Evaluating the Growth Assessment Protocol for stillbirth prevention: progress and challenges

Maternal rest improves growth in small-for-gestational-age fetuses (<10th percentile)

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of fetuses diagnosed as small for gestational age based on an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile represents a major clinical problem. The standard approach is to increase fetal surveillance with serial biometry and antepartum testing to assess fetal well-being and timing of delivery. Observational studies have indicated that maternal rest in the left lateral position improves maternal cardiac output and uterine blood flow. However, maternal bed rest has not been recommended based on the results of a randomized clinical trial that showed that maternal rest does not improve fetal growth in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. This study was conducted to revisit this question.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether maternal bed rest was associated with an increase in the fetal biometric parameters that reflect growth after the diagnosis of a small-for-gestational-age fetus.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study was conducted on fetuses who were diagnosed as small for gestational age because of an estimated fetal weight of <10th percentile for gestational age. The mothers were asked to rest in the left lateral recumbent position. Fetal biometry was performed 2 weeks after the diagnosis. All fetuses before entry into the study had a previous ultrasound that demonstrated an estimated fetal weight of >10th percentile. To assess the response to bed rest, the change in fetal biometric parameters (estimated fetal weight, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) after the recommendation of bed rest was computed for 2 periods: (1) before the diagnosis of a weight of <10th percentile vs at the time of diagnosis of a weight of <10th percentile and (2) at the time of diagnosis of a weight of <10th percentile vs 2 weeks after maternal bed rest. For repeated measures, proportions were compared using the McNemar test, and percentile values were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. To describe changes in the estimated fetal weight without bed rest, 2 control groups in which the mothers were not placed on bed rest after the diagnosis of a small-for-gestational-age fetus were included.

RESULTS

A total of 265 fetuses were observed before and after maternal bed rest. The following were observed in this study: (1) after 2 weeks of maternal rest, 199 of 265 fetuses (75%) had a fetal weight of >10th percentile; (2) the median fetal weight percentile increased from 6.8 (interquartile range, 4.4-8.4) to 18.0 (interquartile range, 9.5-29.5) after 2 weeks of bed rest; (3) similar trends were noted for the head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. In the groups of patients who were not asked to be on bed rest, a reassignment to a weight of >10th percentile at a follow-up examination only occurred in 7 of 37 patients (19%) in the Texas-Michigan group and 13 of 111 patients (12%) in the Colorado group compared with the bed rest group (199/265 [75%]) (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who were prescribed 2 weeks of bed rest after the diagnosis of a fetal weight of <10th percentile had an increase in weight of >10th percentile in 199 of 265 fetuses (75%). This increase in fetal weight was significantly higher than that in the 2 control groups in which bed rest was not prescribed. This observation suggests that bed rest improves fetal growth in a subset of patients.

Fetal size vs growth: comparative analysis of 3 models of growth velocity based on third trimester estimated fetal weights for identifying stillbirth risk

BACKGROUND

Fetal growth velocity is being recognized as an important parameter by which to monitor fetal wellbeing, in addition to assessment of fetal size. However, there are different models and standards in use by which velocity is being assessed.

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to investigate 3 clinically applied methods of assessing growth velocity and their ability to identify stillbirth risk, in addition to that associated with small for gestational age.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded routine-care data of pregnancies with 2 or more third trimester scans in New Zealand. Results of the last 2 scans were used for the analysis. The models investigated to define slow growth were (1) 50+ centile drop between measurements, (2) 30+ centile drop, and (3) estimated fetal weight below a projected optimal weight range, based on predefined, scan interval specific cut-offs to define normal growth. Each method's ability to identify stillbirth risk was assessed against that associated with small-for-gestational age at last scan.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 71,576 pregnancies. The last 2 scans in each pregnancy were performed at an average of 32+1 and 35+6 weeks of gestation. The 3 models defined "slow growth" at the following differing rates: (1) 50-centile drop 0.9%, (2) 30-centile drop 5.1%, and (3) below projected optimal weight range 10.8%. Neither of the centile-based models identified at-risk cases that were not also small for gestational age at last scan. The projected weight range method identified an additional 79% of non-small-for-gestational-age cases as slow growth, and these were associated with a significantly increased stillbirth risk (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4).

CONCLUSION

Centile-based methods fail to reflect adequacy of fetal weight gain at the extremes of the distribution. Guidelines endorsing such models might hinder the potential benefits of antenatal assessment of fetal growth velocity. A new, measurement-interval-specific projection model of expected fetal weight gain can identify fetuses that are not small for gestational age, yet at risk of stillbirth because of slow growth. The velocity between scans can be calculated using a freely available growth rate calculator (www.perinatal.org.uk/growthrate).

Mediation analysis quantifying the magnitude of stillbirth risk attributable to small for gestational age infants

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors for stillbirth are linked to placental dysfunction, which leads to suboptimal intrauterine growth and small for gestational age infants. Such infants also have an increased risk for stillbirth.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of known causal risk factors for stillbirth, and to identify those that have a large proportion of their risk mediated through small for gestational age birth.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study used data from all births in the state of Queensland, Australia between 2000 and 2018. The total effects of exposures on the odds of stillbirth were determined using multivariable, clustered logistic regression models. Mediation analysis was performed using a counterfactual approach to determine the indirect effect and percentage of effect mediated through small for gestational age. For risk factors significantly mediated through small for gestational age, the relative risks of stillbirth were compared between small for gestational age and appropriate for gestational age infants. We also investigated the proportion of risk mediated via small for gestational age for late stillbirths (≥28 weeks).

RESULTS

The initial data set consisted of 1,105,612 births. After exclusions, the final study cohort constituted 925,053 births. Small for gestational age births occurred in 9.9% (91,859/925,053) of the study cohort. Stillbirths occurred in 0.5% of all births (4234/925,053) and 1.5% of small for gestational age births (1414/91,859). Births at ≥28 weeks occurred in 99.4% (919,650/925,053) of the study cohort and in 98.9% (90,804/91,859) of all small for gestational age births. Of the ≥28-week births, stillbirths occurred in 0.2% (2156/919,650) of all births and 0.8% (677/90,804) of the small for gestational age births. Overall, increased odds of stillbirth were significantly mediated through small for gestational age for age <20 years, low socioeconomic status, Indigenous ethnicity, birth in sub-Saharan and North Africa or the Middle East, smoking, nulliparity, multiple pregnancy, assisted conception, previous stillbirth, preeclampsia, and renal disease. Preeclampsia had the largest proportion mediated through small for gestational age (66.7%), followed by nulliparity (61.6%), smoking (29.4%), North-African or Middle Eastern ethnicity (27.6%), multiple pregnancy (26.3%), low socioeconomic status (25.8%), and Indigenous status (18.7%). Sensitivity analysis showed that for late stillbirths, the portions mediated through small for gestational age remained very similar for many of the risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Although small for gestational age is an important mediator between many pregnancy risk factors and stillbirth, mitigating the risk of small for gestational age is likely to be of value only when it is a major contributor in the pathway to fetal demise.

Outcome-based comparative analysis of five fetal growth velocity models to define slow growth

OBJECTIVE

Fetal growth surveillance includes assessment of size as well as rate of growth, and various definitions for slow growth have been adopted into clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different models to identify stillbirth risk, in addition to risk represented by the fetus being small-for-gestational age (SGA).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a routinely collected and anonymized dataset of pregnancies that had two or more third-trimester ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight (EFW). SGA was defined as EFW < 10th customized centile, and slow growth was defined according to five published models in clinical use: (1) a fixed velocity limit of 20 g per day (FVL20 ); (2) a fixed > 50 centile drop, regardless of scan-measurement interval (FCD50 ); (3) a fixed > 30 centile drop, regardless of scan interval (FCD30 ); (4) growth trajectory slower than the third customized growth-centile limit (GCL3 ); and (5) EFW at second scan below the projected optimal weight range (POWR), based on partial receiver-operating-characteristics-curve-derived  cut-offs specific to the scan interval.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 164 718 pregnancies with 480 592 third-trimester ultrasound scans (mean ± SD, 2.9 ± 0.9). The last two scans in each pregnancy were performed at an average gestational age of 33 + 5 and 37 + 1 weeks. At the last scan, 12 858 (7.8%) EFWs were SGA, and of these, 9359 were also SGA at birth (positive predictive value, 72.8%). The rate at which slow growth was defined varied considerably (FVL20 , 12.7%; FCD50 , 0.7%; FCD30 , 4.6%; GCL3 , 19.8%; POWR, 10.1%), and there was varying overlap between cases identified as having slow growth and those identified as SGA at the last scan. Only the POWR method identified additional non-SGA pregnancies with slow growth (11 237/16 671 (67.4%)) that had significant stillbirth risk (relative risk, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.04-2.39)). These non-SGA cases resulting in stillbirth had a median EFW centile of 52.6 at the last scan and a median weight centile of 27.3 at birth. Subgroup analysis identified methodological problems with the fixed-velocity model because it assumes linear growth throughout gestation, and with the centile-based methods because the non-parametric distribution of centiles at the extremes does not reflect actual difference in weight gain.

CONCLUSION

Comparative analysis of five clinically used methods to define slow fetal growth has shown that only the measurement-interval-specific POWR model can identify non-SGA fetuses with slow growth that are at increased risk of stillbirth. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Stillbirth risk and smallness for gestational age according to Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, and GROW fetal weight standards: analysis by maternal ethnicity and body mass index

BACKGROUND

Appropriate growth charts are essential for fetal surveillance, to confirm that growth is proceeding normally and to identify pregnancies that are at risk. Many stillbirths are avoidable through antenatal detection of the small-for-gestational-age fetus. In the absence of an international consensus on which growth chart to use, it is essential that clinical practice reflects outcome-based evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the performance of 4 internationally used fetal weight standards and their ability to identify stillbirth risk in different ethnic and maternal size groups of a heterogeneous population.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed routinely collected maternity data from more than 2.2 million pregnancies. Three population-based fetal weight standards (Hadlock, Intergrowth-21st, and World Health Organization) were compared with the customized GROW standard that was adjusted for maternal height, weight, parity, and ethnic origin. Small-for-gestational-age birthweight and stillbirth risk were determined for the 2 largest ethnic groups in our population (British European and South Asian), in 5 body mass index categories, and in 4 maternal size groups with normal body mass index (18.5-25.0 kg/m2). The differences in trend between stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age rates were assessed using the Clogg z test, and differences between stillbirths and body mass index groups were assessed using the chi-square trend test.

RESULTS

Stillbirth rates (per 1000) were higher in South Asian pregnancies (5.51) than British-European pregnancies (3.89) (P<.01) and increased in both groups with increasing body mass index (P<.01). Small-for-gestational-age rates were 2 to 3-fold higher for South Asian babies than British European babies according to the population-average standards (Hadlock: 26.2% vs 12.2%; Intergrowth-21st: 12.1% vs 4.9%; World Health Organization: 32.2% vs 16.0%) but were similar by the customized GROW standard (14.0% vs 13.6%). Despite the wide variation, each standard's small-for-gestation-age cases had increased stillbirth risk compared with non-small-for-gestation-age cases, with the magnitude of risk inversely proportional to the rate of cases defined as small for gestational age. All standards had similar stillbirth risk when the small-for-gestation-age rate was fixed at 10% by varying their respective thresholds for defining small for gestational age. When analyzed across body mass index subgroups, the small-for-gestation-age rate according to the GROW standard increased with increasing stillbirth rate, whereas small-for-gestation-age rates according to Hadlock, Intergrowth-21st, and World Health Organization fetal weight standards declined with increasing body mass index, showing a difference in trend (P<.01) to stillbirth rates across body mass index groups. In the normal body mass index subgroup, stillbirth rates showed little variation across maternal size groups; this trend was followed by GROW-based small-for-gestation-age rates, whereas small-for-gestation-age rates defined by each population-average standard declined with increasing maternal size.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons between population-average and customized fetal growth charts require examination of how well each standard identifies pregnancies at risk of adverse outcomes within subgroups of any heterogeneous population. In both ethnic groups studied, increasing maternal body mass index was accompanied by increasing stillbirth risk, and this trend was reflected in more pregnancies being identified as small for gestational age only by the customized standard. In contrast, small-for-gestation-age rates fell according to each population-average standard, thereby hiding the increased stillbirth risk associated with high maternal body mass index.