Assessing fetal growth in Africa: Application of the international WHO and INTERGROWTH-21st standards in a Beninese pregnancy cohort.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
07
04
2021
accepted:
04
01
2022
entrez:
21
1
2022
pubmed:
22
1
2022
medline:
22
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin. Repeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared. Maternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27-31 weeks and 33-38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards. Despite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin.
METHODS
Repeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared.
RESULTS
Maternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27-31 weeks and 33-38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards.
CONCLUSION
Despite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35061819
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262760
pii: PONE-D-21-11431
pmc: PMC8782373
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0262760Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jul;25(7):938-43
pubmed: 21740318
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jun;31(11):1426-1430
pubmed: 28391748
Biol Reprod. 2010 Sep;83(3):325-31
pubmed: 20445129
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Nov;143(2):156-163
pubmed: 30076607
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):417-425
pubmed: 23746775
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;39(3):266-73
pubmed: 22535628
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;49(4):487-492
pubmed: 27516404
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 31;14(12):e0226881
pubmed: 31891599
J Nutr. 2003 May;133(5 Suppl 2):1592S-1596S
pubmed: 12730473
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010 Jul;89(7):862-75
pubmed: 20583931
Lancet. 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):869-79
pubmed: 25209488
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44773
pubmed: 23028617
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 24;14(1):e1002220
pubmed: 28118360
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017;42(3):198-203
pubmed: 28237993
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S641-S655.e28
pubmed: 29275821
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Feb;97(2):168-179
pubmed: 29192969
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;56(6):946-948
pubmed: 32086966
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 8;8(1):e019014
pubmed: 29317419
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;121(5):1122-1133
pubmed: 23635765
Pan Afr Med J. 2017 Feb 02;26:62
pubmed: 28451039
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;49(4):478-486
pubmed: 27804212
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2013 Dec;42(8):921-8
pubmed: 24210709
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2019 Jan;33(1):47-56
pubmed: 30485470
Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1855-61
pubmed: 21621717
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):476.e1-476.e12
pubmed: 30118693
BJOG. 2016 Sep;123 Suppl 3:48-55
pubmed: 27627597
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2018 Mar;32(2):184-196
pubmed: 29253317
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:27-32, v
pubmed: 23841904
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S725-S737
pubmed: 29275822
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975 Sep;82(9):702-10
pubmed: 1182090
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Oct;64(4):650-8
pubmed: 8839517
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S630-S640
pubmed: 29422205
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
BMJ. 2017 Aug 17;358:j3677
pubmed: 28819030