Fetal growth restriction: Evaluation
Fetal growth restriction: Evaluation
Giancarlo Mari, MD, MBA
Section Editor:
Charles J Lockwood, MD, MHCM
Deputy Editor:
Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG


Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is broadly defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) <10th percentile for gestational age. Severe FGR is generally defined as an EFW or AC <3rd percentile for gestational age; the presence of fetal umbilical artery (UA) Doppler abnormalities also suggests that FGR is severe. However, sonographic criteria for diagnosis of FGR vary (table 1) [1-3]. None of these criteria is ideal for identification of FGR as all have poor performance for predicting adverse neonatal outcome [4]. (See "Fetal growth restriction: Screening and diagnosis", section on 'Diagnosis'.)

Identification of FGR is an integral component of prenatal care as it is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality [5]. When FGR is suspected, the obstetric provider needs to confirm the suspected diagnosis, determine the probable cause, assess the severity, counsel the parents, closely monitor fetal growth and well-being for the remainder of the pregnancy, and determine the optimal time for and route of birth. Although FGR is not a homogeneous entity, uteroplacental insufficiency with suboptimal fetal nutrition and hypoperfusion is a common pathway to many forms of FGR. It can be present in patients with pregnancy-associated hypertension, chronic hypertension, chronic kidney disease, maternal or fetal infection, diabetes with vasculopathy, and fetal aneuploidy. In these cases, the fetus is closely monitored to identify those who are at highest risk of perinatal demise and thus may benefit from early delivery.

This topic will discuss the evaluation of FGR in singleton pregnancies. Pregnancy management and outcome are reviewed separately. (See "Fetal growth restriction: Pregnancy management and outcome".)

FGR in twin pregnancies is also reviewed separately. (See "Twin pregnancy: Routine prenatal care", section on 'Screening for fetal growth restriction and discordance' and "Selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies".)


The diagnosis of FGR is established sonographically (see "Fetal growth restriction: Screening and diagnosis"). The pregnancy is then evaluated to determine whether fetal growth is impaired as a result of maternal, fetal, or placental processes (table 2). However, this determination cannot always be made antenatally, despite the following evaluation. When no maternal and/or fetal predisposing factors are found, FGR may be termed idiopathic or isolated [6,7].

Literature review current through: Feb 2023. | This topic last updated: Dec 13, 2022.
This generalized information is a limited summary of diagnosis, treatment, and/or medication information. It is not meant to be comprehensive and should be used as a tool to help the user understand and/or assess potential diagnostic and treatment options. It does NOT include all information about conditions, treatments, medications, side effects, or risks that may apply to a specific patient. It is not intended to be medical advice or a substitute for the medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment of a health care provider based on the health care provider's examination and assessment of a patient's specific and unique circumstances. Patients must speak with a health care provider for complete information about their health, medical questions, and treatment options, including any risks or benefits regarding use of medications. This information does not endorse any treatments or medications as safe, effective, or approved for treating a specific patient. UpToDate, Inc. and its affiliates disclaim any warranty or liability relating to this information or the use thereof. The use of this information is governed by the Terms of Use, available at https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/know/clinical-effectiveness-terms ©2023 UpToDate, Inc. and its affiliates and/or licensors. All rights reserved.
  1. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org, Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (Replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:B2.
  2. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48:333.
  3. Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56:298.
  4. Molina LCG, Odibo L, Zientara S, et al. Validation of Delphi procedure consensus criteria for defining fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56:61.
  5. Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:490.
  6. Cosmi E, Ambrosini G, D'Antona D, et al. Doppler, cardiotocography, and biophysical profile changes in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106:1240.
  7. Mari G, Hanif F, Kruger M. Sequence of cardiovascular changes in IUGR in pregnancies with and without preeclampsia. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28:377.
  8. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208:290.e1.
  9. Mlynarczyk M, Chauhan SP, Baydoun HA, et al. The clinical significance of an estimated fetal weight below the 10th percentile: a comparison of outcomes of <5th vs 5th-9th percentile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217:198.e1.
  10. Moraitis AA, Wood AM, Fleming M, Smith GCS. Birth weight percentile and the risk of term perinatal death. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124:274.
  11. Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS, et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:449.e1.
  12. Mateus J, Newman RB, Zhang C, et al. Fetal growth patterns in pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorders: NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221:635.e1.
  13. Mendez H. Introduction to the study of pre- and postnatal growth in humans: a review. Am J Med Genet 1985; 20:63.
  14. Khoury MJ, Erickson JD, Cordero JF, McCarthy BJ. Congenital malformations and intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics 1988; 82:83.
  15. Bardin R, Perlman S, Hadar E, et al. Fetal-TAPSE for Surveillance of Cardiac Function in Growth-Restricted Fetuses With a Portosystemic Shunt. J Ultrasound Med 2021; 40:2431.
  16. Sagi-Dain L, Peleg A, Sagi S. Risk for chromosomal aberrations in apparently isolated intrauterine growth restriction: A systematic review. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37:1061.
  17. Lugthart MA, Horenblas J, Kleinrouweler EC, et al. Prenatal sonographic features can accurately determine parental origin in triploid pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2020; 40:705.
  18. Meler E, Sisterna S, Borrell A. Genetic syndromes associated with isolated fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn 2020; 40:432.
  19. Fetal Growth Restriction: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 227. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137:e16.
  20. Monier I, Receveur A, Houfflin-Debarge V, et al. Should prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis be offered for isolated fetal growth restriction? A French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225:676.e1.
  21. Borrell A, Grande M, Pauta M, et al. Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Fetuses with Growth Restriction and Normal Karyotype: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2018; 44:1.
  22. Park SJ, Lee N, Jeong SH, et al. Genetic Aspects of Small for Gestational Age Infants Using Targeted-Exome Sequencing and Whole-Exome Sequencing: A Single Center Study. J Clin Med 2022; 11.
  23. Yao R, Contag SA, Goetzinger KR, et al. The role of fetal growth restriction in the association between Down syndrome and perinatal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33:952.
  24. Nowakowska BA, Pankiewicz K, Nowacka U, et al. Genetic Background of Fetal Growth Restriction. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 23.
  25. Spinillo SL, Farina A, Sotiriadis A, et al. Pregnancy outcome of confined placental mosaicism: meta-analysis of cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022.
  26. Wilkins-Haug L, Roberts DJ, Morton CC. Confined placental mosaicism and intrauterine growth retardation: a case-control analysis of placentas at delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172:44.
  27. Stipoljev F, Latin V, Kos M, et al. Correlation of confined placental mosaicism with fetal intrauterine growth retardation. A case control study of placentas at delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16:4.
  28. Fitzpatrick D, Holmes NE, Hui L. A systematic review of maternal TORCH serology as a screen for suspected fetal infection. Prenat Diagn 2022; 42:87.
  29. Dashraath P, Wong JLJ, Lim MXK, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222:521.
  30. Di Mascio D, Khalil A, Saccone G, et al. Outcome of coronavirus spectrum infections (SARS, MERS, COVID-19) during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2:100107.
  31. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 132: Antiphospholipid syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120:1514. Reaffirmed 2019.
  32. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181:129.
  33. Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, et al. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124:16.
  34. Pilliod RA, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, et al. The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207:318.e1.
  35. Hecher K, Bilardo CM, Stigter RH, et al. Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18:564.
  36. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, et al. Predictable progressive Doppler deterioration in IUGR: does it really exist? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:539.e1.
  37. Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Harman CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18:571.
  38. Ferrazzi E, Bozzo M, Rigano S, et al. Temporal sequence of abnormal Doppler changes in the peripheral and central circulatory systems of the severely growth-restricted fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19:140.
  39. Turan OM, Turan S, Gungor S, et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32:160.
  40. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Indications for Outpatient Antenatal Fetal Surveillance: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 828. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137:e177.
  41. Giles WB, Trudinger BJ, Baird PJ. Fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms and placental resistance: pathological correlation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92:31.
  42. Morrow RJ, Adamson SL, Bull SB, Ritchie JW. Effect of placental embolization on the umbilical arterial velocity waveform in fetal sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161:1055.
  43. Gosling RG, Dunbar G, King DH, et al. The quantitative analysis of occlusive peripheral arterial disease by a non-intrusive ultrasonic technique. Angiology 1971; 22:52.
  44. Pourcelot, L. Applications cliniques de l'examen Doppler. In: Ultrasonic Doppler velocimetry: application to blood flow studies in large vessels, 34, Peronneau, P (Eds), Paris 1975. p.213.
  45. Stuart B, Drumm J, FitzGerald DE, Duignan NM. Fetal blood velocity waveforms in normal pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 87:780.
  46. Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, et al. Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192:937.
  47. Bhide A, Acharya G, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): use of Doppler velocimetry in obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 58:331.
  48. Vasconcelos RP, Brazil Frota Aragão JR, Costa Carvalho FH, et al. Differences in neonatal outcome in fetuses with absent versus reverse end-diastolic flow in umbilical artery Doppler. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 28:160.
  49. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Dowswell T. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD007529.
  50. O'Dwyer V, Burke G, Unterscheider J, et al. Defining the residual risk of adverse perinatal outcome in growth-restricted fetuses with normal umbilical artery blood flow. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:420.e1.
  51. Mari G, Deter RL. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in normal and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:1262.
  52. Ciobanu A, Wright A, Syngelaki A, et al. Fetal Medicine Foundation reference ranges for umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index and cerebroplacental ratio. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53:465.
  53. Wladimiroff JW, Tonge HM, Stewart PA. Doppler ultrasound assessment of cerebral blood flow in the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93:471.
  54. Mari G, Wasserstrum N. Flow velocity waveforms of the fetal circulation preceding fetal death in a case of lupus anticoagulant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164:776.
  55. Lees CC, Romero R, Stampalija T, et al. Clinical Opinion: The diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction: an evidence-based approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226:366.
  56. Eixarch E, Meler E, Iraola A, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in 2-year-old infants who were small-for-gestational age term fetuses with cerebral blood flow redistribution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32:894.
  57. Cruz-Martinez R, Figueras F, Hernandez-Andrade E, et al. Changes in myocardial performance index and aortic isthmus and ductus venosus Doppler in term, small-for-gestational age fetuses with normal umbilical artery pulsatility index. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38:400.
  58. Stampalija T, Thornton J, Marlow N, et al. Fetal cerebral Doppler changes and outcome in late preterm fetal growth restriction: prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56:173.
  59. Kiserud T, Eik-Nes SH, Blaas HG, Hellevik LR. Ultrasonographic velocimetry of the fetal ductus venosus. Lancet 1991; 338:1412.
  60. Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Weiner CP, Harman CR. Qualitative venous Doppler waveform analysis improves prediction of critical perinatal outcomes in premature growth-restricted fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22:240.
  61. Picconi JL, Hanif F, Drennan K, Mari G. The transitional phase of ductus venosus reversed flow in severely premature IUGR fetuses. Am J Perinatol 2008; 25:199.
  62. Turan OM, Turan S, Berg C, et al. Duration of persistent abnormal ductus venosus flow and its impact on perinatal outcome in fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38:295.
  63. Baschat AA, Galan HL, Lee W, et al. The role of the fetal biophysical profile in the management of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226:475.
  64. Lalor JG, Fawole B, Alfirevic Z, Devane D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD000038.
  65. Kaur S, Picconi JL, Chadha R, et al. Biophysical profile in the treatment of intrauterine growth-restricted fetuses who weigh <1000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:264.e1.
  66. Barker ED, McAuliffe FM, Alderdice F, et al. The role of growth trajectories in classifying fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122:248.
  67. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53:715.
  68. Deter RL. Evaluation of intrauterine growth retardation in the fetus and neonate: are simple-minded methods good enough? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6:161.
  69. Owen P, Donnet ML, Ogston SA, et al. Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103:60.
  70. Wu T, Gong X, Zhao Y, et al. Fetal growth velocity references from a Chinese population-based fetal growth study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 21:688.
  71. Grantz KL, Kim S, Grobman WA, et al. Fetal growth velocity: the NICHD fetal growth studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219:285.e1.
  72. Grantz KL, Grewal J, Kim S, et al. Unified standard for fetal growth velocity: the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 227:916.
  73. Romero R, Hernandez-Andrade E. Doppler of the middle cerebral artery for the assessment of fetal well-being. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:1.
  74. Wladimiroff JW, vd Wijngaard JA, Degani S, et al. Cerebral and umbilical arterial blood flow velocity waveforms in normal and growth-retarded pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69:705.
  75. Oros D, Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R, et al. Longitudinal changes in uterine, umbilical and fetal cerebral Doppler indices in late-onset small-for-gestational age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37:191.
  76. Bahado-Singh RO, Kovanci E, Jeffres A, et al. The Doppler cerebroplacental ratio and perinatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:750.
  77. Arbeille P, Roncin A, Berson M, et al. Exploration of the fetal cerebral blood flow by duplex Doppler--linear array system in normal and pathological pregnancies. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987; 13:329.
  78. Conde-Agudelo A, Villar J, Kennedy SH, Papageorghiou AT. Predictive accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio for adverse perinatal and neurodevelopmental outcomes in suspected fetal growth restriction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52:430.
  79. Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs CA, De Boer MA, Heymans MW, et al. Prognostic accuracy of cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery Doppler for adverse perinatal outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51:313.
  80. Akolekar R, Ciobanu A, Zingler E, et al. Routine assessment of cerebroplacental ratio at 35-37 weeks' gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221:65.e1.
  81. Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs CA, van Osch IR, Heymans MW, et al. Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. BJOG 2021; 128:226.
  82. Flood K, Unterscheider J, Daly S, et al. The role of brain sparing in the prediction of adverse outcomes in intrauterine growth restriction: results of the multicenter PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:288.e1.
  83. Monteith C, Flood K, Pinnamaneni R, et al. An abnormal cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) is predictive of early childhood delayed neurodevelopment in the setting of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221:273.e1.
  84. Smies M, Damhuis SE, Duijnhoven RG, et al. Study protocol for a randomized trial on timely delivery versus expectant management in late preterm small for gestational age pregnancies with an abnormal umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR): the DRIGITAT study. Trials 2022; 23:619.
Please wait