Comparison of perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational-age infants classified by population-based versus customised birth weight standards

Testing the assumptions of customized intrauterine growth charts using national birth studies

INTRODUCTION

Customized intrauterine growth charts are widely used for growth monitoring and research. They are based on three assumptions: (1) estimated fetal weight (EFW) has a normal distribution with a constant coefficient of variation at all gestational ages; (2) Hadlock's growth curve accurately describes the relation between EFW and gestational ages; (3) associations between EFW and the fetal and maternal characteristics included in the customization model (fetal sex, pre-pregnancy weight, height, parity) are proportional throughout pregnancy. The aim of this study was to test whether these underlying assumptions are verified.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data came from (1) the French Longitudinal Study of Children (ELFE) cohort, which recruited births after 32 weeks' gestation in 349 maternity hospitals in France in 2011, and (2) the National Perinatal Survey, which included births from all French maternity hospitals in 2016. The study population included, respectively, 6 920 and 8 969 singleton non-malformed term live births with data on customization characteristics and EFW. We computed the coefficient of variation by gestational age and then modeled the association of gestational age, maternal and fetal characteristics with EFW at the second and third trimester ultrasound and with birthweight using linear regression. To assess the proportionality of the impact of maternal and fetal characteristics, we computed the percent change in weight associated with these characteristics at these three time points.

RESULTS

The coefficient of variation was close to 12% at each gestational age, but EFW was not normally distributed, leading to small but systematic underestimation of fetuses under the 10th percentile. Weights representing the 50th and 10th percentiles based on Hadlock's growth trajectory were lower than observed or predicted weights. Most characteristics more strongly impacted weight at birth than during pregnancy. In the French Longitudinal study of Children (ELFE) cohort, boys were 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.4) heavier than girls in the third trimester, whereas this percentage was 4.6% (95% CI 4.0-5.2) at birth. In the National Perinatal Survey, these percentages were 2.3% (95% CI 1.8-2.8) and 4.3% (95% CI 3.8-4.8).

CONCLUSIONS

These results from two independent sources revealed discrepancies between routine clinical EFW data used for growth monitoring and the customized growth model's assumptions.

Small-for-gestational age and large-for-gestational age thresholds to predict infants at risk of adverse delivery and neonatal outcomes: are current charts adequate? An observational study from the Born in Bradford cohort

OBJECTIVES

Construct an ethnic-specific chart and compare the prediction of adverse outcomes using this chart with the clinically recommended UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts using cut-offs for small-for-gestational age (SGA: birth weight <10th centile) and large-for-gestational age (LGA: birth weight >90th centile).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Born in Bradford (BiB) study, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

3980 White British and 4448 Pakistani infants with complete data for gestational age, birth weight, ethnicity, maternal height, weight and parity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of SGA and LGA, using the three charts and indicators of diagnostic utility (sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC)) of these chart-specific cut-offs to predict delivery and neonatal outcomes and a composite outcome.

RESULTS

In White British and Pakistani infants, the prevalence of SGA and LGA differed depending on the chart used. Increased risk of SGA was observed when using the UK-WHO and customised charts as opposed to the ethnic-specific chart, while the opposite was apparent when classifying LGA infants. However, the predictive utility of all three charts to identify adverse clinical outcomes was poor, with only the prediction of shoulder dystocia achieving an AUROC>0.62 on all three charts.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being recommended in national clinical guidelines, the UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts perform poorly at identifying infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Being small or large may increase the risk of an adverse outcome; however, size alone is not sensitive or specific enough with current detection to be useful. However, a significant amount of missing data for some of the outcomes may have limited the power needed to determine true associations.

Customized versus population-based birth weight charts for the detection of neonatal growth and perinatal morbidity in a cross-sectional study of term neonates

Customized birth weight charts that incorporate maternal characteristics are now being adopted into clinical practice. However, there is controversy surrounding the value of these charts in the prediction of growth and perinatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of customized charts in predicting growth, defined by body fat percentage, and perinatal morbidity. A total of 581 term (≥37 weeks' gestation) neonates born in Sydney, Australia, in 2010 were included. Body fat percentage measurements were taken by using air displacement plethysmography. Objective composite measurements of perinatal morbidity were used to identify neonates who had poor outcomes; these data were extracted from medical records. The value of customized charts was assessed by calculating positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Customized versus population-based charts did not improve the prediction of either low body fat percentage (59% vs. 66% positive predictive value and 87% vs. 89% negative predictive value, respectively) or high body fat percentage (48% vs. 53% positive predictive value and 90% vs. 89% negative predictive value, respectively). Customized charts were not better than population-based charts at predicting perinatal morbidity (for customized charts, odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.04; for population-based charts, odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.05) per percentile decrease in birth weight. Customized birth weight charts do not provide significant improvements over population-based charts in predicting neonatal growth and morbidity.

New population-based references for birth weight, length, and head circumference in singletons and twins from 23 to 43 gestation weeks

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Birth size curves are needed for clinical and epidemiological purposes. We constructed birth weight (BW), length (BL), and head circumference (BHC) references, assessed effects of twinness and parity, and defined cut-off points for small, appropriate, and large for gestational age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Birth register data of all 753,036 infants born in 1996-2008 in Finland were cleaned to create references reflecting optimal intrauterine growth. The final data included 533,666 singletons and 15,033 twins (median gestation weeks (gws) 40.0 and 37.1, respectively, 41.6% primiparous). Sex-specific BW, BL, and BHC references were constructed from 23 to 43 gws separately for singletons and twins born to primiparous or multiparous mothers. GAMLSS method was used for modelling.

RESULTS

In singletons from 36 gws onwards, increased BW and BL were observed in comparison to previous reference from 1979-1983. Twins diverged from singletons from 30 gws onwards. At 37.0 gws, mean BW was 400 g lower and mean BL 1.2 cm shorter than in singletons. From 30 gws onwards, birth size was larger in infants of multiparous than primiparous mothers.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based birth size references are available for the evaluation of birth size. Accounting for plurality and parity improves the accuracy of birth size evaluation.