Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(07): 621-626
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390343
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Customized versus Population Fetal Growth Norms and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Small for Gestational Age Infants in a High-Risk Cohort

Hind N. Moussa
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Zhao Helen Wu
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
Yimei Han
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
Luis D. Pacheco
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
Sean C. Blackwell
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Baha M. Sibai
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
George Saade
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
Maged M. Costantine
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 January 2014

19 July 2014

Publication Date:
28 September 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To compare population versus customized fetal growth norms in identifying neonates at risk for adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes (AOs) associated with small for gestational age (SGA) in high-risk women.

Design Secondary analysis to a multicenter treatment trial of pregnant women at high risk for preeclampsia using low-dose aspirin versus placebo. The associations between SGA by population (SGApop) and customized (SGAcust) norms and AOs were evaluated.

Results A total of 2,289 mother/infant pairs were included in the analysis. The rates of SGA in the aspirin and placebo groups were similar by the customized (22.8% vs 23.9%; p = 0.55) or population (8.7% vs 7.5%; p = 0.54) norms; however, they were lower using population norms compared with customized norms (p < 0.001). SGAcust, but not SGApop, was associated with spontaneous preterm birth (odds ratio [OR]: 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15–1.81; p < 0.001), preterm premature rupture of membranes (OR 1.42 95% CI 1.05–1.92; p = 0.02), and cesarean delivery (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.11–1.64; p = 0.002). Both SGAcust and SGApop were associated with the composite neonatal outcome, indicated preterm delivery before 32, 35, and 37 weeks, oligohydramnios, fetal distress, as well as decreased risk of oxygen requirement. Neither was associated with preeclampsia.

Conclusion Customized approach for assessment of fetal growth was associated with higher SGA rates and better identification of SGA neonates at risk for AOs.

Keywords

customized - fetal growth restriction - adverse outcomes - high risk

Notes

Cities of Galveston and Houston, Texas


The findings of this article were presented in part in Poster Session at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society of Maternal-Fetal-Medicine in San Francisco, CA in 2011.


 

  • References

  • 1 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kajantie E, Osmond C, Barker DJ, Forsén T, Phillips DI, Eriksson JG. Size at birth as a predictor of mortality in adulthood: a follow-up of 350 000 person-years. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34 (3) 655-663
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Barker DJ, Osmond C, Forsén TJ, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG. Trajectories of growth among children who have coronary events as adults. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (17) 1802-1809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ozanne SE, Fernandez-Twinn D, Hales CN. Fetal growth and adult diseases. Semin Perinatol 2004; 28 (1) 81-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brenner WE, Edelman DA, Hendricks CH. A standard of fetal growth for the United States of America. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 126 (5) 555-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alexander GR, Kogan MD, Himes JH. 1994-1996 U.S. singleton birth weight percentiles for gestational age by race, Hispanic origin, and gender. Matern Child Health J 1999; 3 (4) 225-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181 (1) 129-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Reeves S, Bernstein IM. Optimal growth modeling. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32 (3) 148-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gardosi J. Customized fetal growth standards: rationale and clinical application. Semin Perinatol 2004; 28 (1) 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6 (3) 168-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gardosi J, Francis A. A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (1) e1-e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 GROW. Gestation Related Optimal Weight. Customised growth chart software versions 5.x-7.x, 2000–2009. Available at: Gestation Network, www.gestation.net . Accessed December 12, 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gardosi J, Francis A. Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (1) e1-e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Caritis S, Sibai B, Hauth J , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. Low-dose aspirin to prevent preeclampsia in women at high risk. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (11) 701-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Naeye RL, Benirschke K, Hagstrom JW, Marcus CC. Intrauterine growth of twins as estimated from liveborn birth-weight data. Pediatrics 1966; 37 (3) 409-416
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McNEMAR Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947; 12 (2) 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Jong CL, Gardosi J, Dekker GA, Colenbrander GJ, van Geijn HP. Application of a customised birthweight standard in the assessment of perinatal outcome in a high risk population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105 (5) 531-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Clausson B, Gardosi J, Francis A, Cnattingius S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customised versus population-based birthweight standards. BJOG 2001; 108 (8) 830-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McCowan LM, Harding JE, Stewart AW. Customized birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity. BJOG 2005; 112 (8) 1026-1033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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 (4) 1042-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jacobsson B, Ahlin K, Francis A, Hagberg G, Hagberg H, Gardosi J. Cerebral palsy and restricted growth status at birth: population-based case-control study. BJOG 2008; 115 (10) 1250-1255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilcox M, Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Ray C, Johnson I. Birth weight from pregnancies dated by ultrasonography in a multicultural British population. BMJ 1993; 307 (6904) 588-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Figueras F, Gardosi J. Intrauterine growth restriction: new concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (4) 288-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Figueras F, Gardosi J. Should we customize fetal growth standards?. Fetal Diagn Ther 2009; 25 (3) 297-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bukowski R, Uchida T, Smith GC , et al; First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER) Research Consortium. Individualized norms of optimal fetal growth: fetal growth potential. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (5) 1065-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Morrison J, Williams GM, Najman JM, Andersen MJ. The influence of paternal height and weight on birth-weight. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 31 (2) 114-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Reduction of false-positive diagnosis of fetal growth restriction by application of customized fetal growth standards. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (5) 844-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Platt RW, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS. The case against customised birthweight standards. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011; 25 (1) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Platt RW. Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter?. BJOG 2008; 115 (11) 1397-1404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Gardosi J. Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174 (1 Pt 1) 278-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar