Isolated Abdominal Circumference < 5% or Estimated Fetal Weight 10 to 19% as Predictors of Small for Gestational Age Infants

Amy L. Turitz; Hayley Quant; Nadav Schwartz; Michal Elovitz; Jamie A. Bastek

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1353438

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2014; 31(06): 469-476
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1353438

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Isolated Abdominal Circumference < 5% or Estimated Fetal Weight 10 to 19% as Predictors of Small for Gestational Age Infants

Amy L. Turitz

¹Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

,

Hayley Quant

¹Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

,

Nadav Schwartz

¹Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

,

Michal Elovitz

¹Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

,

Jamie A. Bastek

¹Maternal and Child Health Research Program, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether (1) isolated fetal abdominal circumference < 5% (AC5) in absence of growth restriction (estimated fetal weight < 10% [EFW10]) or (2) borderline fetal growth 10 to 19% (EFW10–19) predicts subsequent fetal and/or neonatal growth restriction.

Study Design The authors performed a retrospective cohort study (January 2008 to December 2011) of women with singleton pregnancies between 26 and 36 weeks who had ≥ 1 growth ultrasound. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the association between isolated AC5 or EFW10–19 with both subsequent sonographic diagnosis of EFW10 and neonatal diagnosis of small for gestational age (SGA). Test characteristics were calculated.

Results Out of the 10,642 pregnancies, prevalence of isolated AC5, EFW10–19, EFW10, and SGA were as follows: AC5, 5.31%; EFW10–19, 13.30%; EFW10, 7.95%; and SGA, 17.63%. While screening for SGA using EFW10 alone would miss 68.34% of SGA neonates, using isolated AC5 would identify an additional 16.15% of SGA neonates with a 3.7% false positive rate. Using EFW10–19 would identify an additional 40.20% of SGA neonates with a 9.0% false positive rate.

Conclusion Fetuses with isolated AC5 or EFW10–19 are at an increased risk of growth restriction. Using isolated AC5 or composite EFW10–19 would identify SGA neonates that are missed using conventional sonographic definitions of growth restriction alone.

Keywords

abdominal circumference - estimated fetal weight - intrauterine growth restriction - small for gestational age - ultrasound

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC 20090–6920, USA.; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauterine growth restriction. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 72 (1) 85-96
2 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
3 Platz E, Newman R. Diagnosis of IUGR: traditional biometry. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32 (3) 140-147
4 Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (2) 163-168
5 Morrison I, Olsen J. Weight-specific stillbirths and associated causes of death: an analysis of 765 stillbirths. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152 (8) 975-980
6 Bekedam DJ, Visser GH. Effects of hypoxemic events on breathing, body movements, and heart rate variation: a study in growth-retarded human fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153 (1) 52-56
7 Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR, Lange IR, Menticoglou S. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring: experience in 19,221 referred high-risk pregnancies. II. An analysis of false-negative fetal deaths. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157 (4 Pt 1) 880-884
8 Peipert JF, Donnenfeld AE. Oligohydramnios: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1991; 46 (6) 325-339
9 Kramer MS, Olivier M, McLean FH, Willis DM, Usher RH. Impact of intrauterine growth retardation and body proportionality on fetal and neonatal outcome. Pediatrics 1990; 86 (5) 707-713
10 Jones RA, Roberton NR. Problems of the small-for-dates baby. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 11 (2) 499-524
11 Alkalay AL, Graham Jr JM, Pomerance JJ. Evaluation of neonates born with intrauterine growth retardation: review and practice guidelines. J Perinatol 1998; 18 (2) 142-151
12 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
13 Jahn A, Razum O, Berle P. Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Germany: low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998; 77 (6) 643-648
14 Kean LH, Liu DT. Antenatal care as a screening tool for the detection of small for gestational age babies in the low risk population. J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 16: 77-82
15 Pearce JM, Campbell S. A comparison of symphysis-fundal height and ultrasound as screening tests for light-for-gestational age infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94 (2) 100-104
16 Campbell S, Fetal Growth, Fetal Physiology, and Medicine. Beard RN, Nathanielez PW , ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co; 1974: 221-301
17 Warsof SL, Cooper DJ, Little D, Campbell S. Routine ultrasound screening for antenatal detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67 (1) 33-39
18 Niknafs P, Sibbald J. Accuracy of single ultrasound parameters in detection of fetal growth restriction. Am J Perinatol 2001; 18 (6) 325-334
19 Callen PW. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co; 2000: 146-170
20 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984; 152 (2) 497-501
21 Burd I, Srinivas S, Paré E, Dharan V, Wang E. Is sonographic assessment of fetal weight influenced by formula selection?. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (8) 1019-1024
22 Peaceman AM, Andrews WW, Thorp JM , et al. Fetal fibronectin as a predictor of preterm birth in patients with symptoms: a multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (1) 13-18
23 Chauhan SP, Cole J, Sanderson M, Magann EF, Scardo JA. Suspicion of intrauterine growth restriction: Use of abdominal circumference alone or estimated fetal weight below 10%. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19 (9) 557-562
24 Ott WJ. Diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of ultrasound parameters. Am J Perinatol 2002; 19 (3) 133-137
25 Law TL, Korte JE, Katikaneni LD, Wagner CL, Ebeling MD, Newman RB. Ultrasound assessment of intrauterine growth restriction: relationship to neonatal body composition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (3) e1-e6
26 Srinivas SK, Sammel MD, Stamilio DM , et al. Periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes: is there an association?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (5) e1-e8