Detection of small- and large-for-gestational age using different combinations of prenatal and postnatal charts

Can the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio be used as an early marker of small fetuses for gestational age? A prospective study

Background

Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, and less than 30% will be detected by any ultrasound scan within 4 weeks before delivery. Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the first trimester of pregnancy and SGA fetuses.

Method

We performed a prospective study between June 2021 and August 2022, to evaluate the relationship between the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in maternal blood in the first trimester of pregnancy, with the birth of an SGA fetus. One hundred ninety-four participants with singleton pregnancies between 11 + 1 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation were recruited. Pregnancies affected with diagnosed fetal chromosomal abnormalities, or chronic pathologies were excluded. SGA was defined as birthweight less than the 10th centile (N = 42) and severe SGA as birthweight less than the 3rd centile for gestation (N = 10) according to a locally derived descriptive charts. The NLR value measured in the first trimester was compared between these two groups and controls.

Results

We found no statistically significant difference in NLR, (3.5 +/-1.2 vs. 3.4+/-1.2, p-value of 0.78) when comparing the SGA less than the 10th centile group to the control group. NLR was also not different between severe SGA and controls (3.6+/-1.4 vs. 3.4+/-1.2 p-value of 0.78).

Conclusion

We found no association between first-trimester NLR ratio and SGA.

Accuracy of antenatal ultrasound in predicting large-for-gestational-age babies: population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Pregnancies with large-for-gestational-age fetuses are at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. There is uncertainty about how to manage birth in such pregnancies. Current guidelines recommend a discussion with women of the pros and cons of options, including expectant management, induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. For women to make an informed decision about birth, antenatal detection of large for gestational age is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the ability of antenatal ultrasound scans to predict large for gestational age at birth.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from a routinely collected database from the West Midlands, United Kingdom. We included pregnancies that had an antenatal ultrasound-estimated fetal weight between 35+0 and 38+0 weeks gestation for any indication and a subgroup where the reason for the scan was that the fetus was suspected to be big. Large for gestational age was defined as >90th customized GROW percentile for estimated fetal weight as well as neonatal weight. In addition, we tested the performance of an uncustomized standard, with Hadlock fetal weight >90th percentile and neonatal weight >4 kg. We calculated diagnostic characteristics for the whole population and groups with different maternal body mass indexes.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 26,527 pregnancies, which, on average, had a scan at 36+4 weeks gestation and delivered 20 days later at a median of 39+3 weeks (interquartile range 15). In total, 2241 (8.4%) of neonates were large for gestational age by customized percentiles, of which 1459 (65.1%) had a scan estimated fetal weight >90th percentile, with a false positive rate of 8.6% and a positive predictive value of 41.0%. In the subgroup of 912 (3.4%) pregnancies scanned for a suspected large fetus, 293 (32.1%) babies were large for gestational age at birth, giving a positive predictive value of 50.3%, with a sensitivity of 77.1% and false positive rate of 36.0%. When comparing subgroups from low (<18.5 kg/m2) to high body mass index (>30 kg/m2), sensitivity increased from 55.6% to 67.8%, false positive rate from 5.2% to 11.5%, and positive predictive value from 32.1% to 42.3%. A total of 2585 (9.7%) babies were macrosomic (birthweight >4 kg), and of these, 1058 (40.9%) were large for gestational age (>90th percentile) antenatally by Hadlock's growth standard, with a false positive rate of 4.9% and a positive predictive value 41.0%. Analysis within subgroups showed better performance by customized than uncustomized standards for low body mass index (<18.5; diagnostic odds ratio, 23.0 vs 6.4) and high body mass index (>30; diagnostic odds ratio, 16.2 vs 8.8).

CONCLUSION

Late third-trimester ultrasound estimation of fetal weight for any indication has a good ability to identify and predict large for gestational age at birth and improves with the use of a customized standard. The detection rate is better when an ultrasound is performed for a suspected large fetus but at the risk of a higher false positive diagnosis. Our results provide information for women and clinicians to aid antenatal decision-making about the birth of a fetus suspected of being large for gestational age.

Prenatal prediction of adverse outcome using different charts and definitions of fetal growth restriction

OBJECTIVE

Antenatal growth assessment using ultrasound aims to identify small fetuses that are at higher risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. This study explored whether the association between suboptimal fetal growth and adverse perinatal outcome varies with different definitions of fetal growth restriction (FGR) and different weight charts/standards.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 17 261 singleton non-anomalous pregnancies at ≥ 24 + 0 weeks' gestation that underwent routine ultrasound at a tertiary referral hospital. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) and Doppler indices were converted into percentiles using a reference standard (INTERGROWTH-21st (IG-21)) and various reference charts (Hadlock, Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) and Swedish). Test characteristics were assessed using the consensus definition, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) definition and Swedish criteria for FGR. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as perinatal death, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit at term, 5-min Apgar score < 7 and therapeutic cooling for neonatal encephalopathy. The association between FGR according to each definition and adverse perinatal outcome was compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test the strength of association between ultrasound parameters and adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound parameters were also tested for correlation.

RESULTS

IG-21, Hadlock and FMF fetal size references classified as growth-restricted 1.5%, 3.6% and 4.6% of fetuses, respectively, using the consensus definition and 2.9%, 8.8% and 10.6% of fetuses, respectively, using the SMFM definition. The sensitivity of the definition/chart combinations for adverse perinatal outcome varied from 4.4% (consensus definition with IG-21 charts) to 13.2% (SMFM definition with FMF charts). Specificity varied from 89.4% (SMFM definition with FMF charts) to 98.6% (consensus definition with IG-21 charts). The consensus definition and Swedish criteria showed the highest specificity, positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio in detecting adverse outcome, irrespective of the reference chart/standard used. Conversely, the SMFM definition had the highest sensitivity across all investigated growth charts. Low EFW, abnormal mean uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA-PI) and abnormal cerebroplacental ratio were significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome and there was a positive correlation between the covariates. Multivariate logistic regression showed that UtA-PI > 95th percentile and EFW < 5th percentile were the only parameters consistently associated with adverse outcome, irrespective of the definitions or fetal growth chart/standard used.

CONCLUSIONS

The apparent prevalence of FGR varies according to the definition and fetal size reference chart/standard used. Irrespective of the method of classification, the sensitivity for the identification of adverse perinatal outcome remains low. EFW, UtA-PI and fetal Doppler parameters are significant predictors of adverse perinatal outcome. As these indices are correlated with one other, a prediction algorithm is advocated to overcome the limitations of using these parameters in isolation. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The impact of late pregnancy dating on the detection of fetal growth restriction at term

INTRODUCTION

The inaccuracy of late pregnancy dating is often discussed, and the impact on diagnosis of fetal growth restriction is a concern. However, the magnitude and direction of this effect has not previously been demonstrated. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of late pregnancy dating by head circumference on the detection of late onset growth restriction, compared to first trimester crown-rump length dating.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a cohort study of 14 013 pregnancies receiving obstetric care at a tertiary center over a three-year period. Universal scans were performed at 12 weeks, including crown-rump length; at 20 weeks including fetal biometry; and at 36 weeks, where biometry, umbilical artery doppler and cerebroplacental ratio were used to determine the incidence of fetal growth restriction according to the Delphi consensus. For the entire cohort, the gestational age was first calculated using T1 dating; and was then recalculated using head circumference at 20 weeks (T2 dating); and at 36 weeks (T3 dating). The incidence of fetal growth restriction following T2 and T3 dating was compared to T1 dating using four-by-four sensitivity tables.

RESULTS

When the cohort was redated from T1 to T2, the median gestation at delivery changed from 40 + 0 to 40 + 2 weeks (p < 0.001). When the cohort was redated from T1 to T3, the median gestation at delivery changed from 40 + 0 to 40 + 3 weeks (p < 0.001). T2 dating resulted in fetal growth restriction sensitivity of 80.2% with positive predictive value of 78.8% compared to T1 dating. T3 dating resulted in sensitivity of 8.6% and positive predictive value of 27.7%, respectively. The sensitivity of abnormal CPR remained high despite T2 and T3 redating; 98.0% and 89.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although dating at 11-14 weeks is recommended, late pregnancy dating is sometimes inevitable, and this can prolong the estimated due date by an average of two to three days. One in five pregnancies which would be classified as growth restricted if the pregnancy was dated in the first trimester, will be reclassified as nongrowth restricted following dating at 20 weeks, whereas nine out of 10 pregnancies will be reclassified as non-growth restricted with 36-week dating.

Maternal sleep disordered breathing and offspring growth outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sleep disordered breathing is extremely common in pregnancy and is a risk factor for maternal complications. Animal models demonstrate that intermittent hypoxia causes abnormal fetal growth. However, there are conflicting data on the association between maternal sleep disordered breathing and offspring growth in humans. We investigated this association by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sixty-three manuscripts, and total study population of 67, 671, 110 pregnant women were included. Thirty-one studies used subjective methods to define sleep disordered breathing, 24 applied objective methods and eight used international codes. Using a random effects model, habitual snoring, defined by subjective methods, and obstructive sleep apnea, diagnosed by objective methods, were associated with an increased risk for large for gestational age (OR 1.46; 95%CI 1.02-2.09 and OR 2.19; 95%CI 1.63-2.95, respectively), while obstructive sleep apnea, identified by international codes, was associated with an increased risk for small for gestational age newborns (OR 1.28; 95%CI 1.02-1.60). Our results support that maternal sleep disordered breathing is associated with offspring growth, with differences related to the type of disorder and diagnostic methods used. Future studies should investigate underlying mechanisms and whether treatment of sleep disordered breathing ameliorates the neonatal growth.

Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction matter?

BACKGROUND

Criteria for diagnosis of fetal growth restriction differ widely according to national and international guidelines, and further heterogeneity arises from the use of different biometric and Doppler reference charts, making the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction highly variable.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare fetal growth restriction definitions between Delphi consensus and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definitions, using different standards/charts for fetal biometry and different reference ranges for Doppler velocimetry parameters.

STUDY DESIGN

From the TRUFFLE 2 feasibility study (856 women with singleton pregnancy at 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation and at risk of fetal growth restriction), we selected 564 women with available mid-pregnancy biometry. For the comparison, we used standards/charts for estimated fetal weight and abdominal circumference from Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, and GROW and Chitty. Percentiles for umbilical artery pulsatility index and its ratios with middle cerebral artery pulsatility index were calculated using Arduini and Ebbing reference charts. Sensitivity and specificity for low birthweight and adverse perinatal outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS

Different combinations of definitions and reference charts identified substantially different proportions of fetuses within our population as having fetal growth restriction, varying from 38% (with Delphi consensus definition, INTERGROWTH-21st biometric standards, and Arduini Doppler reference ranges) to 93% (with Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition and Hadlock biometric standards). None of the different combinations tested appeared effective, with relative risk for birthweight <10th percentile between 1.4 and 2.1. Birthweight <10th percentile was observed most frequently when selection was made with the GROW/Chitty charts, slightly less with the Hadlock standard, and least frequently with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. Using the Ebbing Doppler reference ranges resulted in a far higher proportion identified as having fetal growth restriction compared with the Arduini Doppler reference ranges, whereas Delphi consensus definition with Ebbing Doppler reference ranges produced similar results to those of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition. Application of Delphi consensus definition with Arduini Doppler reference ranges was significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome, with any biometric standards/charts. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition could not accurately detect adverse perinatal outcome irrespective of estimated fetal weight standard/chart used.

CONCLUSION

Different combinations of fetal growth restriction definitions, biometry standards/charts, and Doppler reference ranges identify different proportions of fetuses with fetal growth restriction. The difference in adverse perinatal outcome may be modest, but can have a significant impact in terms of rate of intervention.

The impact of a universal late third-trimester scan for fetal growth restriction on perinatal outcomes in term singleton births: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate perinatal mortality, morbidity and obstetric intervention following the introduction of a universal late third-trimester ultrasound scan for growth restriction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Oxfordshire (OUH), UK.

POPULATION

Women with a non-anomalous singleton pregnancy undergoing pregnancy care and term delivery at OUH with an estimated due date (EDD) of birth between 1 January 2014 and 30 September 2019.

METHODS

Universal ultrasound for fetal growth restriction between 35⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks was introduced in 2016. The outcomes of the next 18 631 eligible term pregnancies were compared, adjusting for covariates and time, with the previous 18 636 who had clinically indicated ultrasounds only. 'Screen-positives' for growth restriction were managed according to a pre-determined protocol which included non-intervention for some small-for-gestational-age babies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Extended perinatal mortality, a composite of mortality or encephalopathy Grade II-III, and expedited birth. Other outcomes included composite adverse outcomes used elsewhere, detection of low birthweight and birth from 37⁺⁰ to 38⁺⁶ weeks.

RESULTS

Extended perinatal deaths decreased 27% and severe morbidity decreased 33% but neither change was statistically significant (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [C1] 00.18-1.56 and aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.31-1.63). Expedited births changed from 35.2% to 37.7% (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06). Birthweight (<10th centile) detection using fetal biometry alone was 31.4% and rose to 40.5% if all abnormal scan parameters were used.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in mortality and severe morbidity subsequent to introducing a universal ultrasound for growth restriction are encouraging but remain unclear. Little change in intervention is possible. The antenatal detection of low birthweight remains poor but improves where markers of growth restriction are used.