Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:15:22.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - Prenatal Fetal Surveillance (Content last reviewed: 15th December 2018)

from Section 3 - Late Prenatal – Fetal Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Surabhi Nanda  and
Zarko Alfirevic
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

Modern antenatal care aims to optimize both maternal and fetal outcomes. The various methods of prenatal fetal surveillance are directed towards early detection and, sometimes, prevention of chronic fetal hypoxia. The fetal response to acute or chronic hypoxia varies and is modified by the preceding fetal condition. Prenatal fetal surveillance tools are useful in pregnancies that are at high risk of developing chronic fetal hypoxia, but less so for acute events (e.g., placental abruption). There is evidence that fetal surveillance in unselected low-risk population is not cost-effective and leads to unnecessary interventions. Therefore routine prenatal fetal surveillance techniques or tests are not universally adopted in this group.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 207 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Department of Health. Maternity Matters: Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service. London: Department of Health, 2007.Google Scholar
Expert Maternity Group. Woman centred care. In Department of Health. Changing Childbirth. Report of the Expert Maternity Group. London: HMSO, 1993, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
Lau, TK. Prenatal fetal surveillance. In James, D, Steer, PJ, Weiner, CP, Gonik, B (eds), High Risk Pregnancy: Management Options, 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders, 2011, pp. 163–72.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Snijders, R, Harman, CR, et al. Fetal biophysical profile score. VI. Correlation with antepartum umbilical venous fetal pH. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 755–63.Google Scholar
Practice bulletin no. 145: antepartum fetal surveillance. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124: 182–92.Google Scholar
Pay, AS, Wiik, J, Backe, B, et al. Symphysis–fundus height measurement to predict small-for-gestational-age status at birth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, B, Stangenberg, M, Lunell, NO, et al. Prediction of size of infants at birth by measurement of symphysis fundus height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 206–11.Google Scholar
Neilson, JP. Symphysis–fundal height measurement in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000944.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J, Francis, A. Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotted on customised antenatal growth charts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 309–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, W, Cseh, I, Hara, K, Kubli, F. Maternal perception of fetal movements and real-time ultrasound findings. J Perinat Med 1984; 12: 313–18.Google Scholar
Tuffnell, DJ, Cartmill, RS, Lilford, RJ. Fetal movements: factors affecting their perception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 39: 165–7.Google Scholar
Smith, CV, Davis, SA, Rayburn, WF. Patients’ acceptance of monitoring fetal movement: a randomized comparison of charting techniques. J Reprod Med 1992; 37: 144–6.Google Scholar
Mangesi, L, Hofmeyr, GJ, Smith, V, Smyth, RM. Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (10): CD004909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melendez, TD1, Rayburn, WF, Smith, CV. Characterization of fetal body movement recorded by the Hewlett-Packard M-1350-A fetal monitor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 700–2.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Reduced Fetal Movements. Green-top Guideline No. 57. London: RCOG, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_57.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Saastad, E, Tveit, JV, Flenady, V, et al. Implementation of uniform information on fetal movement in a Norwegian population reduced delayed reporting of decreased fetal movement and stillbirths in primiparous women: a clinical quality improvement. BMC Res Notes 2010; 3: 2.Google Scholar
Heazell, AE, Bernatavicius, G, Roberts, SA, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing standard or intensive management of reduced fetal movements after 36 weeks gestation–a feasibility study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 95.Google Scholar
AFFIRM. Can promoting awareness of fetal movements and focussing interventions reduce fetal mortality? A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. http://www.crh.ed.ac.uk/affirm (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Beattie, RB, Dornan, JC. Antenatal screening for intrauterine growth retardation with umbilical artery Doppler ultrasonography. BMJ 1989; 298: 631–5.Google Scholar
Nelson, TR, Pretorius, DH. The Doppler signal: where does it come from and what does it mean? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151: 439–47.Google Scholar
Giles, W, Bisits, A, O’Callaghan, S, Gil, A; DAMP Study Group. The Doppler assessment in multiple pregnancy randomised controlled trial of ultrasound biometry versus umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound and biometry in twin pregnancy. BJOG 2003; 110: 593–7.Google Scholar
Eik-Nes, SH, Brubaak, AO, Ulstein, MK. Measurement of human fetal blood flow. BMJ 1980; 280: 283–4.Google Scholar
Mires, GJ, Patel, NB, Dempster, J. The value of fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms in the prediction of adverse fetal outcome in high-risk pregnancies. J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 10: 261–70.Google Scholar
Burns, PN. Principles of Doppler and color flow. Radiology in Medicine 1993; 85 (5 Suppl 1): 3–16.Google Scholar
GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110: 27–32.Google Scholar
Lees, C, Marlow, N, Arabin, B, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 400–8.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U. Evaluation of the fetal coronary circulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 405–12.Google Scholar
Cheema, R, Dubiel, M, Breborowicz, G, Gudmundsson, S. Fetal cerebral venous Doppler velocimetry in normal and high-risk pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 147–53.Google Scholar
Bhide, A, Acharya, G, Bilardo, CM, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: use of Doppler ultrasonography in obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 233–39.Google Scholar
Thompson, RS, Trudinger, BJ. Doppler waveform pulsatility index and resistance, pressure and flow in the umbilical placental circulation: an investigation using a mathematical model. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990; 16: 449–58.Google Scholar
Gilbert, WM, Nicolaides, KH, Sel, T, Campbell, S. Comparison of umbilical artery flow velocity waveform indices as measured by continuous wave Doppler ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7: 549–51.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Gyte, GM. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (11): CD007529.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Bilardo, CM, Stigter, RH, et al. Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 564–70.Google Scholar
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: 140–6.Google Scholar
DeVore, GR. The importance of the cerebroplacental ratio in the evaluation of fetal well-being in SGA and AGA fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 5–15.Google Scholar
Khalil, AA, Morales-Rosello, J, Morlando, M, et al. Is fetal cerebroplacental ratio an independent predictor of intrapartum fetal compromise and neonatal unit admission? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 54.e1–10.Google Scholar
Acharya, G, Tronnes, A, Rasanen, J. Aortic isthmus and cardiac monitoring of the growth-restricted fetus. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 113–25, vi–vii.Google Scholar
Bilardo, CM, Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S. Doppler measurements of fetal and uteroplacental circulations: relationship with umbilical venous blood gases measured at cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 115–20.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Gembruch, U, Weiner, CP, Harman, CR. Qualitative venous Doppler waveform analysis improves prediction of critical perinatal outcomes in premature growth-restricted foetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 240–5.Google Scholar
Lees, CC, Marlow, N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A, et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2162–72.Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Talone, PE, Arduini, D, Romanini, C. Doppler indices from inferior vena cava and ductus venosus in predicting pH and oxygen tension in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth-retarded foetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 401–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Medley, N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (4): CD001450.Google Scholar
Harrington, KF, Campbell, S, Bewley, S, Bower, S. Doppler velocimetry studies of the uterine artery in the early prediction of pre-eclampsia and intra-uterine growth retardation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 42: S14–20.Google Scholar
Velauthar, L, Plana, MN, Kalidindi, M, et al. First-trimester uterine artery Doppler and adverse pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis involving 55,974 women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 500–7.Google Scholar
Allen, RE, Morlando, M, Thilaganathan, B, et al. Predictive accuracy of second trimester uterine artery Doppler indices for stillbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 22–7. doi: 10.1002/uog.14914.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Investigation and Management of the Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus 2014. Green-top Guideline No. 31. London: RCOG, 2014. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Boyle, M. Antenatal investigations. In Henderson, C, Macdonald, S (eds), Mayes’ Midwifery: a Textbook for Midwives. Edinburgh: Bailliere Tindall, 2004.Google Scholar
Owen, P. Fetal assessment in the third trimester: fetal growth and biophysical methods. In Chamberlain, G, Steer, P (eds), Turnbull’s Obstetrics. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2001.Google Scholar
Dawes, GS, Lobb, M, Moulden, M, Redman, CWG, Wheeler, T. Antenatal cardiotocogram quality and interpretation using computers. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 791–7.Google Scholar
Valensise, H, Facchinetti, F, Vasapollo, B, et al. The computerized fetal heart rate analysis in post-term pregnancy identifies patients at risk for fetal distress in labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 125: 185–92.Google Scholar
NHS Litigation Authority. Ten Years of Maternity Claims: An Analysis of NHS Litigation Authority Data. London: NHS, 2012. http://www.nhsla.com/Pages/Publications.aspx?library=safety%7clearningfromclaims%7cmaternityclaimsdataproject (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women and Babies. Clinical Guidance CG190. London. NICE, 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190 (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Dawes, GS, Moulden, M, Redman, CW. Short-term fetal heart rate variation, decelerations, and umbilical flow velocity waveforms before labor. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 673–8.Google Scholar
Dawes, GS, Moulden, M, Redman, CW. Improvements in computerized fetal heart rate analysis antepartum. J Perinat Med 1996; 24: 25–36.Google Scholar
Dawes, GS, Lobb, M, Moulden, M, Redman, CW, Wheeler, T. Antenatal cardiotocogram quality and interpretation using computers. BJOG 2014; 121 (Suppl 7): 2–8.Google Scholar
Serra, V, Bellver, J, Moulden, M, Redman, CW. Computerized analysis of normal fetal heart rate pattern throughout gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 74–9.Google Scholar
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Intrapartum Fetal Surveillance: Clinical Guideline, 3rd edn. Melbourne: RANZCOG, 2014. https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Intrapartum-Fetal-Surveillance-Guideline-Third-edition-Aug-2014.pdf?ext=.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Bellver, J, Perales, A, Maiques, V, Serra, V. Can antepartum computerized cardiotocography predict the evolution of intrapartum acid-base status in normal fetuses? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 267–71.Google Scholar
Buscicchio, G, Giannubilo, SR, Bezzeccheri, V, et al. Computerized analysis of the fetal heart rate in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (pPROM). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19: 39–42.Google Scholar
Guzman, ER, Vintzileos, AM, Martins, M, et al. The efficacy of individual computer heart rate indices in detecting acidemia at birth in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 969–74.Google Scholar
Soncini, E, Ronzoni, E, Macovei, D, Grignaffini, A. Integrated monitoring of fetal growth restriction by computerized cardiotocography and Doppler flow velocimetry. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 128: 222–30.Google Scholar
Lalor, JG, Fawole, B, Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (1): CD000038.Google Scholar
Grivell, RM, Alfirevic, Z, Gyte, GML, Devane, D. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (9): CD007863.Google Scholar
Manning, FA. Dynamic ultrasound-based fetal assessment: the fetal biophysical profile score. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38: 26–44.Google Scholar
Archibong, EI. Biophysical profile score in late pregnancy and timing of delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 64: 129–33.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Walkinshaw, SA. A randomised controlled trial of simple compared with complex antenatal fetal monitoring after 42 weeks of gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102: 638–43.Google Scholar
Lalor, JG, Fawole, B, Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (4): CD000038.Google Scholar
Bricker, L, Neilson, JP, Dowswell, T. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (4): CD001451.Google Scholar
Bakalis, S, Peeva, G, Gonzalez, R, Poon, LC, Nicolaides, KH. Prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates: screening by biophysical and biochemical markers at 30–34 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 446–51.Google Scholar
Kean, LH, Liu, DTY. Antenatal care as a screening tool for the detection of small for gestational age babies in the low risk population. J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 16: 77–82.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF. Screening for fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 284–94.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP, Harrist, RB, Sharman, RS, Deter, RL, Park, SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333–7.Google Scholar
Chang, TC, Robson, SC, Boys, RJ, Spencer, JA. Prediction of the small for gestational age infant: which ultrasonic measurement is best? Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 1030–8.Google Scholar
Robson, SC, Chang, TC. Intrauterine growth retardation. In Reed, G, Claireaux, A, Cockburn, F (eds), Diseases of the Fetus and the Newborn, 2nd edn. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994, pp. 277–86.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J, Chang, A, Kalyan, B, Sahota, D, Symonds, EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339: 283–7.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J. Customised assessment of fetal growth potential: implications for perinatal care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2012; 97: F314–7.Google Scholar
Pang, MW, Leung, TN, Sahota, DS, Lau, TK, Chang, AM. Customizing fetal biometric charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 271–6.Google Scholar
Gestation Network. GROW growth charts. http://www.gestation.net/growthcharts.htm (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma, EO, Altman, DG, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014; 384: 869–79. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61490-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nabhan, AF, Abdelmoula, YA. Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (3): CD006593.Google Scholar
Proud, J, Grant, AM. Third trimester placental grading by ultrasonography as a test of fetal wellbeing. Br Med J 1987; 294: 1641–4.Google Scholar
Chen, KH, Seow, KM, Chen, LR. The role of preterm placental calcification on assessing risks of stillbirth. Placenta 2015; 36: 1039–44.Google Scholar
Forest, JC, Massé, J, Moutquin, JM. Screening for Down syndrome during first trimester: a prospective study using free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A. Clin Biochem 1997; 30: 333–8.Google Scholar
Wise, J. Quadruple test is available for Down’s syndrome. BMJ 1996; 313: 380.Google Scholar
Lakhi, N, Govind, A, Moretti, M, Jones, J. Maternal serum analytes as markers of adverse obstetric outcome. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 2012; 14: 267–273.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Cowans, NJ, Molina, F, Kagan, KO, Nicolaides, KH. First trimester ultrasound and biochemical markers of aneuploidy and the prediction of preterm or early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 147–52.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Cowans, NJ, Avgidou, K, Molina, F, Nicolaides, KH. First trimester biochemical markers of aneuploidy and the prediction of small-for-gestational age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 15–19.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Cowans, NJ, Nicolaides, KH. Low levels of maternal serum PAPP-A in the first trimester and the risk of pre-eclampsia. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 7–10.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Cowans, NJ, Avgidou, K, Nicolaides, KH. First-trimester ultrasound and biochemical markers of aneuploidy and the prediction of impending fetal death. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 637–43.Google Scholar
Chappell, LC, Duckworth, S, Seed, PT, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor in women with suspected preeclampsia: a prospective multicenter study. Circulation 2013; 128: 2121–31.Google Scholar
Griffin, M, Seed, PT, Webster, L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor and ultrasound parameters to predict the small-for-gestational-age infant in women presenting with reduced symphysis–fundus height. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 182–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powers, RW, Jeyabalan, A, Clifton, RG, et al. Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), endoglin and placental growth factor (PlGF) in preeclampsia among high risk pregnancies. PLoS One 2010; 5: e13263.Google Scholar
Akolekar, R, Syngelaki, A, Sarquis, R, Zvanca, M, Nicolaides, KH. Prediction of early, intermediate and late pre-eclampsia from maternal factors, biophysical and biochemical markers at 11–13 weeks. Prenat Diag 2011; 31: 66–74.Google Scholar
Nanda, S, Savvidou, M, Syngelaki, A, Akolekar, R, Nicolaides, KH. Prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 135–41.Google Scholar
Gagnon, A, Wilson, RD, Audibert, F, et al; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Genetics Committee. Obstetrical complications associated with abnormal maternal serum markers analytes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008; 30: 918–49.Google Scholar
D’Alton, M, Cleary-Goldman, J. First and second trimester evaluation of risk for fetal aneuploidy: the secondary outcomes of the FASTER trial. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29: 240–6.Google Scholar
Dugoff, L, Hobbins, JC, Malone, FD, et al. First-trimester maternal serum PAPP-A and free-beta subunit human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations and nuchal translucency are associated with obstetric complications: a population-based screening study (the FASTER trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1446–51.Google Scholar
Morris, RK, Cnossen, JS, Langejans, M, et al. Serum screening with Down’s syndrome markers to predict pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008; 8: 33.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, YJ, Baer, RJ, Druzin, ML, et al. Association between maternal characteristics, abnormal serum aneuploidy analytes, and placental abruption. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 144.e1–9.Google Scholar
Salafia, CM, Silberman, L, Herrera, NE, Mahoney, MJ. Placental pathology at term associated with elevated midtrimester maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein concentration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 1064–6.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×