Abdominal circumference profiles of macrosomic infants born to mothers with or without hyperglycemia in China

Macrosomia and fetal growth restriction: evidence for similar extrauterine metabolic risks but with differences in pathophysiology

PURPOSE

To investigate and compare the causes of macrosomia and FGR fetuses, their ultrasound characteristics and the importance of their similar metabolic profile in intrauterine and extrauterine life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Pubmed/Google Scholar database up until 15 December 2020 using keywords. Out of the 70 matching results we selected 50 most representative and matching papers.

RESULTS

We found similar causes and metabolic profiles and in both conditions offspring are at increased risk of developing metabolic and cardiovascular diseases in the extrauterine life.

CONCLUSION

Despite similarities of the maternal factors and fetal metabolic profile it is still unknown which of them has worse metabolic status during intrauterine and extrauterine life.

Macrosomia and large for gestational age in Asia: One size does not fit all

Macrosomia, usually defined as infant birth weight of ≥4000 g, does not consider gestational age, sex, or country/region-specific differences in mean birth weight and maternal body weight. This issue is particularly relevant for Asia, where 60% of the world's population lives, due to variations in maternal size and birth weights across populations. Large for gestational age (LGA), defined as birth weight > 90th centile, is a more sensitive measure as it considers gestational age and sex, though it is dependent on the choice of growth charts. We aimed to review reporting of macrosomia and LGA in Asia. We reviewed the literature on prevalence and risk of macrosomia and LGA in Asia over the last 29 years. Prevalence of macrosomia ranged from 0.5% (India) to 13.9% (China) while prevalence of LGA ranged from 4.3% (Korea) to 22.1% (China), indicating substantial variation in prevalence within and between Asian countries. High pre-pregnancy body mass index, excessive gestational weight gain, and impaired glucose tolerance conferred risk of macrosomia/LGA. Incidence of macrosomia and LGA varies substantially within and between Asian countries, as do the growth charts and definitions. The latter makes it impossible to make comparisons but suggests differences in intrauterine growth between populations. Reporting LGA, using standardized country/regional growth charts, would better capture the incidence of high birth weight and allow for comparison and identification of contributing factors. Better understanding of local drivers of excessive intrauterine growth could enable development of improved strategies for prevention and management of LGA.

Agreement Analysis between Sonographic Estimates and Birth Weight, by the WHO and Intergrowth-21st Tables, in Newborns of Diabetic Mothers

OBJECTIVE

 To analyze the agreement, in relation to the 90th percentile, of ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW), between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (intergrowth-21st) tables, as well as regarding birth weight in fetuses/newborns of diabetic mothers.

METHODS

 Retrospective study with data from medical records of 171 diabetic pregnant women, single pregnancies, followed between January 2017 and June 2018. Abdominal circumference and EFW data at admission (from 22 weeks) and predelivery (up to 3 weeks) were analyzed. These measures were classified in relation to the 90th percentile. The Kappa coefficient was used to analyze the agreement of these ultrasound variables between the WHO and intergrowth-21st tables, as well as, by reference table, these measurements and birth weight.

RESULTS

 The WHO study reported 21.6% large-for-gestational-age (LGA) newborns while the intergrowth-21st reported 32.2%. Both tables had strong concordances in the assessment of initial AC, final AC, and initial EFW (Kappa = 0.66, 0.72 and 0.63, respectively) and almost perfect concordance in relation to final EFW (Kappa = 0.91). Regarding birth weight, the best concordances were found for initial AC (WHO: Kappa = 0.35; intergrowth-21st: Kappa = 0.42) and with the final EFW (WHO: Kappa = 0.33; intergrowth- 21st: Kappa = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

 The initial AC and final EFW were the parameters of best agreement regarding birth weight classification. The WHO and intergrowth-21st tables showed high agreement in the classification of ultrasound measurements in relation to the 90th percentile. Studies are needed to confirm whether any of these tables are superior in predicting short- and long-term negative outcomes in the LGA group.