Prenatal prediction of postnatal large-for-dates neonates using a simplified MRI method: comparison with conventional 2D ultrasound estimates

Timing of induction of labor in suspected macrosomia: retrospective cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Large-for-gestational age (LGA) is associated with several adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although many studies have found that early induction of labor (IOL) in case of a LGA fetus reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia, no current guidelines recommend this particular clinical strategy, owing to concerns about increased rates of Cesarean delivery (CD) and neonatal complications. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the timing of IOL in LGA fetuses affected maternal and neonatal outcomes in a single center, and to combine these results with evidence reported in the literature.

METHODS

This study comprised two parts. The first part was a retrospective cohort study that included consecutive patients with a singleton pregnancy and an estimated fetal weight ≥ 90th percentile on ultrasound between 35 + 0 and 39 + 0 weeks' gestation, who were eligible for normal vaginal delivery. The second part of the study was a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, including the results of our cohort study as well as those of previous studies that compared IOL with expectant management in patients with a LGA fetus. The perinatal outcomes of the study were CD, operative vaginal delivery, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus palsy, anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score, umbilical artery pH, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, use of continuous positive airway pressure, intracranial hemorrhage, need for phototherapy and bone fracture.

RESULTS

Of the 547 patients included in this retrospective cohort study, 329 (60.1%) underwent IOL and 218 (39.9%) experienced spontaneous labor. Following covariate balancing, the odds of CD were significantly higher in the IOL group compared with the spontaneous-labor group. This difference only became apparent beyond 40 weeks' gestation (hazard ratio, 1.90; P = 0.030). The difference between the IOL and spontaneous-labor groups for the rate of shoulder dystocia was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.57; P = 0.200). Seventeen studies, in addition to our own results, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, giving a total population of 111 300 participants. Although there was no significant difference in the rate of CD between IOL and expectant management after pooling the results of included studies, the risk for shoulder dystocia was significantly lower in the IOL group (odds ratio (OR), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42-0.98); I2 = 19% from 12 studies) when considering only IOL performed before 40 + 0 weeks. When the studies in which IOL was carried out exclusively before 40 + 0 weeks were removed from the analysis, the risk for CD in the remaining studies was significantly higher in the IOL group (OR, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.02-2.09); I2 = 56%). There were no statistically significant differences between the IOL and expectant-management groups for the remaining perinatal outcomes. Nulliparity, history of CD and low Bishop score, but not method of induction, were independent risk factors for intrapartum CD in patients that underwent IOL for LGA.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of IOL in patients with suspected macrosomia significantly impacts on perinatal adverse outcomes. IOL has no impact on rates of shoulder dystocia but increases the odds of CD when considered irrespective of gestational age; in contrast, IOL may decrease the risk of shoulder dystocia without increasing the risk of other adverse maternal outcomes, in particular CD, when performed before 40 + 0 weeks (GRADE: low/very low). © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Shoulder dystocia by severity in families: A nationwide population study

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have established a history of shoulder dystocia as an important risk factor for shoulder dystocia, but studies on shoulder dystocia by severity are scarce. It is unknown if shoulder dystocia tends to be passed on between generations. We aimed to assess the recurrence risk of shoulder dystocia by severity in the same woman and between generations on both the maternal and paternal side. We also assessed the likelihood of a second delivery and planned cesarean section after shoulder dystocia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a population-based cohort study, using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. To study recurrence in the same mother, we identified 1 091 067 pairs of first and second, second and third, and third and fourth births in the same mother. To study intergenerational recurrence, we identified an individual both as a newborn and as a mother or father in 824 323 mother-offspring pairs and 614 663 father-offspring pairs. We used Bayesian log-binomial multilevel regression to calculate relative risks (RR) with 95% credible intervals.

RESULTS

In subsequent deliveries in the same woman the unadjusted RR of recurrence was 7.05 (95% credible interval 6.39-7.79) and 2.99 (2.71-3.31) after adjusting for possible confounders, including current birthweight. The RRs were higher with severe shoulder dystocia as exposure or outcome. With severe shoulder dystocia as both exposure and outcome, unadjusted and adjusted RR was 20.42 (14.25-29.26) and 6.29 (4.41-8.99), respectively. Women with severe and mild shoulder dystocia and those without had subsequent delivery rates of 71.1, 68.9 and 69.0%, respectively. However, the rates of planned cesarean section in subsequent deliveries for those without shoulder dystocia, mild and severe were 1.3, 5.2 and 16.0%, respectively. On the maternal side the unadjusted inter-generational RR of recurrence was 2.82 (2.25-3.54) and 1.41 (1.05-1.90) on the paternal side. Corresponding adjusted RRs were 1.90 (1.51-2.40) and 1.19 (0.88-1.61), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a strong recurrence risk of shoulder dystocia, especially severe, in subsequent deliveries in the same woman. The inter-generational recurrence risk was higher on the maternal than paternal side. Women with a history of shoulder dystocia had more often planned cesarean section.

Prediction of large-for-gestational age at 36 weeks' gestation: two-dimensional ultrasound vs three-dimensional ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US), three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 36 weeks' gestation in predicting the delivery of a large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonate, defined as birth weight ≥ 95th percentile, in patients at high and low risk for macrosomia.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between January 2017 and February 2019. Women with a singleton pregnancy at 36 weeks' gestation underwent 2D-US, 3D-US and MRI within 15 min for estimation of fetal weight. Weight estimations and birth weight were plotted on a growth curve to obtain percentiles for comparison. Participants were considered high risk if they had at least one of the following risk factors: diabetes mellitus, estimated fetal weight ≥ 90th percentile at the routine third-trimester ultrasound examination, obesity (prepregnancy body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) or excessive weight gain during pregnancy. The outcome was the diagnostic performance of each modality in the prediction of birth weight ≥ 95th percentile, expressed as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.

RESULTS

A total of 965 women were included, of whom 533 (55.23%) were high risk and 432 (44.77%) were low risk. In the low-risk group, the AUCs for birth weight ≥ 95th percentile were 0.982 for MRI, 0.964 for 2D-US and 0.962 for 3D-US; pairwise comparisons were non-significant. In the high-risk group, the AUCs were 0.959 for MRI, 0.909 for 2D-US and 0.894 for 3D-US. A statistically significant difference was noted between MRI and both 2D-US (P = 0.002) and 3D-US (P = 0.002), but not between 2D-US and 3D-US (P = 0.503). In the high-risk group, MRI had the highest sensitivity (65.79%) compared with 2D-US (36.84%, P = 0.002) and 3D-US (21.05%, P < 0.001), whereas 3D-US had the highest specificity (98.99%) compared with 2D-US (96.77%, P = 0.005) and MRI (96.97%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

At 36 weeks' gestation, MRI has better performance compared with 2D-US and 3D-US in predicting birth weight ≥ 95th percentile in patients at high risk for macrosomia, whereas the performance of 2D-US and 3D-US is comparable. For low-risk patients, the three modalities perform similarly. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Placental size at gestational week 36: Comparisons between ongoing pregnancies and deliveries

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare placental size and placental size relative to fetal size (ratio) in ongoing pregnancies examined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at gestational week 36 with placental size among all deliveries at gestational week 36 during the same time period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ongoing unselected singleton pregnancies (n = 89) were examined by MRI at median gestational week 36+5 days during 2017-2018, and placental and fetal volumes (cm3 ) were calculated. The placental size and ratio in ongoing pregnancies were compared with placental size and ratio among all deliveries in Norway at gestational week 36 (median gestational week 36+4 days) during 2016-2019 (n = 5582). For comparison of size, we converted volume (cm3 ) in ongoing pregnancies into grams as: cm3  × 1.05 (density of placental and fetal tissue).

RESULTS

In ongoing pregnancies, median placental size was 873  (interquartile range [IQR] 265) grams and median size of all delivered placentas was 613 (IQR 290) grams. Placental size was smaller among the delivered placentas independent of delivery mode: 760 (IQR 387) grams among elective cesarean deliveries (n = 465) and 590 (IQR 189) grams among vaginal deliveries after spontaneous onset of labor (n = 2478). Median ratio in ongoing pregnancies was higher than among deliveries: 0.31 (IQR 0.08) vs 0.21 (IQR 0.08). The ratio was higher in ongoing pregnancies independent of delivery mode: 0.24 (IQR 0.17) among elective cesarean deliveries vs 0.21 (IQR 0.05) among vaginal deliveries after spontaneous onset of labor.

CONCLUSIONS

The placenta is larger in ongoing pregnancies than among deliveries. This finding suggests that placental size decreases during labor and delivery, possibly by transfer of blood to the fetus. Our finding also suggests that reference values of placental size based on delivered placentas are not valid for ongoing pregnancies.

The impact of different growth charts on birthweight prediction: obstetrical ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

The estimation of fetal weight by fetal magnetic resonance imaging is a simple and rapid method with a high sensitivity in predicting birthweight in comparison with ultrasound. Several national and international growth charts are currently in use, but there is substantial heterogeneity among these charts due to variations in the selected populations from which they were derived, in methodologies, and in statistical analysis of data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for the prediction of birthweight using 3 commonly used fetal growth charts: the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, World Health Organization, and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts.

STUDY DESIGN

Data derived from a prospective, single-center, blinded cohort study that compared the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound between 36+0/7 and 36+6/7 weeks of gestation for the prediction of birthweight ≥95th percentile were reanalyzed. Estimated fetal weight was categorized as above or below the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentile according to the 3 growth charts. Birthweight was similarly categorized according to the birthweight standards of each chart. The performances of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of birthweight <5th, <10th, >90th, and >95th percentile using the different growth charts were compared. Data were analyzed with R software, version 4.1.2. The comparison of sensitivity and specificity was done using McNemar and exact binomial tests. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 2378 women were eligible for final analysis. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging were performed at a median gestational age of 36+3/7 weeks, delivery occurred at a median gestational age of 39+3/7 weeks, and median birthweight was 3380 g. The incidences of birthweight <5th and <10th percentiles were highest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and lowest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart, whereas the incidences of birthweight >90th and >95th percentiles were lowest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and highest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight >95th percentile in the prediction of birthweight >95th percentile was significantly higher than that of ultrasound across the 3 growth charts; however, its specificity was slightly lower than that of ultrasound. In contrast, the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for predicting birthweight <10th percentile was significantly lower than that of ultrasound in the INTERGROWTH-21st and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging were significantly higher than those of ultrasound for all 3 charts. Findings for the prediction of birthweight >90th percentile were close to those of birthweight >95th percentile, and findings for the prediction of birthweight <5th percentile were close to those of birthweight <10th percentile.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging is superior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of large for gestational age fetuses and inferior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of small for gestational age fetuses across the 3 different growth charts. The reverse is true for the specificity of magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with that of ultrasound.

Measuring intrauterine growth in healthy pregnancies using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine in utero fetal-placental growth patterns using in vivo three-dimensional (3D) quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI).

STUDY DESIGN

Healthy women with singleton pregnancies underwent fetal MRI to measure fetal body, placenta, and amniotic space volumes. The fetal-placental ratio (FPR) was derived using 3D fetal body and placental volumes (PV). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the association of each measurement with increasing gestational age (GA) at MRI.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight (58) women underwent fetal MRI between 16 and 38 completed weeks gestation (mean = 28.12 ± 6.33). PV and FPR varied linearly with GA at MRI (r_PV,GA = 0.83, r_FPR,GA = 0.89, p value < 0.001). Fetal volume varied non-linearly with GA (p value < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We describe in-utero growth trajectories of fetal-placental volumes in healthy pregnancies using qMRI. Understanding healthy in utero development can establish normative benchmarks where departures from normal may identify early in utero placental failure prior to the onset of fetal harm.

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging at 36 weeks predicts neonatal macrosomia: the PREMACRO study

BACKGROUND

Large-for-gestational-age fetuses are at increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance imaging seems to be more accurate than ultrasound in the prediction of macrosomia; however, there is no well-powered study comparing magnetic resonance imaging with ultrasound in routine pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to prospectively compare estimates of fetal weight based on 2-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with actual birthweights in routine pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

From May 2016 to February 2019, women received counseling at the 36-week clinic. Written informed consent was obtained for this Ethics Committee-approved study. In this prospective, single-center, blinded study, pregnant women with singleton pregnancies between 36 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks' gestation underwent both standard evaluation of estimated fetal weight with ultrasound according to Hadlock et al and magnetic resonance imaging according to the formula developed by Baker et al, based on the measurement of the fetal body volume. Participants and clinicians were aware of the results of the ultrasound but blinded to the magnetic resonance imaging estimates. Birthweight percentile was considered as the gold standard for the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging-derived percentiles. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction of large-for-gestation-age neonates with birthweights of ≥95th percentile. Secondary outcomes included the comparative prediction of large-for-gestation-age neonates with birthweights of ≥90th, 97th, and 99th percentiles and small-for-gestational-age neonates with birthweights of ≤10th, 5th, and 3rd percentiles for gestational age and maternal and perinatal complications.

RESULTS

Of 2914 women who were initially approached, results from 2378 were available for analysis. Total fetal body volume measurements were possible for all fetuses, and the time required to perform the planimetric measurements by magnetic resonance imaging was 3.0 minutes (range, 1.3-5.6). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction of a birthweight of ≥95th percentile was 0.985 using prenatal magnetic resonance imaging and 0.900 using ultrasound (difference=0.085, P<.001; standard error, 0.020). For a fixed false-positive rate of 5%, magnetic resonance imaging for the estimation of fetal weight detected 80.0% (71.1-87.2) of birthweight of ≥95th percentile, whereas ultrasound for the estimation of fetal weight detected 59.1% (49.0-68.5) of birthweight of ≥95th percentile. The positive predictive value was 42.6% (37.8-47.7) for the estimation of fetal weight using magnetic resonance imaging and 35.4% (30.1-41.1) for the estimation of fetal weight using ultrasound, and the negative predictive value was 99.0% (98.6-99.3) for the estimation of fetal weight using magnetic resonance imaging and 98.0% (97.6-98.4) for the estimation of fetal weight using ultrasound. For a fixed false-positive rate of 10%, magnetic resonance imaging for the estimation of fetal weight detected 92.4% (85.5-96.7) of birthweight of ≥95th percentile, whereas ultrasound for the estimation of fetal weight detected 76.2% (66.9-84.0) of birthweight of ≥95th percentile. The positive predictive value was 29.9% (27.2-32.8) for the estimation of fetal weight using magnetic resonance imaging and 26.2% (23.2-29.4) for the estimation of fetal weight using ultrasound, and the negative predictive value was 99.6 (99.2-99.8) for the estimation of fetal weight using magnetic resonance imaging and 98.8 (98.4-99.2) for the estimation of fetal weight using ultrasound. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of large-for-gestational-age neonates with birthweights of ≥90th, 97th, and 99th percentiles and small-for-gestational-age neonates with birthweights of ≤10th, 5th, and 3rd percentiles was significantly larger in prenatal magnetic resonance imaging than in ultrasound (P<.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

At 36 weeks' gestation, magnetic resonance imaging for the estimation of fetal weight performed significantly better than ultrasound for the estimation of fetal weight in the prediction of large-for-gestational-age neonates with birthweights of ≥95th percentile for gestational age and all other recognized cutoffs for large-for-gestational-age and small-for-gestational-age neonates (P<.05 for all).

The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of birthweight

Extremes of fetal growth can increase adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is equally applicable to single and multiple gestations. Traditionally, these cases have been identified using simple two-dimensional ultrasound which is quite limited by its low precision. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has now been used for many years in obstetrics, mainly as an adjunct to ultrasound for congenital abnormalities and increasingly as part of the post-mortem examination. However, MRI can also be used to accurately assess fetal weight as first demonstrated by Baker et al in 1994, using body volumes rather than standard biometric measurements. This publication was followed by several others, all of which confirmed the superiority of MRI; however, despite this initial promise, the technique has never been successfully integrated into clinical practice. In this review, we provide an overview of the literature, detail the various techniques and formulas currently available, discuss the applicability to specific high-risk groups and present our vision for the future of MRI within clinical obstetrics.

Two new models for the estimation of foetal weight more than a week before delivery: An MRI study

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate new formulas to determine the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based estimated foetal weight (EFW) more than a week before delivery.

METHODS

The study included 153 women with singleton pregnancies who gave birth to live, normal neonates within 15-21 days of the MRI examination for whom foetal body volume biometry data were available at term. All foetuses were randomly divided into a testing group (102) and a validation group (51). Regression analysis was used to determine the single volume or the combination of volume and MRI-to-delivery interval that determined the EFW. The accuracy of the two new models and the primary existing model developed by Baker et al. were evaluated in validation group.

RESULTS

The two new models had similar mean percentage errors (MPEs) (3.9% vs 3.9%) and proportions of pregnancies with an MPE < 10% (92.2% vs 90.2%); the model incorporating volume and MRI-to-delivery had relatively higher proportions of pregnancies with an MPE < 5% (72.5% vs 64.7%) and EFWs in agreement with the birth weights. The error in the Baker model was almost twice that in the new models.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of foetal weight estimation more than one week before delivery using the model developed by Baker et al. was poor and was significantly improved by the new models. A combination of the foetal body volume and MRI-to-delivery interval will enable the more accurate determination of the EFWs.

Magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in pregnancy: review of available data, techniques, and future perspectives

Fetuses at the extremes of growth abnormalities carry a risk of perinatal morbidity and death. Their identification traditionally is done by 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging, the performance of which is not always optimal. Magnetic resonance imaging superbly depicts fetal anatomy and anomalies and has contributed largely to the evaluation of high-risk pregnancies. In 1994, magnetic resonance imaging was introduced for the estimation of fetal weight, which is done by measuring the fetal body volume and converting it through a formula to fetal weight. Approximately 10 studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging is more accurate than 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging in the estimation of fetal weight. Yet, despite its promise, the magnetic resonance imaging technique currently is not implemented clinically. Over the last 5 years, this technique has evolved quite rapidly. Here, we review the literature data, provide details of the various measurement techniques and formulas, consider the application of the magnetic resonance imaging technique in specific populations such as patients with diabetes mellitus and twin pregnancies, and conclude with what we believe could be the future perspectives and clinical application of this challenging technique. The estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound imaging is based mainly on an algorithm that takes into account the measurement of biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. The estimation of fetal weight by magnetic resonance imaging is based on one of the 2 formulas: (1) magnetic resonance imaging-the estimation of fetal weight (in kilograms)=1.031×fetal body volume (in liters)+0.12 or (2) magnetic resonance imaging-the estimation of fetal weight (in grams)=1.2083×fetal body volume (in milliliters)ˆ0.9815. Comparison of these 2 formulas for the detection of large-for-gestational age neonates showed similar performance for preterm (P=.479) and for term fetuses (P=1.000). Literature data show that the estimation of fetal weight with magnetic resonance imaging carries a mean or median relative error of 2.6 up to 3.7% when measurements were performed at <1 week from delivery; whereas for the same fetuses, the relative error at 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging varied between 6.3% and 11.4%. Further, in a series of 270 fetuses who were evaluated within 48 hours from birth and for a fixed false-positive rate of 10%, magnetic resonance imaging detected 98% of large-for-gestational age neonates (≥95th percentile for gestation) compared with 67% with ultrasound imaging estimates. For the same series, magnetic resonance imaging applied to the detection of small-for-gestational age neonates ≤10th percentile for gestation, for a fixed 10% false-positive rate, reached a detection rate of 100%, compared with only 78% for ultrasound imaging. Planimetric measurement has been 1 of the main limitations of magnetic resonance imaging for the estimation of fetal weight. Software programs that allow semiautomatic segmentation of the fetus are available from imaging manufacturers or are self-developed. We have shown that all of them perform equally well for the prediction of large-for-gestational age neonates, with the advantage of the semiautomatic methods being less time-consuming. Although many challenges remain for this technique to be generalized, a 2-step strategy after the selection of a group who are at high risk of the extremes of growth abnormalities is the most likely scenario. Results of ongoing studies are awaited (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier # NCT02713568).

Profile of women choosing the Harmony® Prenatal Test

INTRODUCTION

The Harmony® Prenatal Test, a noninvasive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) method for major trisomies has been available since January 2013 at our unit, and tests were sent to the Ariosa Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) laboratory in California. From July 2017 onward, prenatal cfDNA has been reimbursed in Belgium for all pregnancies; however, since then samples are sent to a local laboratory. Little data are available on patient's profile and choices toward cfDNA and on the performance of local technology transfer centers. Areas covered: The profiles and choices of women regarding this test were evaluated. Further, the performance of cfDNA at the local laboratory was compared to the one in California. Our results showed that women from the Netherlands, as compared to Belgium, were more likely to undergo cfDNA testing for maternal request and would be less likely to undergo karyotyping if cfDNA were unavailable, therefore are better candidates for cfDNA testing, when this is used as first-line screening. Expert commentary: Our findings highlight the importance of conducting these types of studies, before decisions about clinical implementation are made by national governments and ministries of health.

Protocol for the prospective observational clinical study: estimation of fetal weight by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study) and small-for-gestational age neonates

INTRODUCTION

Macrosomia refers to growth beyond a specific threshold, regardless of gestational age. These fetuses are also frequently referred to as large for gestational age (LGA). Various cut-offs have been used but for research purposes, a cut-off above the 95th centile for birth weight is often preferred because it defines 90% of the population as normal weight. The use of centiles, rather than estimated weights, also accommodates preterm macrosomic infants, although most of the complications, maternal and fetal, arise during the delivery of large babies at term. This means that accurate identification of LGA fetuses (≥95th centile) may play an important role in guiding obstetric interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean section. Traditionally, identification of fetuses suspected of macrosomia has been based on biometric measurements using two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US), yet this method is rather sub-optimal. We present a protocol (V.2.1, date 19 May 2016) for the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study), which is a prospective observational clinical study designed to determine whether MRI at 36 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation, as compared with 2D US, can improve the identification of LGA neonates ≥95th centile.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All eligible women attending the 36-week clinic will be invited to participate in the screening study for LGA fetuses ≥95th centile and will undergo US-EFW and MRI-EFW within minutes of each other. From these estimations, a centile will be derived which will be compared with the centile of birth weight used as the gold standard. Besides birth weight, other pregnancy and neonatal outcomes will be collected and analysed. The first enrolment for the study was in May 2016. As of September 2018, 2004 women have been screened and recruited to the study. The study is due to end in April 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation for good clinical practice and the appropriate regulatory requirement(s). A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Brugmann, reference number CE2016/44. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02713568.

A modified model can improve the accuracy of foetal weight estimation by magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

To determine whether birth weight can be reliably estimated using three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) foetal body volume at term.

METHOD

Foetuses between 37⁺⁵ weeks and 41 weeks of gestation were delivered within 7 days after MRI and ultrasound (US) examinations. 3D foetal models were reconstructed from MRI data, and body volume was calculated. The MRI-based weight estimations were calculated using the Baker equation and the modified Baker equation with a higher density coefficient. The US-based weight estimations were determined using the formula by Hadlock. Estimations based on MRI and US were compared with the birth weights.

RESULTS

Among 22 foetuses that underwent both US and MRI evaluations within 48 h before labour, the mean random errors for the estimated weight based on US, the Baker equation and the modified Baker equation were 6.5%, 4.8%, and 4.8%, respectively, and these methods correctly estimated the weights of 77.3%, 86.4% and 100% of the foetuses to within 10% of the actual birth weight. The weights of 95.5% of the foetuses were underestimated by the Baker equation. Similar findings were observed among 103 estimations based on both US and MRI within 7 days before delivery. The mean relative error of the MRI-determined estimate of foetal weight using the modified Baker equation was not significantly associated with foetal sex, birth weight, gestational age at MRI examination, the MRI-to-delivery interval or the type of MRI scanner.

CONCLUSION

A modified Baker equation with a high-density coefficient can improve the accuracy of foetal weight estimation based on 3D MRI foetal volume at term, and its accuracy was not significantly affected by foetal characteristics or the type of MRI scanner among births occurring within 7 days after examinations.

Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models

OBJECTIVES

To develop a new formula for ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight and evaluate the accuracy of this and all previous formulae in the prediction of birth weight.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 5163 singleton pregnancies with fetal biometry at 22-43 weeks' gestation and live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate within 2 days of the ultrasound examination. Multivariable fractional polynomial analysis was used to determine the combination of variables that provided the best-fitting models for estimated fetal weight (EFW). A systematic review was also carried out of articles reporting formulae for EFW and comparing EFW to actual birth weight. The accuracy of each model for EFW was assessed by comparing mean percentage error, absolute mean error (AE), proportion of pregnancies with AE ≤ 10% and Euclidean distance.

RESULTS

The most accurate models, with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10%, were provided by the formulae incorporating ≥ 3 rather than < 3 biometrical measurements. The systematic review identified 45 studies describing a total of 70 models for EFW by various combinations of measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, femur length (FL) and abdominal circumference (AC). The most accurate model with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10% was provided by the formula of Hadlock et al., published in 1985, which incorporated measurements of HC, AC and FL; there was a highly significant linear association between EFW and birth weight (r = 0.959; P < 0.0001), and EFW was within 10% of birth weight in 80% of cases. The performance of the best model developed in this study, utilizing HC, AC and FL, was very similar to that of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSION: Despite many efforts to develop new models for EFW, the one reported in 1985 by Hadlock et al., from measurements of HC, AC and FL, provides the most accurate prediction of birth weight and can be used for assessment of all babies, including those suspected to be either small or large. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.