Comparison of the performance of estimated fetal weight charts for the detection of small- and large-for-gestational age newborns with adverse outcomes: a French population-based study

Selecting a birth weight standard for an indigenous population in a LMIC: A prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to compare birth weight (BW) distribution and proportion of BWs below or above specified percentiles in low-risk singleton pregnancies in healthy South African (SA) women of mixed ancestry with expected values according to four BW references and to determine the physiological factors affecting BW.

METHODS

This was an ancillary study of a prospective multinational cohort study, involving 7060 women recruited between August 2007 and January 2015 in two townships of Cape Town, characterized by low socioeconomic status, and high levels of drinking and smoking. Detailed information about maternal and pregnancy characteristics, including harmful exposures, was gathered prospectively, allowing us to select healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies without any known harmful exposures. In this cohort we compared the median BW and the proportion of BWs P90, 95 and 97 according to four reference standards (INTERGROWTH-21st, customized according to the method described by Mickolajczyk, Fetal Medicine Foundation and revised Fenton reference) with expected values. Appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests were used, and sensitivity analysis was performed for infant sex, first trimester bookings and women of normal body mass index (BMI). Multiple regression was used to explore effects of confounders. Written consent and ethics approval was obtained.

RESULTS

The cohort included 739 infants. The INTERGROWTH-21st standard was closest for the actual BW-distribution and categories. Below-expected BW was associated with boys, younger, shorter, leaner women, lower parity and gravidity. Actual BW was significantly influenced by maternal weight, BMI, parity and gestational age.

CONCLUSION

Of the four references assessed in this study, the INTERGROWTH-21st standard was closest for the actual BW distribution. Maternal variables significantly influence BW.

Which fetal growth charts should be used in France? Position of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF)

OBJECTIVE

To assess which fetal growth charts best describe intrauterine growth in France defined as the ability to classify 10% of fetuses below the 10th percentile (small for gestational age [SGA]) and above the 90th percentile (large for gestational age [LGA]) in the second and third trimesters.

METHODS

We analyzed five studies on fetal ultrasound measurements using three French data sources. Two studies used second and third trimester ultrasound data from a nationwide birth cohort in 2011 (the ELFE study, N = 13 197 and N = 7747); one study used third trimester ultrasound data from on a nationwide cross-sectional study (the 2016 French National Perinatal Survey, N = 9940); and the last two studies were from the "Flash study" 2014 which prospectively collected ultrasound data from routine visits in the second and third trimesters (N = 4858 and N = 3522). For each study, we reported the percentage of measurements below the 10th percentile or above the 90th percentile, using French, Hadlock's, WHO and Intergrowth (IG) charts.

RESULTS

WHO classified 4.7% and 16.3% of fetuses as having an estimated fetal weight (EFW) <10th and >90th percentiles in the second trimester compared to 3.3% and 34.7% with IG. The percentage of fetuses in the third trimester with an EFW <10th and >90th percentiles, ranged from 9.1% to 9.4% and from 8.0% to 11.1%, respectively, for WHO, and from 3.9% to 4.1% and from 17.3% to 21.6%, respectively, for IG. The WHO and IG charts for head circumference were very similar and performed well. Compared to the WHO charts, the French and Hadlock's charts deviated more frequently from the target percentiles values for EFW and biometric measures.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended to use the WHO charts for the assessment of EFW and ultrasound biometric measurements in France (strong recommendation; low quality of evidence).

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.

Validity of a Delphi consensus definition of growth restriction in the newborn for identifying neonatal morbidity

BACKGROUND

Small for gestational age is defined as a birthweight below a birthweight percentile threshold, usually the 10th percentile, with the third or fifth percentile used to identify severe small for gestational age. Small for gestational age is used as a proxy for growth restriction in the newborn, but small-for-gestational-age newborns can be physiologically small and healthy. In addition, this definition excludes growth-restricted newborns who have weights more than the 10th percentile. To address these limits, a Delphi study developed a new consensus definition of growth restriction in newborns on the basis of neonatal anthropometric and clinical parameters, but it has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of growth restriction in the newborn according to the Delphi consensus definition and to investigate associated morbidity risks compared with definitions of Small for gestational age using birthweight percentile thresholds.

STUDY DESIGN

Data come from the 2016 and 2021 French National Perinatal Surveys, which include all births ≥22 weeks and/or with birthweights ≥500 g in all maternity units in France over 1 week. Data are collected from medical records and interviews with mothers after the delivery. The study population included 23,897 liveborn singleton births. The Delphi consensus definition of growth restriction was birthweight less than third percentile or at least 3 of the following criteria: birthweight, head circumference or length <10th percentile, antenatal diagnosis of growth restriction, or maternal hypertension. A composite of neonatal morbidity at birth, defined as 5-minute Apgar score <7, cord arterial pH <7.10, resuscitation and/or neonatal admission, was compared using the Delphi definition and usual birthweight percentile thresholds for defining small for gestational age using the following birthweight percentile groups: less than a third, third to fourth, and fifth to ninth percentiles. Relative risks were adjusted for maternal characteristics (age, parity, body mass index, smoking, educational level, preexisting hypertension and diabetes, and study year) and then for the consensus definition and birthweight percentile groups. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to impute missing data. Analyses were carried out in the overall sample and among term and preterm newborns separately.

RESULTS

We identified that 4.9% (95% confidence intervals, 4.6-5.2) of newborns had growth restriction. Of these infants, 29.7% experienced morbidity, yielding an adjusted relative risk of 2.5 (95% confidence intervals, 2.2-2.7) compared with newborns without growth restriction. Compared with birthweight ≥10th percentile, morbidity risks were higher for low birthweight percentiles (less than third percentile: adjusted relative risk, 3.3 [95% confidence intervals, 3.0-3.7]; third to fourth percentile: relative risk, 1.4 [95% confidence intervals, 1.1-1.7]; fifth to ninth percentile: relative risk, 1.4 [95% confidence intervals, 1.2-1.6]). In adjusted models including the definition of growth restriction and birthweight percentile groups and excluding birthweights less than third percentile, which are included in both definitions, morbidity risks remained higher for birthweights at the third to fourth percentile (adjusted relative risk, 1.4 [95% confidence intervals, 1.1-1.7]) and fifth to ninth percentile (adjusted relative risk, 1.4 [95% confidence intervals, 1.2-1.6]), but not for the Delphi definition of growth restriction (adjusted relative risk, 0.9 [95% confidence intervals, 0.7-1.2]). Similar patterns were found for term and preterm newborns.

CONCLUSION

The Delphi consensus definition of growth restriction did not identify more newborns with morbidity than definitions of small for gestational age on the basis of birthweight percentiles. These findings illustrate the importance of evaluating the results of Delphi consensus studies before their adoption in clinical practice.

The clinical performance and population health impact of birthweight-for-gestational age indices at term gestation

BACKGROUND

The assessment of birthweight for gestational age and the identification of small- and large-for-gestational age (SGA and LGA) infants remain contentious, despite the recent creation of the Intergrowth 21st Project and World Health Organisation (WHO) birthweight-for-gestational age standards.

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a study to identify birthweight-for-gestational age cut-offs, and corresponding population-based, Intergrowth 21st and WHO centiles associated with higher risks of adverse neonatal outcomes, and to evaluate their ability to predict serious neonatal morbidity and neonatal mortality (SNMM) at term gestation.

METHODS

The study population was based on non-anomalous, singleton live births between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation in the United States from 2003 to 2017. SNMM included 5-min Apgar score <4, neonatal seizures, need for assisted ventilation, and neonatal death. Birthweight-specific SNMM was modelled by gestational week using penalised B-splines. The birthweights at which SNMM odds were minimised (and higher by 10%, 50% and 100%) were estimated, and the corresponding population, Intergrowth 21st, and WHO centiles were identified. The clinical performance and population impact of these cut-offs for predicting SNMM were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 40,179,663 live births and 991,486 SNMM cases. Among female singletons at 39 weeks' gestation, SNMM odds was lowest at 3203 g birthweight, and 10% higher at 2835 g and 3685 g (population centiles 11th and 82nd, Intergrowth centiles 17th and 88th and WHO centiles 15th and 85th). Birthweight cut-offs were poor predictors of SNMM, for example, the cut-offs associated with 10% and 50% higher odds of SNMM among female singletons at 39 weeks' gestation resulted in a sensitivity, specificity, and population attributable fraction of 12.5%, 89.4%, and 2.1%, and 2.9%, 98.4% and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Reference- and standard-based birthweight-for-gestational age indices and centiles perform poorly for predicting adverse neonatal outcomes in individual infants, and their associated population impact is also small.

Five-year outcomes for extremely preterm babies with active perinatal management: A clinical prediction model

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a clinical prediction model for outcomes at 5 years of age for children born extremely preterm and receiving active perinatal management.

DESIGN

The EPIPAGE-2 national prospective cohort.

SETTING

France, 2011.

POPULATION

Live-born neonates between 24+0 and 26+6  weeks of gestation who received active perinatal management (i.e. birth in a tertiary-level hospital, with antenatal steroids and resuscitation at birth).

METHODS

A prediction model using logistic modelling, including gestational age, small-for gestational-age (SGA) status and sex, was developed. Model performance was assessed through calibration and discrimination, with bootstrap internal validation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability (NDD) at 5 years.

RESULTS

Among the 557 neonates included, 401 (72%) survived to 5 years, of which 59% survived without NDD (95% CI 54% to 63%). Predicted rates of survival without NDD ranged from 45% (95% CI 33% to 57%), to 56% (95% CI 49% to 64%) to 64% (95% CI 57% to 70%) for neonates born at 24, 25 and 26 weeks of gestation, respectively. Predicted rates of survival without NDD were 47% (95% CI 18% to 76%) and 62% (95% CI 49% to 76%) for SGA and non-SGA children, respectively. The model showed good calibration (calibration slope 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.16; calibration-in-the-large -0.0123, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.23) and modest discrimination (C-index 0.59, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple prediction model using three factors easily known antenatally may help doctors and families in their decision-making for extremely preterm neonates receiving active perinatal management.

Predictive value of fetal growth trajectory from 20 weeks of gestation onwards for severe adverse perinatal outcome in low-risk population: secondary analysis of IRIS study

OBJECTIVES

The placental dysfunction underlying fetal growth restriction (FGR) may result in severe adverse perinatal outcome (SAPO) related to fetal hypoxia. Traditionally, the diagnostic criteria for FGR have been based on fetal size, an approach that is inherently flawed because it often results in either over- or underdiagnosis. The anomaly ultrasound scan at 20 weeks' gestation may be an appropriate time at which to set a benchmark for growth potential of the individual fetus. We hypothesized that the fetal growth trajectory from that point onwards may be informative regarding third-trimester placental dysfunction. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value for SAPO of a slow fetal growth trajectory between 18 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks and 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation in a large, low-risk population.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc data analysis of the IUGR Risk Selection (IRIS) study, a Dutch nationwide cluster-randomized trial assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of routine third-trimester sonography in reducing SAPO. In the current analysis, for the first ultrasound examination we used ultrasound data from the routine anomaly scan at 18 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks' gestation, and for the second we used data from an ultrasound examination performed between 32 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. Using multilevel logistic regression, we analyzed whether SAPO was predicted by a slow fetal growth trajectory, which was defined as a decline in abdominal circumference (AC) and/or estimated fetal weight (EFW) of more than 20 percentiles or more than 50 percentiles or as an AC growth velocity (ACGV) < 10th percentile (p10). In addition, we analyzed the combination of these indicators of slow fetal growth with small-for-gestational age (SGA) (AC or EFW < p10) and severe SGA (AC/EFW < 3rd percentile) at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

Our sample included the data of 6296 low-risk singleton pregnancies, among which 82 (1.3%) newborns experienced at least one SAPO. Standalone declines in AC or EFW of > 20 or > 50 percentiles or ACGV < p10 were not associated with increased odds of SAPO. EFW < p10 between 32 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks' gestation combined with a decline in EFW of > 20 percentiles was associated with an increased rate of SAPO. The combination of AC or EFW < p10 between 32 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks' gestation with ACGV < p10 was also associated with increased odds of SAPO. The odds ratios of these associations were higher if the neonate was SGA at birth.

CONCLUSIONS

In a low-risk population, a slow fetal growth trajectory as a standalone criterion does not distinguish adequately between fetuses with FGR and those that are constitutionally small. This absence of association may be a result of diagnostic inaccuracies and/or post-diagnostic (e.g. intervention and selection) biases. We conclude that new approaches to detect placental insufficiency should integrate information from diagnostic tools such as maternal serum biomarkers and Doppler ultrasound measurements. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Fetal growth restriction and small for gestational age as predictors of neonatal morbidity: which growth nomogram to use?

BACKGROUND

Fetal growth nomograms were developed to screen for fetal growth restriction and guide clinical care to improve perinatal outcomes; however, existing literature remains inconclusive regarding which nomogram is the gold standard.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the ability of 4 commonly used nomograms (Hadlock, International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development-unified standard, and World Health Organization fetal growth charts) and 1 institution-specific reference to predict small for gestational age and poor neonatal outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of all nonanomalous singleton pregnancies undergoing ultrasound at ≥20 weeks of gestation between 2013 and 2020 and delivering at a single academic center. Using random selection methods, the study sample was restricted to 1 pregnancy per patient and 1 ultrasound per pregnancy completed at ≥22 weeks of gestation. Fetal biometry data were used to calculate estimated fetal weight and percentiles according to the aforementioned 5 nomograms. Maternal and neonatal data were extracted from electronic medical records. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between estimated fetal weight of <10th and <3rd percentiles compared with estimated fetal weight of 10th to 90th percentile as the reference group for small for gestational age and the neonatal composite outcomes (perinatal mortality, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy or seizures, respiratory morbidity, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, hyperbilirubinemia or hypoglycemia requiring neonatal intensive care unit admission, and retinopathy of prematurity). Receiver operating characteristic curve contrast estimation (primary analysis) and test characteristics were calculated for all nomograms and the prediction of small for gestational age and the neonatal composite outcomes. We restricted the sample to ultrasounds performed within 28 days of delivery; moreover, similar analyses were completed to assess the prediction of small for gestational age and neonatal composite outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 10,045 participants, the proportion of fetuses classified as <10th percentile varied across nomograms from 4.9% to 9.7%. Fetuses with an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile had an increased risk of small for gestational age (odds ratio, 9.9 [95% confidence interval, 8.5-11.5] to 12.8 [95% confidence interval, 10.9-15.0]). In addition, the estimated fetal weight of <10th and <3rd percentile was associated with increased risk of the neonatal composite outcome (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.8] to 3.5 [95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.3] and 5.7 [95% confidence interval, 4.5-7.2] to 8.8 [95% confidence interval, 6.6-11.8], respectively). The prediction of small for gestational age with an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile had a positive likelihood ratio of 6.3 to 8.5 and an area under the curve of 0.62 to 0.67. Similarly, the prediction of the neonatal composite outcome with an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.1 to 3.1 and an area under the curve of 0.55 to 0.57. When analyses were restricted to ultrasound within 4 weeks of delivery, among fetuses with an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile, the risk of small for gestational age increased across all nomograms (odds ratio, 16.7 [95% confidence interval, 12.6-22.3] to 25.1 [95% confidence interval, 17.0-37.0]), and prediction improved (positive likelihood ratio, 8.3-15.0; area under the curve, 0.69-0.75). Similarly, the risk of neonatal composite outcome increased (odds ratio, 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 2.4-4.2] to 5.2 [95% confidence interval, 3.8-7.2]), and prediction marginally improved (positive likelihood ratio, 2.4-4.1; area under the curve, 0.60-0.62). Importantly, the risk of both being small for gestational age and having the neonatal composite outcome further increased (odds ratio, 21.4 [95% confidence interval, 13.6-33.6] to 28.7 (95% confidence interval, 18.6-44.3]), and the prediction of concurrent small for gestational age and neonatal composite outcome greatly improved (positive likelihood ratio, 6.0-10.0; area under the curve, 0.80-0.83).

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort, Hadlock, recent fetal growth nomograms, and a local population-derived fetal growth reference performed comparably in the prediction of small for gestational age and neonatal composite outcomes.

Screening for small for gestational age infants in early vs late third-trimester ultrasonography: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have demonstrated that a routine third-trimester ultrasound scan may improve the detection of small for gestational age infants when compared with clinically indicated ultrasound scans but with no reported reduction in severe perinatal morbidity. Establishing the optimal gestational age for the third-trimester examination necessitates evaluation of the ability to detect small for gestational age infants and to predict maternal and perinatal outcomes. Intrauterine growth restriction most often corresponds with small for gestational age infants associated with pathologic growth patterns.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the performance of routine early ultrasound scans vs late ultrasound scans during the third trimester of pregnancy to identify small for gestational age infants and fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an open-label, randomized, parallel trial conducted in Upper Normandy, France, from 2012 to 2015. The study eligibility criteria were heathy, nulliparous women older than 18 years with gestational age determined using the crown-rump length at the first trimester routine scan and with no fetal malformation or suspected small for gestational age fetus at the routine second trimester scan. Pregnant women were randomly assigned to a third-trimester scan group at 31 weeks gestational age ±6 days (early ultrasound scan) or at 35 weeks gestational age ±6 days (late ultrasound scan). The primary outcome of this trial was the ability of a third trimester scan to predict small for gestational age infants (customized birth weight <10th percentile) and intrauterine growth restriction (customized birth weight

RESULTS

Results from 1853 women assigned to the early ultrasound scan group and 1848 women assigned to the late ultrasound scan group were analyzed. The sensitivity was found to be higher in the late ultrasound scan group than in the early ultrasound scan group, both for identifying small for gestational age infants (27%; 22%-32% vs 17%; 13%-22%; P=.004) and intrauterine growth restriction (44%; 35%-54% vs 18%; 11%-27%; P<.001). There was little difference in the specificity between the late ultrasound scan and early ultrasound scan groups in identifying cases of small for gestational age (97%; 96%-98% and 98%; 97%-99%, respectively; P=.04) and intrauterine growth restriction (96%; 95%-97% and 97%; 96%;-97%, respectively; P=.24). Overall, the maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the early ultrasound scan and late ultrasound scan groups with the exception of additional (at least 1) ultrasound scans performed (25% in the early ultrasound scan group vs 19% in the late ultrasound scan group; P<.001). Rates of perinatal death (0.4% vs 0.8%; P=.12) and adverse perinatal outcomes (1.8% vs 2.7%; P=.08) were comparable between the early ultrasound scan and late ultrasound scan assigned groups, and the overall sensitivity to detect small for gestational age infants and intrauterine growth restriction, including in the last ultrasound scan performed before delivery, were also similar (30%; 25%-36% vs 26%; 21%-31%; P=.23; and 50%; 40%-60% vs 38%; 28%-48%; P=.07).

CONCLUSION

A late ultrasound scan performed in the third trimester increases the probability of detecting small for gestational age infants and intrauterine growth restriction with fewer additional scans reported than for the early ultrasound scan group. The overall perinatal outcome risk was comparable between the 2 groups. However, the overall sensitivity for detecting small for gestational age fetuses and intrauterine growth restriction, including in the last ultrasound scan performed before delivery, remains comparable between the late ultrasound scan and early ultrasound scan groups.

Collapse

Key Words

• intrauterine growth restriction
• perinatal mortality and morbidity
• screening
• small for gestational age
• ultrasonography

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Female
• Humans
• Pregnancy
• Birth Weight
• Fetal Growth Retardation/diagnostic imaging
• Fetal Growth Retardation/epidemiology
• Gestational Age
• Pregnancy Trimester, Third
• Ultrasonography, Prenatal/methods

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Eric Verspyck Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Drs Verspyck, Brasseur-Daudruy, Braund, and Benichou).
Caroline Thill Department of Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Dr Thill)
Anne Ego University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Public Health Department CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble Institute of Engineering, TIMC-IMAG, 38000 Grenoble, France (Dr Ego); INSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), FHU PREMA, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France (Dr Ego)
Elise Machevin Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Evreux Hospital, Evreux, France (Dr Machevin)
Marie Brasseur-Daudruy Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Drs Verspyck, Brasseur-Daudruy, Braund, and Benichou)
Valentine Ickowicz Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Belvedere Hospital, Mont Saint Aignan, France (Dr Ickowicz)
Caroline Blondel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mathilde Private Clinic, Rouen, France (Dr Blondel)
Sophie Degré Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Le Havre Hospital, Le Havre, France (Dr Degré)
Anne Lefebure Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Elbeuf Hospital, Elbeuf, France (Dr Lefebure)
Sophia Braund Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Drs Verspyck, Brasseur-Daudruy, Braund, and Benichou)
Jacques Benichou Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Drs Verspyck, Brasseur-Daudruy, Braund, and Benichou); Inserm U1018, University of Rouen and University Paris-Saclay, Rouen, France (Dr Benichou); Department of Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France (Dr Benichou)

Collapse

[A pragmatic comparison of fetal biometry curves]

INTRODUCTION

The fetal biometrics charts recommended in France for ultrasound screening include measurements of head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BIP), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). New international growth standards have been recommended since 2022. The aim of this work is to quantitatively describe the differences between these biometric curves.

METHODS

The biometry curves from the French College for Fetal Ultrasound, OMS and INTERGROWTH-21 are pragmatically compared based on their original quantile regression equations (superposition and quantification of differences in millimeters and in proportion) for different percentiles of clinical interest.

RESULTS

Compared with the new charts, CFEF underestimates HC<-3DS and AC<10eP. The proportions of differences between the CFEF and INTERGROWTH-21 or WHO curves always remained <5%. The proportions of difference of the 3rd percentile of HC and FL, 10th and 90th percentile of AC were always lower than 2%, 2%, 5% and 4% respectively, between OMS and INTERGROWTH-21.

CONCLUSION

The switch to prescriptive standards suggests an improvement in the detection of fetuses with AC<10th percentile, an improvement in the detection of prenatal onset microcephaly, with no argument for a decrease in the detection rate of severe constitutional bone disease or modification of obstetrical guidelines.

Birth weight for gestational age: standard growth charts for the Polish population

Introduction. Birth weight is one of the most important factors determining neonatal well-being. From an epidemiological viewpoint, a neonatal reference chart provides a picture of the health status of a population. Global customized growth charts seem to be the most practical in multicultural settings, allowing adjustment for ethnicity. However, regional charts might be a valuable contribution to reliable growth assessment. Our study aims to establish a reference tool for growth assessment and visualize the local potential, by creating standard charts based on the data from the tertiary center with the highest number of deliveries per year in Poland. Material and Methods. We retrospectively analysed  31,353 records from the electronic database of singleton births from a five-year period from a tertiary hospital in Poznań, Poland. We excluded pre-term deliveries and high-risk pregnancies basing on well-known factors influencing fetal growth, bringing the number of records to  21,379. The data were processed separately by gender (females n=10,312, 48.2% and males n=11,067, 51.8%). Percentiles were calculated for each week of gestational age. Means and standard deviations were determined. Results. Standard growth charts (including 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 97th percentiles) are presented. Descriptive data of population distribution are shown. Conclusions. In conclusion, obtaining standard growth charts for mature newborns has created the opportunity for a more actual and adequate assessment of the Polish neonatal population. It should allow for the implementation of new standards in future research on perinatal care.

Associations of severe adverse perinatal outcomes among continuous birth weight percentiles on different birth weight charts: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial

Objective

To identify neonatal risk for severe adverse perinatal outcomes across birth weight centiles in two Dutch and one international birth weight chart.

Background

Growth restricted newborns have not reached their intrinsic growth potential in utero and are at risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. There is no golden standard for the confirmation of the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction after birth. Estimated fetal weight and birth weight below the 10^th percentile are generally used as proxy for growth restriction. The choice of birth weight chart influences the specific cut-off by which birth weight is defined as abnormal, thereby triggering clinical management. Ideally, this cut-off should discriminate appropriately between newborns at low and at high risk of severe adverse perinatal outcomes and consequently correctly inform clinical management.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of the IUGR Risk Selection (IRIS) study. Newborns (n = 12 953) of women with a low-risk status at the start of pregnancy and that received primary antenatal care in the Netherlands were included.

We examined the distribution of severe adverse perinatal outcomes across birth weight centiles for three birth weight charts (Visser, Hoftiezer and INTERGROWTH) by categorizing birth weight centile groups and comparing the prognostic performance for severe adverse perinatal outcomes.

Severe adverse perinatal outcomes were defined as a composite of one or more of the following: perinatal death, Apgar score < 4 at 5 min, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, or necrotizing enterocolitis.

Results

We found the highest rates of severe adverse perinatal outcomes among the smallest newborns (< 3^rd percentile) (6.2% for the Visser reference curve, 8.6% for the Hoftiezer chart and 12.0% for the INTERGROWTH chart). Discriminative abilities of the three birth weight charts across the entire range of birth weight centiles were poor with areas under the curve ranging from 0.57 to 0.61. Sensitivity rates of the various cut-offs were also low.

Conclusions

The clinical utility of all three charts in identifying high risk of severe adverse perinatal outcomes is poor. There is no single cut-off that discriminates clearly between newborns at low or high risk.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR4367.

Registration date March 20^th, 2014.

World Health Organization fetal growth charts applied in a French birth cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the applicability of World Health Organization (WHO) fetal growth charts for abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) at the second and third trimester ultrasounds in a French birth cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the ELFE cohort of live births after 33 weeks' gestation in France in 2011, we selected 7747 singletons with fetal biometric measurements at the second (20-25 weeks) and third (30-35 weeks) trimester routine ultrasounds. We calculated proportions of fetuses <3rd and <10th percentiles and >90th and >97th percentiles for AC, FL and EFW using WHO charts and two international (Intergrowth and Hadlock) and two national (Salomon and CFEF) charts. Analyses were also carried out in a subsample of 4427 low-risk births.

RESULTS

WHO charts classified 2,3% and 8-10% of fetuses <3rd and <10th percentiles respectively, for AC and FL in the second and third trimesters and EFW in the third trimester. Similarly, about 3 and 10% of fetuses had AC, FL and EFW >97th and >90th percentile in both trimesters. Hadlock and CFEF charts also provided a good fit for third-trimester EFW <10th percentile. For most measures, Intergrowth yielded low proportions <3rd and <10th percentile, and high proportions >90th and >97th percentiles. Proportions were slightly lower for low-risk pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

WHO charts provided a good description of the distribution of French fetal biometric measures. Further research is needed to assess the impact of using WHO charts on obstetrical management and perinatal outcomes.