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.

Abnormal Maternal Body Mass Index and Customized Fetal Weight Charts: Improving the Identification of Small for Gestational Age Fetuses and Newborns

BACKGROUND

Obesity and thinness are serious diseases, but cases with abnormal maternal weight have not been excluded from the calculations in the construction of customized fetal growth curves (CCs).

METHOD

To determine if the new CCs, built excluding mothers with an abnormal weight, are better than standard CCs at identifying SGA. A total of 16,122 neonates were identified as SGA, LGA, or AGA, using the two models. Logistic regression and analysis of covariance were used to calculate the OR and CI for adverse outcomes by group. Gestational age was considered as a covariable.

RESULTS

The SGA rates by the new CCs and by the standard CCs were 11.8% and 9.7%, respectively. The SGA rate only by the new CCs was 18% and the SGA rate only by the standard CCs was 0.01%. Compared to AGA by both models, SGA by the new CCs had increased rates of cesarean section, (OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.19, 1.96)), prematurity (OR 2.84 (95% CI 2.09, 3.85)), NICU admission (OR 5.41 (95% CI 3.47, 8.43), and adverse outcomes (OR 1.76 (95% CI 1.06, 2.60). The strength of these associations decreased with gestational age.

CONCLUSION

The use of the new CCs allowed for a more accurate identification of SGA at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes as compared to the standard CCs.

[Ante- and postnatal growth charts in France - guidelines for clinical practice from the Collège national des gynécologues et obstétriciens français (CNGOF) and from the Société française de néonatologie (SFN)]

OBJECTIVE

To recommend the most appropriate biometric charts for the detection of antenatal growth abnormalities and postnatal growth surveillance.

METHODS

Elaboration of specific questions and selection of experts by the organizing committee to answer these questions; analysis of the literature by experts and drafting conclusions by assigning a recommendation (strong or weak) and a quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, very low) and for each question; all these recommendations have been subject to multidisciplinary external review (obstetrician gynecologists, pediatricians). The objective for the reviewers was to verify the completeness of the literature review, to verify the levels of evidence established and the consistency and applicability of the resulting recommendations. The overall review of the literature, quality of evidence and recommendations were revised to take into consideration comments from external reviewers.

RESULTS

Antenatally, it is recommended to use all WHO fetal growth charts for EFW and common ultrasound biometric measurements (strong recommendation; low quality of evidence). Indeed, in comparison with other prescriptive curves and descriptive curves, the WHO prescriptive charts show better performance for the screening of SGA (Small for Gestational Age) and LGA (Large for Gestational Age) with adequate proportions of fetuses screened at extreme percentiles in the French population. It also has the advantages of having EFW charts by sex and biometric parameters obtained from the same perspective cohort of women screened by qualified sonographers who measured the biometric parameters according to international standards. Postnatally, it is recommended to use the updated Fenton charts for the assessment of birth measurements and for growth monitoring in preterm infants (strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence) and for the assessment of birth measurements in term newborn (expert opinion).

CONCLUSION

It is recommended to use WHO fetal growth charts for antenatal growth monitoring and Fenton charts for the newborn.

Maternal Thinness and Obesity and Customized Fetal Weight Charts

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine if customized fetal growth charts developed excluding obese and underweight mothers (CC(18.5-25)) are better than customized curves (CC) at identifying pregnancies at risk of perinatal morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from 20,331 infants were used to construct CC and from 11,604 for CC(18.5-25), after excluding the cases with abnormal maternal BMI. The 2 models were applied to 27,507 newborns and the perinatal outcomes were compared between large for gestational age (LGA) or small for gestational age (SGA) according to each model. Logistic regression was used to calculate the OR of outcomes by the group, with gestational age (GA) as covariable. The confidence intervals of pH were calculated by analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

The rate of cesarean and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) were higher in LGAonly by CC(18.5-25) than in LGAonly by CC. In SGAonly by CC(18.5-25), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and perinatal mortality rates were higher than in SGAonly by CC. Adverse outcomes rate was higher in LGAonly by CC(18.5-25) than in LGAonly by CC (21.6%; OR = 1.61, [1.34-193]) vs. (13.5%; OR = 0.84, [0.66-1.07]), and in SGA only by CC(18.5-25) than in SGAonly by CC (9.6%; OR = 1.62, [1.25-2.10] vs. 6.3%; OR = 1.18, [0.85-1.66]).

CONCLUSION

The use of CC(18.5-25) allows a more accurate identification of LGA and SGA infants at risk of perinatal morbidity than conventional CC. This benefit increase and decrease, respectively, with GA.

Caveats in the monitoring of fetal growth using ultrasound estimated fetal weight

Introduction

Ultrasound estimated fetal weight is increasingly being used in the monitoring of fetal growth. Differences between estimated fetal weight formulae, curves and measurement methods could lead to significant differences in results. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of these differences on estimated fetal weight and its use in monitoring fetal growth, both by modelling and by analysis of ultrasound scan data.

Methods

Four estimated fetal weight curves were compared in their original form and also normalised to term weight. Estimated fetal weight was calculated from 50th centiles of widely used charts of abdominal and head circumference and femur length and plotted on a widely used estimated fetal weight curve. Fetal measurement data were used to assess the impact of fetal proportions on estimated fetal weight error and on growth trajectory when different estimated fetal weight formulae are used.

Results

Estimated fetal weight curves differ significantly, but after normalisation there is closer agreement. Estimated fetal weight modelled using modern measurement methods differs from the widely used estimated fetal weight growth curve. Errors in estimated fetal weight are correlated with differences in fetal proportions and this can lead to significant changes in estimated fetal weight growth trajectory if different estimated fetal weight formulae are used.

Conclusions

Choice of measurement methods, estimated fetal weight formulae and growth curves have a significant effect on estimated fetal weight growth trajectories relative to normal ranges. It is important to understand these caveats when using estimated fetal weight to monitor fetal growth.

Fetal overgrowth in pregnancies complicated by diabetes: validation of a predictive index in an external cohort

PURPOSE

To assess validity of a fetal overgrowth index in an external cohort of women with diabetes in pregnancy METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data derived from women with singleton gestations complicated by diabetes who delivered January 2015-June 2018. The following index variables were used to calculate risk of fetal overgrowth as defined by a customized birthweight ≥ 90th centile: age, history of fetal overgrowth in a prior pregnancy, gestational weight gain, fetal abdominal circumference measurement and fasting glucose between 24 and 30 weeks.

RESULTS

In our validation cohort, 21% of 477 pregnancies were complicated by fetal overgrowth. The predictive index had a bias-corrected bootstrapped area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.93). 55% of the cohort had a low-risk index (≤ 3) which had a negative predictive value of 97% (95% CI 94-98%), while 18% had a high-risk index (≥ 8) that had a positive predictive value of 74% (95% CI 66-81%).

CONCLUSION

The fetal overgrowth index incorporates five factors that are widely available in daily clinical practice prior to the period of maximum fetal growth velocity in the third trimester. Despite substantial differences between our cohort and the one studied for model development, we found the performance of the index was strong. This finding lends support for the general use of this tool that may aid counseling and allow for targeted allocation of healthcare resources among women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

Identification of large-for-gestational age fetuses using antenatal customized fetal growth charts: Can we improve the prediction of abnormal labor course?

INTRODUCTION

Fetal overgrowth is an acknowledged risk factor for abnormal labor course and maternal and perinatal complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of antenatal ultrasound-based customized fetal growth charts in fetuses at risk for large-for-gestational age (LGA) allows a better identification of cases undergoing caesarean section due to intrapartum dystocia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational study involving four Italian tertiary centers was carried out. Women referred to a dedicated antenatal clinic between 35 and 38 weeks due to an increased risk of having an LGA fetus at birth were prospectively selected for the study purpose. The fetal measurements obtained and used for the estimation of the fetal size were biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length, were prospectively collected. LGA fetuses were defined by estimated fetal weight (EFW) >95th centile either using the standard charts implemented by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the customized fetal growth charts previously published by our group. Patients scheduled for elective caesarean section (CS) or for elective induction for suspected fetal macrosomia or submitted to CS or vacuum extraction (VE) purely due to suspected intrapartum distress were excluded. The incidence of CS due to labor dystocia was compared between fetuses with EFW >95th centile according WHO or customized antenatal growth charts.

RESULTS

Overall, 814 women were eligible, however 562 were considered for the data analysis following the evaluation of the exclusion criteria. Vaginal delivery occurred in 466 (82.9 %) women (435 (77.4 %) spontaneous vaginal delivery and 31 (5.5 %) VE) while 96 had CS. The EFW was >95th centile in 194 (34.5 %) fetuses according to WHO growth charts and in 190 (33.8 %) by customized growth charts, respectively. CS due to dystocia occurred in 43 (22.2 %) women with LGA fetuses defined by WHO curves and in 39 (20.5 %) women with LGA defined by customized growth charts (p 0.70). WHO curves showed 57 % sensitivity, 72 % specificity, 24 % PPV and 91 % NPV, while customized curves showed 52 % sensitivity, 73 % specificity, 23 % PPV and 91 % NPV for CS due to labor dystocia.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antenatal ultrasound-based customized growth charts does not allow a better identification of fetuses at risk of CS due to intrapartum dystocia.

Increased risk of neonatal complications or death among neonates born small for gestational age to mothers with gestational diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate if neonatal complications or death were poorer for neonates born small for gestational age (SGA) than for those born with adequate weight or large for gestation age (LGA) to women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the clinical outcomes of neonates born to 3413 women with GDM. The prevalence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, hypocalcaemia, hyperbilirubinemia, polycythaemia, and death was compared among three birthweight groups: SGA, adequate, and LGA. A two-sided chi-squared or Fisher's exact test was used for between-group comparisons. A forward multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the odds ratio (OR) associated with SGA.

RESULTS

Neonatal complications were more frequent in the SGA group (20.1%) than in the adequate (9.9%) or LGA (15.2%) groups. There were four deaths (1.6%) in the SGA group compared to one in the LGA (0.4%) and six in the adequate (0.2%) groups (P = 0.002). SGA was a risk factor for neonatal complications or death (OR. 2.122; 95% confidence interval, 1.552-2.899), independent of maternal age, weight gain, fasting glucose, glycaemic control, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, smoking, or neonatal prematurity.

CONCLUSION

SGA birthweight is an important risk factor for neonatal complications or death among neonates born to mothers with GDM.

Fetal overgrowth in pregnancies complicated by diabetes: development of a clinical prediction index

PURPOSE

To develop an index to predict fetal overgrowth in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

METHODS

Data were derived from a cohort of 275 women with singleton gestations in a collaborative diabetes in pregnancy program. Regression analysis incorporated clinical factors available in the first 20-30 weeks of pregnancy that were assigned beta-coefficient-based weights, the sum of which yielded a fetal overgrowth index (composite score).

RESULTS

Fifty-one (18.5%) pregnancies were complicated by fetal overgrowth. The derived index included five clinical factors: age ≤ 30, history of macrosomia, excessive gestational weight gain, enlarged fetal abdominal circumference, and fasting hyperglycemia. Area under the curve (AUC) for the index is 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.92]. Cut-points were selected to identify "high-risk" and "low-risk" ranges (≥ 8 and ≤ 3) that have positive and negative predictive values of 84% (95% CI 70-98%) and 95% (95% CI 92-98%), respectively. The majority of women in our cohort (n = 182, 66%) had a "low-risk" index while 9% (n = 25) had a "high-risk" index. Sub-analyses of nulliparous women and women with gestational and pre-gestational diabetes revealed that the overgrowth index was equally or more predictive when applied separately to each of these groups.

CONCLUSION

This fetal overgrowth index that incorporates five clinical factors provides a means of predicting fetal overgrowth and thereby serves as a tool for targeting the allocation of healthcare resources and treatment individualization.

Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits

Appropriate standards for the assessment of fetal growth and birthweight are central to good clinical care, and have become even more important with increasing evidence that growth-related adverse outcomes are potentially avoidable. Standards need to be evidence based and validated against pregnancy outcome and able to demonstrate utility and effectiveness. A review of proposals by the Intergrowth consortium to adopt their single international standard finds little support for the claim that the cases that it identifies as small are due to malnutrition or stunting, and substantial evidence that there is normal physiologic variation between different countries and ethnic groups. It is possible that the one-size-fits-all standard ends up fitting no one and could be harmful if implemented. An alternative is the concept of country-specific charts that can improve the association between abnormal growth and adverse outcome. However, such standards ignore individual physiologic variation that affects fetal growth, which exists in any heterogeneous population and exceeds intercountry differences. It is therefore more logical to adjust for the characteristics of each mother, taking her ethnic origin and her height, weight, and parity into account, and to set a growth and birthweight standard for each pregnancy against which actual growth can be assessed. A customized standard better reflects adverse pregnancy outcome at both ends of the fetal size spectrum and has increased clinicians' confidence in growth assessment, while providing reassurance when abnormal size merely represents physiologic variation. Rollout in the United Kingdom has proceeded as part of the comprehensive Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP), and has resulted in a steady increase in antenatal detection of babies who are at risk because of fetal growth restriction. This in turn has been accompanied by a year-on-year drop in stillbirth rates to their lowest ever levels in England. A global version of customized growth charts with over 100 ethnic origin categories is being launched in 2018, and will provide an individualized, yet universally applicable, standard for fetal growth.

Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term

BACKGROUND

Fetal growth abnormalities are linked to stillbirth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes, and use of the correct birthweight standard is essential for accurate assessment of growth status and perinatal risk.

OBJECTIVE

Two competing, conceptually opposite birthweight standards are currently being implemented internationally: customized gestation-related optimal weight (GROW) and INTERGROWTH-21^st. We wanted to compare their performance when applied to a multiethnic international cohort, and evaluate their usefulness in the assessment of stillbirth risk at term.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed routinely collected maternity data from 10 countries with a total of 1.25 million term pregnancies in their respective main ethnic groups. The 2 standards were applied to determine small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) rates, with associated relative risk and population-attributable risk of stillbirth. The customized standard (GROW) was based on the term optimal weight adjusted for maternal height, weight, parity, and ethnic origin, while INTERGROWTH-21^st was a fixed standard derived from a multiethnic cohort of low-risk pregnancies.

RESULTS

The customized standard showed an average SGA rate of 10.5% (range 10.1-12.7) and LGA rate of 9.5% (range 7.3-9.9) for the set of cohorts. In contrast, there was a wide variation in SGA and LGA rates with INTERGROWTH-21^st, with an average SGA rate of 4.4% (range 3.1-16.8) and LGA rate of 20.6% (range 5.1-27.5). This variation in INTERGROWTH-21^st SGA and LGA rates was correlated closely (R = ±0.98) to the birthweights predicted for the 10 country cohorts by the customized method to derive term optimal weight, suggesting that they were mostly due to physiological variation in birthweight. Of the 10.5% of cases defined as SGA according to the customized standard, 4.3% were also SGA by INTERGROWTH-21^st and had a relative risk of 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-4.1) for stillbirth. A further 6.3% (60% of the whole customized SGA) were not SGA by INTERGROWTH-21^st, and had a relative risk of 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-4.1) for stillbirth. An additional 0.2% of cases were SGA by INTERGROWTH-21^st only, and had no increased risk of stillbirth. At the other end, customized assessment classified 9.5% of births as large for gestational age, most of which (9.0%) were also LGA by the INTERGROWTH-21^st standard. INTERGROWTH-21^st identified a further 11.6% as LGA, which, however, had a reduced risk of stillbirth (relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.7).

CONCLUSION

Customized assessment resulted in increased identification of small for gestational age and stillbirth risk, while the wide variation in SGA rates using the INTERGROWTH-21^st standard appeared to mostly reflect differences in physiological pregnancy characteristics in the 10 maternity populations.

Customized vs population-based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of customized vs population-based growth charts for the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and The Cochrane Library were searched up to 31 May 2016 to identify interventional and observational studies comparing adverse outcomes among large- (LGA) and small- (SGA) for-gestational-age neonates, when classified according to customized vs population-based growth charts. Perinatal mortality and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of both SGA and LGA neonates, intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) and neonatal mortality of SGA neonates, and neonatal shoulder dystocia and hypoglycemia as well as maternal third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations in LGA pregnancies were evaluated.

RESULTS

The electronic search identified 237 records that were examined based on title and abstract, of which 27 full-text articles were examined for eligibility. After excluding seven articles, 20 observational studies were included in a Bayesian meta-analysis. Neonates classified as SGA according to customized growth charts had higher risks of IUFD (odds ratio (OR), 7.8 (95% CI, 4.2-12.3)), neonatal death (OR, 3.5 (95% CI, 1.1-8.0)), perinatal death (OR, 5.8 (95% CI, 3.8-7.8)) and NICU admission (OR, 3.6 (95% CI, 2.0-5.5)) than did non-SGA cases. Neonates classified as SGA according to population-based growth charts also had increased risk for adverse outcomes, albeit the point estimates of the pooled ORs were smaller: IUFD (OR, 3.3 (95% CI, 1.9-5.0)), neonatal death (OR, 2.9 (95% CI, 1.2-4.5)), perinatal death (OR, 4.0 (95% CI, 2.8-5.1)) and NICU admission (OR, 2.4 (95% CI, 1.7-3.2)). For LGA vs non-LGA, there were no differences in pooled ORs for perinatal death, NICU admission, hypoglycemia and maternal third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations when classified according to either the customized or the population-based approach. In contrast, both approaches indicated that LGA neonates are at increased risk for shoulder dystocia than are non-LGA ones (OR, 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-9.8) using customized charts; OR, 8.0 (95% CI, 5.3-10.1) using population-based charts).

CONCLUSIONS

Both customized and population-based growth charts can identify SGA neonates at risk for adverse outcomes. Although the point estimates of the pooled ORs may differ for some outcomes, the overlapping CIs and lack of direct comparisons prevent conclusions from being drawn on the superiority of one method. Future clinical trials should compare directly the two approaches in the management of fetuses of abnormal size. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Customized versus Population-Based Birth Weight References for Predicting Fetal and Neonatal Undernutrition

Objectives: The aim of our study was to construct a model of customized birth weight curves based on a Spanish population and to compare the ability of this customized model to our population-based chart to predict a neonatal ponderal index (PI) <10th percentile. Methods: We developed a model that can predict the 10th percentile for a fetus according to gestational age and gender as well as maternal weight, height, and age. We compared the ability of this customized model to that of our own population-based model to predict a neonatal PI <10th percentile. Data from a large database were used (32,854 live newborns, from 1993 through 2012). Only singleton pregnancies with a gestational age at delivery of 32-42 weeks were included. Results: In the entire pregnant population, the customized method was superior to the population-based method for detecting newborns with a PI <10th percentile (sensitivity: 55 vs. 40.96%; specificity: 99.6 vs. 91.23%; positive predictive value: 11.49 vs. 9.55%, and negative predictive value: 98.84 vs. 98.55%, respectively). In pregnant women with a BMI >90th percentile, the sensitivity was 75%, compared to 50% in the population-based method. In pregnant women with a height >90th percentile, the sensitivity was almost as high as in the population-based method (61.53 vs. 33.33%). Conclusion: The customized birth weight curve is superior to the population-based method for the detection of newborns with a PI <10th percentile. This is especially the case in women in the higher scales of height and weight as well as in preterm babies.