Ultrasound evaluation of the fetal fat tissue, heart, liver and umbilical cord measurements in pregnancies complicated by gestational and type 1 diabetes mellitus: potential application in the fetal birth-weight estimation and prediction of the fetal macrosomia.
Fetal fat-tissue
Gestational diabetes mellitus
Macrosomia
Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Ultrasound
Journal
Diabetology & metabolic syndrome
ISSN: 1758-5996
Titre abrégé: Diabetol Metab Syndr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101488958
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2021
18 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
05
12
2020
accepted:
29
01
2021
entrez:
19
2
2021
pubmed:
20
2
2021
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to evaluate the ultrasound-derived measurements of the fetal soft-tissue, heart, liver and umbilical cord in pregnancies complicated by gestational (GDM) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and further to assess their applicability in the estimation of the fetal birth-weight and prediction of fetal macrosomia. Measurements were obtained from diet-controlled GDM (GDMG1) (n = 40), insulin-controlled GDM (GDMG2) (n = 40), T1DM (n = 24) and healthy control (n = 40) patients. The following parameters were selected for analysis: fetal sub-scapular fat mass (SSFM), abdominal fat mass (AFM), mid-thigh fat/lean mass (MTFM/MTLM) and inter-ventricular septum (IVS) thicknesses, heart and thorax circumference and area (HeC/HeA; ThC/ThA), liver length (LL), umbilical cord/vein/arteries circumference and area (UmC/UmA; UvC/UvA; UaC/UaA) together with total umbilical vessels (UveA) and Wharton's jelly area (WjA). Regression models were created in order to assess the contribution of selected parameters to fetal birth-weight (FBW) and risk of fetal macrosomia. Measurements of the fetal SSFM, AFM, MTFM, MTFM/MTLM ratio, HeC, HeA, IVS, LL, UmC, UmA, UaC, UaA, UveA and WjA were significantly increased among patients with GDMG2/T1DM as compared to GDMG1 and/or control groups (p < .05). The regression analysis revealed that maternal height as well as fetal biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC), AFM and LL measurements were independent predictors of the FBW (p < .05). In addition, increase in the fetal AFM, AC and femur length (FL) was associated with a significant risk of fetal macrosomia occurrence (p < .05). The equation developed for the FBW estimation [FBW(g) = - 2254,942 + 17,204 * FL (mm) + 105,531 * AC (cm) + 131,347 * AFM (mm)] provided significantly lower mean absolute percent error than standard formula in the sub-group of women with T1DM (5.7% vs 9.4%, p < .05). Moreover, new equation including AC, FL and AFM parameters yielded sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity 77.7%, positive predictive value 54.5% and negative predictive value of 97.8% in the prediction of fetal macrosomia. Ultrasound measurements of the fetal soft tissue, heart, liver and umbilical cord are significantly increased among women with GDM treated with insulin and T1DM. In addition to standard biometric measurements, parameters, such as AFM, may find application in the management of diabetes-complicated pregnancies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to evaluate the ultrasound-derived measurements of the fetal soft-tissue, heart, liver and umbilical cord in pregnancies complicated by gestational (GDM) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and further to assess their applicability in the estimation of the fetal birth-weight and prediction of fetal macrosomia.
METHODS
METHODS
Measurements were obtained from diet-controlled GDM (GDMG1) (n = 40), insulin-controlled GDM (GDMG2) (n = 40), T1DM (n = 24) and healthy control (n = 40) patients. The following parameters were selected for analysis: fetal sub-scapular fat mass (SSFM), abdominal fat mass (AFM), mid-thigh fat/lean mass (MTFM/MTLM) and inter-ventricular septum (IVS) thicknesses, heart and thorax circumference and area (HeC/HeA; ThC/ThA), liver length (LL), umbilical cord/vein/arteries circumference and area (UmC/UmA; UvC/UvA; UaC/UaA) together with total umbilical vessels (UveA) and Wharton's jelly area (WjA). Regression models were created in order to assess the contribution of selected parameters to fetal birth-weight (FBW) and risk of fetal macrosomia.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Measurements of the fetal SSFM, AFM, MTFM, MTFM/MTLM ratio, HeC, HeA, IVS, LL, UmC, UmA, UaC, UaA, UveA and WjA were significantly increased among patients with GDMG2/T1DM as compared to GDMG1 and/or control groups (p < .05). The regression analysis revealed that maternal height as well as fetal biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC), AFM and LL measurements were independent predictors of the FBW (p < .05). In addition, increase in the fetal AFM, AC and femur length (FL) was associated with a significant risk of fetal macrosomia occurrence (p < .05). The equation developed for the FBW estimation [FBW(g) = - 2254,942 + 17,204 * FL (mm) + 105,531 * AC (cm) + 131,347 * AFM (mm)] provided significantly lower mean absolute percent error than standard formula in the sub-group of women with T1DM (5.7% vs 9.4%, p < .05). Moreover, new equation including AC, FL and AFM parameters yielded sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity 77.7%, positive predictive value 54.5% and negative predictive value of 97.8% in the prediction of fetal macrosomia.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound measurements of the fetal soft tissue, heart, liver and umbilical cord are significantly increased among women with GDM treated with insulin and T1DM. In addition to standard biometric measurements, parameters, such as AFM, may find application in the management of diabetes-complicated pregnancies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33602333
doi: 10.1186/s13098-021-00634-7
pii: 10.1186/s13098-021-00634-7
pmc: PMC7893855
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
22Références
Diabetes Care. 2006 Jun;29(6):1345-50
pubmed: 16732019
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Feb;32(4):650-659
pubmed: 28969476
J Clin Ultrasound. 2007 Jan;35(1):34-7
pubmed: 17152075
J Clin Ultrasound. 1997 Sep;25(7):378-82
pubmed: 9282803
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;193(2):332-46
pubmed: 16098852
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(12):2028-32
pubmed: 26333303
Placenta. 2005 Nov;26(10):747-52
pubmed: 16226124
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;22(6):586-90
pubmed: 14689530
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May;39(5):558-62
pubmed: 21898636
J Diabetes. 2015 Jul;7(4):497-505
pubmed: 25124095
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;36(3):328-37
pubmed: 20131333
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):396-401
pubmed: 12683650
Prenat Diagn. 2011 May;31(5):459-65
pubmed: 21394734
Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jun;85(6):937-40
pubmed: 7770263
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;188(5):1372-8
pubmed: 12748514
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Feb;86(2):935-8
pubmed: 11158070
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;30(6):861-6
pubmed: 17960667
Diabet Med. 2003 Oct;20(10):858-62
pubmed: 14510869
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Mar;285(3):635-9
pubmed: 21837429
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Mar;103(3):341-63
pubmed: 24847517
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Jan;154(1):24-6
pubmed: 20800336
J Anat. 2009 Jul;215(1):60-8
pubmed: 19467150
Diabetologia. 2017 Apr;60(4):636-644
pubmed: 28197657
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(4):512-5
pubmed: 23444756
Neonatology. 2011;100(2):147-54
pubmed: 21430391
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Sep;296(3):445-453
pubmed: 28631075
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Oct;33(10):945-51
pubmed: 23716034
J Ultrasound Med. 1997 Oct;16(10):691-4
pubmed: 9323675
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Sep;199(3):312.e1-7
pubmed: 18771996
Curr Diab Rep. 2016 Jan;16(1):7
pubmed: 26742932
Ginekol Pol. 2014 Nov;85(11):810-4
pubmed: 25675796
Diabetes Metab. 2013 Dec;39(6):511-8
pubmed: 23643348
Diabetes. 1984 Jul;33(7):656-60
pubmed: 6376221
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):177.e1-177.e8
pubmed: 27751798
Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Oct;66(4):477-80
pubmed: 3900834
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Sep;140(1):43-7
pubmed: 18406510
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov;41(4):429-32
pubmed: 11787919
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jul;181(1):202-6
pubmed: 10411820
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Nov 10;111(1):9-14
pubmed: 14557004
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1698-704
pubmed: 14710101
Diabetes Care. 2003 Oct;26(10):2741-8
pubmed: 14514573
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jul;28(1):53-6
pubmed: 16758439
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;22(6):591-7
pubmed: 14689531
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 May;170(5 Pt 1):1308-12
pubmed: 8178858
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Apr;17(4):311-5
pubmed: 11339187
Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Apr;93(4):523-6
pubmed: 10214826
Pediatr Res. 2019 Apr;85(5):687-692
pubmed: 30745570
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):57-65
pubmed: 18165393
Ginekol Pol. 2018;89(6):341-350
pubmed: 30010185