Stillbirth risk and smallness for gestational age according to Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, and GROW fetal weight standards: analysis by maternal ethnicity and body mass index.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Appropriate growth charts are essential for fetal surveillance, to confirm that growth is proceeding normally and to identify pregnancies that are at risk. Many stillbirths are avoidable through antenatal detection of the small-for-gestational-age fetus. In the absence of an international consensus on which growth chart to use, it is essential that clinical practice reflects outcome-based evidence. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the performance of 4 internationally used fetal weight standards and their ability to identify stillbirth risk in different ethnic and maternal size groups of a heterogeneous population. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed routinely collected maternity data from more than 2.2 million pregnancies. Three population-based fetal weight standards (Hadlock, Intergrowth-21st, and World Health Organization) were compared with the customized GROW standard that was adjusted for maternal height, weight, parity, and ethnic origin. Small-for-gestational-age birthweight and stillbirth risk were determined for the 2 largest ethnic groups in our population (British European and South Asian), in 5 body mass index categories, and in 4 maternal size groups with normal body mass index (18.5-25.0 kg/m2). The differences in trend between stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age rates were assessed using the Clogg z test, and differences between stillbirths and body mass index groups were assessed using the chi-square trend test. RESULTS: Stillbirth rates (per 1000) were higher in South Asian pregnancies (5.51) than British-European pregnancies (3.89) (P<.01) and increased in both groups with increasing body mass index (P<.01). Small-for-gestational-age rates were 2 to 3-fold higher for South Asian babies than British European babies according to the population-average standards (Hadlock 26.2% vs 12.2%; Intergrowth-21st 12.1% vs 4.9%; World Health Organization 32.2% vs 16.0%) but were similar by the customized GROW standard (14.0% vs 13.6%). Despite the wide variation, each standard's small-for-gestation-age cases had increased stillbirth risk compared with non-small-for-gestation-age cases, with the magnitude of risk inversely proportional to the rate of cases defined as small for gestational age. All standards had similar stillbirth risk when the small-for-gestation-age rate was fixed at 10% by varying their respective thresholds for defining small for gestational age. When analyzed across body mass index subgroups, the small-for-gestation-age rate according to the GROW standard increased with increasing stillbirth rate, whereas small-for-gestation-age rates according to Hadlock, Intergrowth-21st, and World Health Organization fetal weight standards declined with increasing body mass index, showing a difference in trend (P<.01) to stillbirth rates across body mass index groups. In the normal body mass index subgroup, stillbirth rates showed little variation across maternal size groups; this trend was followed by GROW-based small-for-gestation-age rates, whereas small-for-gestation-age rates defined by each population-average standard declined with increasing maternal size. CONCLUSION: Comparisons between population-average and customized fetal growth charts require examination of how well each standard identifies pregnancies at risk of adverse outcomes within subgroups of any heterogeneous population. In both ethnic groups studied, increasing maternal body mass index was accompanied by increasing stillbirth risk, and this trend was reflected in more pregnancies being identified as small for gestational age only by the customized standard. In contrast, small-for-gestation-age rates fell according to each population-average standard, thereby hiding the increased stillbirth risk associated with high maternal body mass index.