Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.
birth weight
estimated fetal weight
fetal growth velocity
large-for-gestational age
small-for-gestational age
stillbirth
ultrasound scan
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
24
12
2021
received:
05
10
2021
accepted:
07
01
2022
pubmed:
19
1
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
entrez:
18
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fetal growth assessment is central to good antenatal care, yet there is a lack of definition of normal and abnormal fetal growth rate which can identify pregnancies at risk of adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to develop and test a model for defining normal limits of growth velocity which are specific to the fetal weight measurement interval. The cohort consisted of 102 138 singleton pregnancies which underwent at least two third-trimester measurements of ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW), usually carried out because routine early-pregnancy risk assessment had indicated an increased risk of fetal growth restriction. We projected the EFW from the first of each consecutive measurement pair along its own centile rank to the gestational age of the second scan. Normal growth was defined as the second EFW being within a weight range based on limits derived by partial receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (pROC) analyses for small-for-gestational-age (SGA; < 10 The optimal cut-off limits for normal growth rate between consecutive scans varied according to the length of the measurement interval, with an average of -8.0% for slow growth and + 9.3% for accelerated growth at a fixed FPR of 10%. Slow growth between random consecutive scan pairs was associated significantly with all predefined outcome measures including stillbirth (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.84-2.53) and neonatal death (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.60-3.13). Accelerated growth was associated with LGA at birth (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.10-2.20), while normal growth was protective of all adverse outcome measures. Slow growth between the last two scans (which were performed at a median gestational age of 33 + 1 to 36 + 4 weeks) and SGA at the last scan were each predictors of stillbirth, and stillbirth risk was highest when both were present (RR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.20). However, 66.2% of pregnancies with slow growth were not SGA at the last scan and these cases also had an increased risk of stillbirth (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.40-3.05). Fetal growth velocity defined by projected, measurement-interval specific fetal weight limits is associated independently with perinatal outcome and should be used for antenatal surveillance in addition to assessment by fetal size. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35041244
doi: 10.1002/uog.24860
pmc: PMC9328382
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
86-95Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 May;105(5):536-40
pubmed: 9637124
Lancet. 2015 Nov 21;386(10008):2089-2097
pubmed: 26360240
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;46(4):391-7
pubmed: 26031399
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;53(5):630-637
pubmed: 30912210
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun;57(6):942-952
pubmed: 32936481
BMJ. 2013 Jan 24;346:f108
pubmed: 23349424
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Jun;18(3):397-410
pubmed: 15183135
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):168-74
pubmed: 8521065
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S609-S618
pubmed: 29422203
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Aug;59(4):493-500
pubmed: 30302752
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;204(4):288-300
pubmed: 21215383
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Jan;103(1):60-9
pubmed: 8608100
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;49(4):478-486
pubmed: 27804212
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;220(5):449-459.e19
pubmed: 30633918
BJOG. 2008 Sep;115(10):1250-5
pubmed: 18715410
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;80(4):575-84
pubmed: 1383898
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Mar;57(3):401-408
pubmed: 32851727
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Radiology. 1991 Oct;181(1):129-33
pubmed: 1887021
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;53(6):761-768
pubmed: 30883981
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;45(2):162-7
pubmed: 25092251
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;52(3):325-331
pubmed: 28782171
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 29;(6):CD001451
pubmed: 26121659
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 May;105(5):524-30
pubmed: 9637122
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;48(3):333-9
pubmed: 26909664
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec;92(6):908-12
pubmed: 9840547
BMJ Open. 2013 Dec 17;3(12):e003942
pubmed: 24345900
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Feb;13(2):86-9
pubmed: 10079485
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;219(3):285.e1-285.e36
pubmed: 29803819
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Oct;34(20):3362-3369
pubmed: 31718357
Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Aug;82(2):230-6
pubmed: 8336870
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 1;11(11):e0164161
pubmed: 27802270
BMJ. 2019 Oct 15;367:l5517
pubmed: 31615781
Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Apr;97(4):499-504
pubmed: 11275017
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
BMJ. 2005 Nov 12;331(7525):1113-7
pubmed: 16236774
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Jun;52(3):242-7
pubmed: 22276935
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996 Jan;75(1):28-31
pubmed: 8560993
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;25(1):80-9
pubmed: 15505877
BMC Med. 2017 Aug 31;15(1):164
pubmed: 28854913
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 24;14(1):e1002220
pubmed: 28118360
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;25(3):258-64
pubmed: 15717289
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S855-S868
pubmed: 29422214
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(4):676-9
pubmed: 25714480