Fetal weight estimation and prediction of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnant women

Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight

Background: To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns. Methods: This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of Warsof et al. (1977), Shepard et al. (1982), Hadlock et al. (1985), Furlan et al. (2012) and Stirnemann et al. (2017). The biometric tables selected were the following: Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Hadlock et al. (1984), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) and Kiserud et al. (2016) and correlated to Pedreira et al. (2011) database, which was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean relative error, average absolute error and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Results: The best r was found when using the Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) biometric table with weight formula by Stirnemann et al. (2017). The average relative error was lower when using weight formula by Shepard et al. (1982) with biometric tables by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) or Kiserud et al. (2016). On average, absolute error, the lowest r was obtained for the Furlan et al. (2012) weight formula and the Papageorghiou et al. (2014) biometric table. Conclusions: The best correlation was found for biometric table by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) and fetal weight formula calculation for the estimation of Brazilian newborn weight by Stirnemann et al. (2017).

Background: To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns. Methods: This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of Warsof et al. (1977), Shepard et al. (1982), Hadlock et al. (1985), Furlan et al. (2012) and Stirnemann et al. (2017). The biometric tables selected were the following: Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Hadlock et al. (1984), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) and Kiserud et al. (2016) and correlated to Pedreira et al. (2011) database, which was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean relative error, average absolute error and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Results: The best r was found when using the Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) biometric table with weight formula by Stirnemann et al. (2017). The average relative error was lower when using weight formula by Shepard et al. (1982) with biometric tables by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) or Kiserud et al. (2016). On average, absolute error, the lowest r was obtained for the Furlan et al. (2012) weight formula and the Papageorghiou et al. (2014) biometric table. Conclusions: The best correlation was found for biometric table by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) and fetal weight formula calculation for the estimation of Brazilian newborn weight by Stirnemann et al. (2017).

Neonatal outcome of macrosomic infants: an analysis of a two-year period

OBJECTIVE

To assess the neonatal outcome of macrosomic neonates in uncomplicated, singleton, term deliveries.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis was performed on 5738 live-born term neonates born in the period 2008-2009. The neonatal outcomes were compared between two birth weight (BW) groups: the macrosomic neonates born with BW≥4000g and a control group: 2500-3999g. There were 410 (7.1%) neonates in the macrosomic group, 4757 (82.9%) in the control group, while 571 (10.0%) were less than 2500g at birth. A correlation analysis of two subgroups of the macrosomic neonates (4000-4499g vs. ≥4500g) was also carried out.

RESULTS

The rate of caesarean section (CS) was significantly higher in the macrosomic group as compared with the control group (49.3% vs. 39.9%), as were the prevalences of hypoglycaemia (6.1% vs. 2.9%), adrenal haemorrhage (0.98% vs. 0.15%) and the male to female ratio (2.15 vs. 0.95). The rate of icterus was significantly higher in the control group (30.4% vs. 18.5%). The macrosomic subgroups were similar in many aspects, but we found significantly more neonates in the higher weight subgroup as regards a low Apgar score, clavicle fracture and the need for intensive care.

CONCLUSIONS

The macrosomic infants were born in good general condition, although those with BW ≥4500g more frequently had an adverse outcome. The macrosomic and control groups' data revealed significant differences in the rate of CS, the male to female ratio, hypoglycaemia and adrenal haemorrhage.

Mode of delivery and birth outcomes of macrosomic infants

This review examines and summarises the literature regarding the mode of delivery of macrosomic infants and subsequent perinatal outcomes. A search of electronic databases was conducted and supplemented with investigation of the references cited in the original articles. Although the rates of obstetric complications differ among high birth weight infants delivered by caesarean section compared to those delivered vaginally, there is currently little evidence that perinatal mortality differs significantly by delivery method. Shoulder dystocia and birth injury occur with greater frequency among macrosomic infants, yet the relative inaccuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic estimates of birth weight among high birth weight infants indicates that a trial of labour may be warranted among non-diabetic mothers with a suspected macrosomic fetus. The majority of studies identified in this review utilised small sample sizes and observational design, thereby hindering valid assessments of the impact of delivery method on the mortality of this population. Consequently, an optimal management strategy has yet to be defined.

Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review

OBJECTIVE

To review the prevalence of and our ability to identify macrosomic (birthweight >4000 g) fetuses. Additionally, based on the current evidence, propose an algorithm for treatment of suspected macrosomia.

STUDY DESIGN

A review.

RESULTS

According to the National Vital Statistics, in the United States, the prevalence of newborns weighing at least 4000 g has decreased by 10% in seven years (10.2% in 1996 and 9.2% in 2002) and 19% for newborns with weights >5000 g (0.16% and 0.13%, respectively). Bayesian calculations indicates that the posttest probability of detecting a macrosomic fetus in an uncomplicated pregnancy is variable, ranging from 15% to 79% with sonographic estimates of birth weight, and 40 to 52% with clinical estimates. Among diabetic patients the post-test probability of identifying a newborn weighing >4000 g clinically and sonographically is over 60%. Among uncomplicated pregnancies, there is sufficient evidence that suspected macrosomia is not an indication for induction or for primary cesarean delivery. For pregnancies complicated by diabetes, with a prior cesarean delivery or shoulder dystocia, delivery of a macrosomic fetus increases the rate of complications, but there is insufficient evidence about the threshold of estimated fetal weight that should prompt cesarean delivery.

CONCLUSION

Due to the inaccuracies, among uncomplicated pregnancies suspicion of macrosomia is not an indication for induction or for primary cesarean delivery.

Accuracy of estimated fetal weight in shoulder dystocia and neonatal birth injury

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to determine whether there is any difference in the rate of error of estimated fetal weight (EFW) in cases of shoulder dystocia compared with controls.

STUDY DESIGN

Women whose delivery was complicated by shoulder dystocia were studied and compared with a control group matched for parity, race, labor type (spontaneous or induced), and birth weight (BW). Accuracy (%) was defined as [(EFW-BW)/BW] x 100. The primary outcome of the study was rate of EFW underestimation error 20% or greater.

RESULTS

During the 5-year study period, there were 206 cases of shoulder dystocia that met all study criteria. There was no difference in the number of patients that had EFW underestimation error 20% or greater (shoulder dystocia 9.8% vs control 12.8%; P = .38). There was also no difference in the number of patients that had EFW underestimation error 20% or greater between shoulder dystocia with and without injury (injury 8.3% vs no injury 7.1%; P = .79).

CONCLUSION

EFW underestimation error in cases of shoulder dystocia is an infrequent event and does not occur more often than in deliveries without shoulder dystocia.

Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk

OBJECTIVE

We describe maternal risk factors for macrosomia and assess birth weight categories to determine predictive thresholds of adverse outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed linked live birth and infant death cohort files from 1995 to 1997 for the United States with the use of selected term (37-44 weeks of gestation) single live births to mothers who were US residents. We compared macrosomic infants (4000-4499 g, 4500-4999 g, and >5000 g infants) with a normosomic control group of infants who weighed 3000 to 3999 g.

RESULTS

Maternal risk factors for macrosomia included nonsmoking, advanced age, married, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and previous macrosomic infant or pregnancy loss. The risks of labor complications, birth injuries, and newborn morbidity rose with each gradation of macrosomic birth weight. Infant mortality rates increased significantly among infants weighing >5000 g.

CONCLUSION

Although a definition of macrosomia as >4000 g (grade 1) may be useful for the identification of increased risks of labor and newborn complications, >4500 g (grade 2) may be more predictive of neonatal morbidity, and >5000 g (grade 3) may be a better indicator of infant mortality risk.

Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus

OBJECTIVE

To examine prospectively the effect on pregnancy outcome of a management protocol, that adds ultrasonographic weight estimation in fetuses suspected clinically as large.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective follow up study of all singleton deliveries during a 1 year period. All patients underwent routine clinical estimation of fetal weight. When clinical estimation of fetal weight was > or = 3700 g, patients were referred for ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight. When the latter was > or = 4000 g the patient was informed about the risks of birth trauma. Cesarean section was recommended only when > or = 4500 g. Ultrasonography was repeated every 4 days when possible. Predictive values of clinical and ultrasonographic estimations of fetal weight for diagnosing macrosomia, defined for the purpose of this study as 4000 g or more, and their effect on the rate of cesarean sections.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-five (14.4%) out of 3844 singletons were estimated as 3700 g or more. Only 315 fetuses had ultrasonographic estimation of weight within 3 days of delivery. The sensitivity of clinical and ultrasonographic prediction of macrosomia was 68 and 58%, respectively. Cesarean section rate in newborns weighing 4000 g or more was 22% when macrosomia was clinically suspected compared to 11% when it was not (P<0.05). In fetuses estimated ultrasonographically as 4000 g or larger the cesarean section rate was doubled (50.7% versus 24.9%, P<0.05) compared to those estimated as smaller than 4000 g, although actual weight of 4500 g or more was recorded in 10.6 and 8.5% of these groups, respectively. There were no cases of shoulder dystocia in macrosomic babies when macrosomia was not detected by ultrasound compared to two cases of shoulder dystocia (2.7%) when macrosomia was detected by ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

Antenatal suspicion of macrosomia increased the cesarean section rate while the associated improvement in pregnancy outcome remains questionable. The contribution of ultrasound, added to routine clinical estimation of fetal weight, was clinically insignificant apart from a further increase in cesarean section rate.

Sonographic and clinical methods in the diagnosis of macrosomia

Receiver operator characteristic curves for both clinical and sonographic predictions of macrosomia subsume areas between 0.81 and 0.95, significantly larger than the area of 0.5 that indicates a useless test. Thus, these tests are defined as useful from a statistical point of view. Prediction of macrosomia by clinical or imaging techniques, however, is limited by the substantial false-positive and false-negative rates inherent in these tests. We recommend that physicians continue to use clinical methods to estimate fetal weight, including asking women with parity to provide their own estimates. We recognize that the relative error associated with clinical or sonographic estimates of fetal weight limits their use in clinical practice. Sonographic laboratories may improve their results by performing ROC curve analysis on their own data and by selecting cutoff values that best predict macrosomia in their setting. Serial sonographic measurements that are above the limits chosen to define macrosomia increase the likelihood that a birth weight will be macrosomic. Separate ROC curves must be generated for twins and breech presentations and for patients with diabetes to answer weight-related clinical questions such as mode and timing of delivery. Three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are expected to generate ROC curves for estimates of fetal weight that are better than those for two-dimensional ultrasound or clinical estimates. Such analyses have yet to be published.