Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2018; 40(10): 580-586
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670643
Original Article
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Analysis of the Performance of 11 Formulae for Fetal Weight Estimation in Preterm Fetuses with Abnormal Doppler Velocimetry – A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Análise do desempenho de 11 fórmulas de estimativa de peso fetal em conceptos prematuros com Dopplervelocimetria alterada – um estudo retrospectivo multicêntrico
Alessandra Martins Heringer de Lima
1   Diagnostic Center, Clínica Perinatal Laranjeiras, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
,
Paulo Roberto Nassar de Carvalho
1   Diagnostic Center, Clínica Perinatal Laranjeiras, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2   Fetal Medicine Center, Instituto Nacional Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
,
Saint Clair Gomes Junior
2   Fetal Medicine Center, Instituto Nacional Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
,
Ana Carolina Costa Carioca
2   Fetal Medicine Center, Instituto Nacional Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
,
José Maria de Andrade Lopes
1   Diagnostic Center, Clínica Perinatal Laranjeiras, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2   Fetal Medicine Center, Instituto Nacional Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

22 January 2018

12 June 2018

Publication Date:
20 September 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess 11 formulae commonly used to estimate fetal weight in a population of premature fetuses who had abnormal Doppler velocimetry due to early-onset placental insufficiency. The performance of each formula was evaluated in subgroups of fetuses with expected growth and intrauterine growth restriction.

Methods Data were collected from fetuses and mothers who delivered at three Brazilian hospitals between November 2002 and December 2013. We used the following formulae: Campbell; Hadlock I, II, III, IV and V; Shepard; Warsof; Weiner I and II; and Woo III.

Results We analyzed 194 fetuses. Of these, 116 (59.8%) were considered appropriate for gestational age (AGA), and 103 (53.1%) were male. The amniotic fluid volume was reduced in 87 (44.8%) fetuses, and the umbilical artery Doppler revealed absence or inversion of diastolic flow in 122 (62.9%) cases, and the analysis of the ductus venosus revealed abnormal flow in 60 (34.8%) fetuses. The Hadlock formulae using three or four fetal biometric parameters had low absolute percentage error in the estimated fetal weight among preterm fetuses with abnormal Doppler studies who were born within 5 days of the ultrasound evaluation. The results were not influenced by the clinical and ultrasound parameters often found in early-onset placental insufficiency.

Conclusion In this study, the formulae with the best performance for fetal weight estimation in the analyzed population were Hadlock I and IV, which use four and three fetal biometric parameters respectively to estimate the weight of preterm fetuses with abnormal Doppler studies.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar o desempenho de 11 fórmulas comumente utilizadas para estimativa de peso fetal em uma população de fetos prematuros com dopplervelocimetria alterada devido a insuficiência placentária de início precoce. O desempenho de cada fórmula foi avaliado em subgrupos de fetos com crescimento adequado e com crescimento intrauterino restrito.

Métodos Foram coletados os dados de mães e fetos cujos partos foram acompanhados em 3 instituições brasileiras entre novembro de 2002 e dezembro de 2013. As fórmulas selecionadas para análise foram: Campbell; Hadlock I, II, III, IV e V; Shepard; Warsof; Weiner I e II; e Woo III.

Resultados Foram analisados os pesos de 194 fetos, dos quais 116 (59,8%) foram considerados adequados para a idade gestacional, 103 (53,1%) eram do sexo masculino, em 87 (44,8%) havia redução do volume de líquido amniótico, em 122 (62,9%) o Doppler de artéria umbilical demonstrou ausência ou inversão do fluxo na diástole, e em 60 (34,8%) a análise do duto venoso indicou fluxo anormal. A média do erro percentual absoluto (EPA) demonstrou que as fórmulas de Hadlock que utilizam 3 ou 4 parâmetros biométricos fetais apresentaram o melhor desempenho. Os resultados obtidos para essas fórmulas não sofreram influência dos parâmetros clínicos e ultrassonográficos frequentemente encontrados na insuficiência placentária de início precoce.

Conclusão O presente estudo demonstrou o melhor desempenho das fórmulas de Hadlock que contêm 3 ou 4 parâmetros da biometria para estimativa de peso de fetos prematuros com anormalidades ao mapeamento Doppler.

Keywords

fetal weight - birth weight - premature birth - ultrasound - prenatal ultrasound - doppler ultrasound - fetal growth retardation - placental insufficiency

Palavras-chave

peso fetal - peso ao nascer - parto prematuro - ultrassonografia - ultrassonografia pré-natal - ultrassonografia doppler - retardo do crescimento fetal - insuficiência placentária
 

  • References

  • 1 Ricci AG, Brizot MdeL, Liao AW, Nomura RM, Zugaib M. [Ultrasonographic accuracy of fetal weight estimation and influence of maternal and fetal factors]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2011; 33 (09) 240-245 . Doi: 10.1590/S0100-72032011000900004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Abuhamad AZ. The role of Doppler ultrasound in obstetrics. In: Callen PW. , ed. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2011: 794-807
    Google Scholar
  • 3 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 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nardozza LMM, Araújo Junior E, Vieira MF, Rolo LC, Moron AF. Estimativa de peso ao nascimento utilizando a ultrassonografia bidimensional e tridimensional. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2010; 56 (02) 204-208 . Doi: 10.1590/S0104-42302010000200020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Baschat AA. Doppler application in the delivery timing of the preterm growth-restricted fetus: another step in the right direction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23 (02) 111-118 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nelson DB, Ziadie MS, McIntire DD, Rogers BB, Leveno KJ. Placental pathology suggesting that preeclampsia is more than one disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (01) 66.e1-66.e7 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Harman CR. The sequence of changes in Doppler and biophysical parameters as severe fetal growth restriction worsens. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18 (06) 571-577 . Doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00591.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moreira Neto AR, Córdoba JCM, Peraçoli JC. Etiologia da restrição do crescimento intrauterino (RCIU). Comun Ciênc Saúde 2011; 22: 21-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Robson SC, Martin WL, Morris RK. The investigation and management of the small-for-gestational-age fetus. London: RCOG; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Seravalli V, Baschat AA. A uniform management approach to optimize outcome in fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015; 42 (02) 275-288 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.01.005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Unterscheider J, O'Donoghue K, Daly S. , et al. Fetal growth restriction and the risk of perinatal mortality-case studies from the multicentre PORTO study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 63 . Doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Carvalho PRN, Sá RAM, Gomes Jr SC, Lopes LM, Moreira MEL. Evaluation of Hadlock's formula in premature fetuses with severe Doppler abnormalities. J Perinat Med 2011; 39: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82 (09) 689-697 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00708.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 O'Brien GD, Queenan JT, Campbell S. Assessment of gestational age in the second trimester by real-time ultrasound measurement of the femur length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139 (05) 540-545 . Doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(81)90514-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shepard M, Filly RA. A standardized plane for biparietal diameter measurement. J Ultrasound Med 1982; 1 (04) 145-150 . Doi: 10.7863/jum.1982.1.4.145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Phelan JP, Smith CV, Broussard P, Small M. Amniotic fluid volume assessment with the four-quadrant technique at 36-42 weeks' gestation. J Reprod Med 1987; 32 (07) 540-542
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Arduini D, Rizzo G. Normal values of Pulsatility Index from fetal vessels: a cross-sectional study on 1556 healthy fetuses. J Perinat Med 1990; 18 (03) 165-172 . Doi: 10.1515/jpme.1990.18.3.165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rizzo G, Capponi A, Talone PE, Arduini D, Romanini C. Doppler indices from inferior vena cava and ductus venosus in predicting pH and oxygen tension in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth-retarded fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7 (06) 401-410 . Doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07060401.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wladimiroff JW, Tonge HM, Stewart PA. Doppler ultrasound assessment of cerebral blood flow in the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93 (05) 471-475 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb08656.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sá RAM, Chaves Netto H, Amim Jr J. , et al. Ductus venosus velocimetry in normal pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000; 70 (S1): A28 . Doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(00)82042-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Abele H, Hoopmann M, Wagner N, Hahn M, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO. Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation of fetuses with a birth weight of 1500 g or less. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 153 (02) 131-137 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Geerts L, Widmer T. Which is the most accurate formula to estimate fetal weight in women with severe preterm preeclampsia?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24 (02) 271-279 . Doi: 10.3109/14767058.2010.485232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Woo JS, Wan CW, Cho KM. Computer-assisted evaluation of ultrasonic fetal weight prediction using multiple regression equations with and without the fetal femur length. J Ultrasound Med 1985; 4 (02) 65-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Blumenfeld YJ, Lee HC, Pullen KM, Wong AE, Pettit K, Taslimi MM. Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in small for gestational age pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 (08) 790-793 . Doi: 10.3109/14767050903387052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (03) 333-337 . Doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Anderson NG, Jolley IJ, Wells JE. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: comparison of bias, precision and consistency using 12 different formulae. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30 (02) 173-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Smulian JC, Ranzini AC, Ananth CV, Rosenberg JC, Vintzileos AM. Comparison of three sonographic circumference measurement techniques to predict birth weight. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93 (5 Pt 1): 692-696 . Doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00517-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (01) 80-89 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.1751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R. Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 2004; 32 (02) 155-161 . Doi: 10.1515/JPM.2004.028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Medchill MT, Peterson CM, Kreinick C, Garbaciak J. Prediction of estimated fetal weight in extremely low birth weight neonates (500-1000 g). Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78 (02) 286-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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 (08) 1019-1024 . Doi: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.8.1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jouannic JM, Grangé G, Goffinet F, Benachi A, Carbrol D. Validity of sonographic formulas for estimating fetal weight below 1,250 g: a series of 119 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16 (04) 254-258 . Doi: 10.1159/000053923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shamley KT, Landon MB. Accuracy and modifying factors for ultrasonographic determination of fetal weight at term. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84 (06) 926-930
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Siemer J, Egger N, Hart N. , et al. Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels. Ultraschall Med 2008; 29 (02) 159-164 . Doi: 10.1055/s-2007-963165
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Townsend RR, Filly RA, Callen PW, Laros RK. Factors affecting prenatal sonographic estimation of weight in extremely low birthweight infants. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7 (04) 183-187 . Doi: 10.7863/jum.1988.7.4.183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar