Association of Borderline Fetal Growth with Progression with Fetal Growth Restriction

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate if an estimated fetal weight (EFW) between 10 and 15th percentiles at the time of anatomy ultrasound, referred to as borderline fetal growth, is associated with progression to fetal growth restriction (FGR) on subsequent ultrasound, delivery of a small for gestational age (SGA) neonate, or neonatal intensive care (NICU) admission.

Study design

We performed a secondary analysis using the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be (nuMom2b) data. The exposures were normotensive pregnancies with non-anomalous singleton gestations with normal growth, defined as EFW >15th percentile at the anatomy scan compared to borderline fetal growth fetuses defined as those with an EFW in the 10 to 15th percentiles. The primary outcome was FGR at subsequent ultrasound, defined as EFW or AC <10%. The secondary outcomes were NICU admission and SGA neonate. Univariable analyses were performed comparing maternal baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Multivariable analysis was performed for the primary outcome with variables adjusted a priori for body mass index, smoking status, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and drug use.

Results

In total, 4,883 patients met inclusion criteria with 114 in the borderline fetal growth group and 4,769 in the normal growth group. There were no significant differences in maternal demographic or medical characteristics. In adjusted multivariable analysis, patients with borderline growth had significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with FGR at their subsequent scan (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 6.68, confidence interval [CI]: 3.98–11.20) compared to those with normal growth. For secondary outcomes, patients with borderline fetal growth were significantly more likely to have SGA neonates (6.14 vs. 2.67%, p = 0.025). There was no difference in admissions to the NICU between groups.

Conclusion

Diagnosis of borderline fetal growth at the time of the anatomy scan was associated with significantly increased odds of progression to FGR at subsequent scans and delivery of an SGA neonate.

Key Points

• Patients with EFWs between the 10th and 15th percentiles, referred to as borderline fetal growth, are at an increased risk of progression to FGR compared to those with EFWs >15th percentile.

• Patients with borderline fetal growth are more likely to deliver SGA neonates compared to those with EFWs >15th percentile.

• Providers should consider follow-up antenatal growth assessment in patients with borderline fetal growth.

Keywords

fetal growth restriction - borderline fetal growth - ultrasound - antepartum testing - growth ultrasounds - small for gestational age

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. Juli 2024

Angenommen: 24. Oktober 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
25. Oktober 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. November 2024

• References

• 1 Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: [e-mail]. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (Replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (04) B2-B17
• 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal growth restriction. Accessed August 2, 2023 at: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2021/02/fetal-growth-restriction
• 3 Figueras F, Gratacos E. Stage-based approach to the management of fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34 (07) 655-659
• 4 Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP. et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (04) 290.e1-290.e6
• 5 Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B. et al; TRUFFLE Group. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (04) 400-408
• 6 Ego A, Subtil D, Grange G. et al. Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (04) 1042-1049
• 7 Getahun D, Ananth CV, Kinzler WL. Risk factors for antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196 (06) 499-507
• 8 Mongelli M, Ek S, Tambyrajia R. Screening for fetal growth restriction: a mathematical model of the effect of time interval and ultrasound error. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (06) 908-912
• 9 Haas DM, Parker CB, Wing DA. et al; NuMoM2b study. A description of the methods of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 539.e1-539.e24
• 10 Aris IM, Kleinman KP, Belfort MB, Kaimal A, Oken E. A 2017 US Reference for singleton birth weight percentiles using obstetric estimates of gestation. Pediatrics 2019; 144 (01) e20190076
• 11 perinataology.com. Fetal Biometry Calculator II. Accessed February 1, 2024 at: https://www.perinatology.com/calculators/biometry%20II.htm
• 12 Mari G, Resnik R. Fetal Growth Restriction. In: Creasy and Resnik's Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 9th ed.. Elsevier; 2022: 810-825