quality global classification system for perinatal death. A Delphi consensus methodology was used to reach agreement. Three rounds of consultation were undertaken using a purpose built on-line survey. Round one sought suggested characteristics for subsequent scoring and selection in rounds two and three. ${\bf Results}$ The panel of experts agreed on a total of 17 important characteristics for a globally-acceptable perinatal death classification system. Of these, 10 relate to the structural design of the system and 7 relate to the functional aspects and use of the system. ${\bf Conclusion}$ This study serves as formative work towards the development of a globally-acceptable approach for the classification of the causes of perinatal deaths. The list of functional and structural characteristics identified should be taken into consideration when designing and developing such a system., This project was initially undertaken as part of the Harmonized Reproductive Health Registries project through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Partnership with the Mater Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and in collaboration with the Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO., This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by BioMed Central.

Comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes after conventional cesarean section (CS) versus a "natural" or "skin-to-skin" cesarean section (SSCS).Retrospective cohort of women who underwent a SSCS (01-2013 until 12-2013) compared to conventional CS (08-2011 to 08-2012). CS before 37 weeks, under general anesthesia and in case of fetal distress were excluded. Main outcome measures were maternal blood loss, post-operative infection and admission; neonatal infection and admission; procedural outcomes.We analyzed 285 (44%) women in the SSCS-group and 365 (56%) in the conventional CS-group. There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (2.1% versus 1.6%; RR 1.1; 95%CI 0.64-2.0), or other maternal outcomes. Fewer neonates born after SSCS were admitted to the pediatric ward (9.5% versus 18%; RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.41-0.80) and fewer neonates had a suspected neonatal infection (2.0% versus 7.3%; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.19-0.83). No differences were observed for other outcomes. Mean operation time was 4m42s longer in the SSCS-group compared to the conventional CS-group (58m versus 53m; 95%CI 2m44s-6m40s). Mean recovery time was 14m46s shorter (114m versus 129m; 95%CI 3m20s-26m).Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were not increased after skin-to-skin cesarean compared to conventional cesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the contribution of different diagnostic tests for determining cause of fetal death. Our goal was to propose a workup guideline.STUDY DESIGN: In a multicenter prospective cohort study from 2002 through 2008, for 1025 couples with fetal death >= 20 weeks' gestation, an extensive nonselective diagnostic workup was performed. A panel classified cause and determined contribution of diagnostics for allocating cause.RESULTS: A Kleihauer-Betke, autopsy, placental examination, and cytogenetic analysis were abnormal in 11.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-14.2), 51.5% (95% CI, 47.4-55.2), 89.2% (95% CI, 87.2-91.1), and 11.9% (95% CI, 8.7-15.7), respectively. The most valuable tests for determination of cause were placental examination (95.7%; 95% CI, 94.2-96.8), autopsy (72.6%; 95% CI, 69.2-75.9), and cytogenetic analysis (29.0%; 95% CI, 24.4-34.0).CONCLUSION: Autopsy, placental examination, cytogenetic analysis, and testing for fetal maternal hemorrhage are basic tests for workup after fetal death. Based on the results of these tests or on specific clinical characteristics, further sequential testing is indicated.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether parental thrombophilic defects after fetal death, either acquired or inherited, were more prevalent than in the normal population and to estimate associations between these thrombophilic defects and different fetal death causes.METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 750 fetal deaths, we tested couples for antithrombin, protein C, total and free protein S, and von Willebrand factor (vWF) plasma levels. Mothers' values were compared with reference values in gestational age-matched healthy pregnant women, and fathers were compared with healthy men. Prevalence of factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A mutation, and lupus anticoagulant were compared with the normal population. A panel classified death cause.RESULTS: More women with fetal death had decreased antithrombin (16.8%, P CONCLUSION: Except for vWF and paternal free protein S, acquired and inherited thrombophilic defects were not more prevalent after fetal death. Routine thrombophilia testing after fetal death is not advised.

a Division of Haemostasis, Thrombosis and Rheology, University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands c Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d Department of Hematology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands e Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Different classification systems for the cause of intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) are used internationally. About two thirds of these deaths are reported as unexplained and placental causes are often not addressed. Differences between systems could have consequences for the validity of vital statistics, for targeting preventive strategies and for counselling parents on recurrence risks. Our objective was to compare use of the Tulip classification with other currently used classification systems for causes of IUFD. We selected the extended Wigglesworth classification, modified Aberdeen and the classifications by Hey, Hovatta, de Galan-Roosen and Morrison. We also selected the ReCoDe system for relevant conditions, comparable to contributing factors in the Tulip classification. Panel classification for 485 IUFD cases in the different systems was performed by assessors after individual investigation of structured patient information. Distribution of cases into cause of death groups for the different systems varied, most of all for the placental and unknown groups. Systems with a high percentage of cases with an unknown cause of death and death groups consisting of clinical manifestations only are not discriminatory. Our largest cause of death group was placental pathology and classification systems without placental cause of death groups or minimal subdivision of this group are not useful in modern perinatal audit as loss of information occurs. The most frequent contributing factor was growth restriction. This illustrates the vital role of the placenta in determination of optimal fetal development. In the Tulip classification, mother, fetus and placenta are addressed together. The system has a clear defined subclassification of the placenta group, a low percentage of unknown causes and is easily applied by a multidisciplinary team. A useful classification aids future research into placental causes of IUFD. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background Perinatal audit is an established method for improving the quality of perinatal care. In audit meetings substandard factors (SSF) are identified in cases of perinatal mortality and morbidity. To our knowledge there is no classification system specifically designed for the classification of substandard factors. Such a classification may help to standardise allocation of substandard factors to categories. This will help to prioritise, guide and implement actions in quality improvement programs. Methods A classification system of 284 substandard factors (SSF) identified in perinatal audit meetings between 2007 and 2011 was drawn up using the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety as a starting point. Discussions were held on inter-rater disagreements, inclusion of items, format and organisation and definitions of the main- and subcategories. A guideline was developed. An independent multidisciplinary group tested the classification. Independent of inter-rater agreement the allocations to categories were counted. For the counts in the subcategories one and two, we used the allocations in the main category as reference. The chance corrected agreement between classifiers was tested with Cohen's kappa statistic. Results The classification consists of 9 main categories with one or two subcategories. The main categories are (1) Equipment and Materials, (2) Medication, (3) Additional tests/ investigations, (4) Transportation , (5) Documentation, (6) Communication, (7) Medical practice, (8) Other and (9) non classifiable. Of 3663 allocations by 13 classifiers 1452 SSF’s were allocated (40 %) to ‘medical practice’ and 1247 (34 %) to ‘documentation’. 118 (3 %) times SSF’s were not classifiable, mainly due to unclear phrasing of the SSF. The chance corrected agreement of 284 substandard factors in the main category was 0.68 (95 % CI 0.66-0.70) and 0.57 (95 % CI 0.54-0.59) for the CDG and the IGD respectively. Conclusions Classifying substandard factors has given insight into problem area's in perinatal care and can give direction to medical, political and financial quality improvement measures. The Groningen-system has well defined categories and subcategories and the guidelines and examples are clear. The multidisciplinary inter-rater agreement is moderate to good. Improvement of the phrasing of the substandard factors is expected to improve inter-rater agreement. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0638-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: A history of foetal death is a risk factor for complications and foetal death in subsequent pregnancies as most previous risk factors remain present and an underlying cause of death may recur. The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsequent pregnancy outcome after foetal death and to compare cases of recurrent foetal death.Study design: A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral centre. All women with a stillbirth beyond 16 weeks of gestation between January 1999 and December 2004 (n = 193) were identified. After providing informed consent, the medical records of 163 women were reviewed until August 2006 in terms of clinical, medical, obstetric and paediatric data of the pregnancy after the index pregnancy that resulted in foetal death. The cause of death for reported cases of foetal death and recurrent foetal death were classified by a multidisciplinary team according to the Tulip classification.Results: Recurrent foetal death occurred in 11 cases, and various causes were identified. The cause of death was explained in seven cases. An association was found between the index foetal death and subsequent foetal death in some cases, especially in early gestation.Conclusions: This study illustrates the importance of classifying the cause of recurrent foetal death and contributing risk factors using the same classification system. This provides more insight into the pathophysiological pathways leading to foetal death, and enables meaningful comparisons to be made in recurrent foetal death. This is required before preventive strategies can be instituted and implemented to reduce the risk of foetal death. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

To estimate success rates for cytogenetic analysis in different tissues after intrauterine fetal death, and study selection criteria and value of cytogenetic testing in determining cause of death.Cytogenetic analyses and the value of this test in determining cause by a multidisciplinary panel were studied in 750 fetal deaths. Morphologic abnormalities, small for gestational age (SGA), advanced maternal age (older than 35 years) and maceration were studied as selection criteria.Chromosomal abnormalities were observed in 13% of fetal deaths. Cytogenetic success rates were significantly higher for invasive testing (85%) than for postpartum tissue analysis (28%, P.001). There were more abnormal chromosomes (38%) in fetal deaths with morphologic abnormalities than in those without (5%, P.001). This was not observed for SGA (16% compared with 9.2%, P=.22) or for advanced maternal age (16.7% compared with 12.0%, P=.37). The posterior probability of a chromosomal abnormality in the absence of morphologic abnormalities was still 4.6%. Cytogenetic analysis was successful in 35% of severely macerated fetuses. We do not advise using these selection criteria, because the failure rate was high on postpartum tissues. Cytogenetic analysis was valuable in determining the cause in 19% of the fetal deaths.Parents should be counseled on aspects of cytogenetic analysis after fetal death. We advise performing nonselective invasive testing after fetal death and before labor for all fetal deaths.

To estimate the occurrence of placental causes of fetal death in relation to different gestational ages and their clinical manifestations during pregnancy.In a prospective cohort study conducted from 2002 to 2006, we studied 750 couples with singleton intrauterine fetal death after 20 weeks of gestation. Cause of death was classified according to the Dutch Tulip cause of death classification for perinatal mortality. Differences between groups for categorical data were evaluated by the Fisher exact test or chi test.The main causes were placental pathology (64.9%), congenital anomaly (5.3%), infection (1.9%), other (4.8%), and unknown (23.1%). The contribution of causes differed over gestational age periods. At lower gestational age, placental and unknown were the most dominant causes of death (34.8% and 41.7%, respectively); at higher gestational age, the relative importance of an unknown cause decreased and a placental cause increased (16.5% and 77.6%) (P.001). Placental bed pathology was observed in 33.6% of all fetal deaths, with the highest occurrence between 24 0/7 and 31 6/7 weeks and a strong decline after 32 weeks. In contrast, contribution of developmental placental pathology (17.6%) increased after 32 weeks of gestation (P.001), as did umbilical cord complications (5.2%) and combined placental pathology (5.4%). Solitary placental parenchyma pathology was less frequent (3.1%). Hypertension-related disease was observed in 16.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.6-19.0) of the cohort, small for gestational age fetuses in 37.9% (95% CI 34.1-41.7), and diabetes-related disease in 4.1% (95% CI 2.8-5.8).Most fetal deaths were caused by a variety of placental pathologies. These were related to gestational age, and their clinical manifestations varied during pregnancy.II.