Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation: influence of the scan-to-delivery interval in combination with the applied weight estimation formula.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the influence of the time interval between examination and delivery on the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation (WE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 8723 singleton pregnancies were included in this retrospective cohort study. Fetuses were divided into eight groups with regard to the time interval between estimation and delivery (group 1: 0 days; group 2: 1-3 days; group 3: 4-7 days; group 4: 8-14 days; group 5: 15-21 days; group 6: 22-28 days; group 7: 29-35 days; group 8: 36-42 days). The accuracy of WE was compared between the different time interval groups and five commonly used formulas using means of percentage errors (MPE), medians of absolute percentage errors, and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight. RESULTS: In group one, the Hadlock I and Warsof formula showed a systematic underestimation of fetal weight (negative MPEs). No systematic error was found with the Hadlock II formula and the equations of Merz and Shepard showed a systematic overestimation (positive MPEs). MPE values of the Hadlock I, II and Warsof formulas were closest to zero in WEs of group two. From group three to six, MPE values decreased continuously. With the Merz and Shepard equations MPEs were closest to zero in group four. DISCUSSION: The best accuracy of sonographic WE with most of the commonly used equations is achieved within a scan-to-delivery interval of 1 week.

Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of the time interval between examination and delivery on the accuracy of sonographic weight estimation (WE) in fetal macrosomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 896 singleton pregnancies (birth weight > 4,000 g) with a total of 1,281 sonographic weight estimations were included in this retrospective cohort study. Fetuses were divided into six groups with regard to the time interval between estimation and delivery: group 1: scan-to-delivery interval: 0 days; group 2: scan-to-delivery interval: 1-3 days; group 3: scan-to-delivery interval: 4-7 days; group 4: scan-to-delivery interval: 8-14 days; group 5: scan-to-delivery interval: 15-21 days; group 6: scan-to-delivery interval: 22-42 days. The accuracy of WE was compared between five commonly used formulas using means of percentage errors (MPE), random error, medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the time interval groups with regard to MAPE and MPE values (p < 0.001). All formulas showed a systematic underestimation of fetal weight (negative MPEs) (p < 0.05). MPE values were closest to zero in time interval group 1 and 2. From group 3 to 6, a continuous decrease was observed. The lowest MAPE was found with the Merz formula in group 1 and 2. Values increased continuously from group 3 to 6. Differences between time interval group one and three did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: WE in fetal macrosomia shows the best results when examinations are performed within 7 days before delivery, using the formula of Merz et al. Accuracy significantly decreases after this time period.

Intrapartum sonographic weight estimation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of intrapartum sonographic weight estimation (WE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included 1958 singleton pregnancies. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy with cephalic presentation, vaginal delivery and ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters performed on the day of delivery during the latent or active phase of labor, and absence of chromosomal or structural anomalies. The accuracy of intrapartum WE was compared to a control group of fetuses delivered by primary cesarean section at our perinatal center and an ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters performed within 3 days before delivery (n = 392). Otherwise, the same inclusion criteria as in the study group were applied. The accuracy of WE was compared between five commonly applied formulas using means of percentage errors (MPE), medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight. RESULTS: In the whole study group, all equations showed a systematic underestimation of fetal weight (negative MPEs). Overall, best MAPE and MPE values were found with the Hadlock II formula, using BPD, AC and FL as biometric parameters (Hadlock II, MPE: -1.28; MAPE: 6.52). MPEs differed significantly between WE in the study and control group for all evaluated formulas: in the control group, either no systematic error (Hadlock III, IV and V) or a significant overestimation (Hadlock I, II) was found. Regarding MAPEs, application of the Hadlock III (HC, AC, FL) and V (AC) formula resulted in significant lower values in the control group (Hadlock III, MAPE: 7.48 vs. 5.95, p = 0.0008 and Hadlock V, MAPE: 8.79 vs. 7.52, p = 0.0085). No significant differences were found for the other equations. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic underestimation of fetal weight has to be taken into account in sonographic WE performed intrapartum. Overall, the best results can be achieved with WE formulas using the BPD as the only head measurement.

Sonographic Weight Estimation in Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of sonographic weight estimation (WE) for small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses, and to further differentiate the evaluation between symmetric and asymmetric SGA fetuses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of WE in SGA fetuses (n = 898) was evaluated using 14 sonographic models and was further differentiated between symmetric (n = 750) and asymmetric (n = 148) SGA fetuses. SGA fetuses were considered to be asymmetric with a head circumference to abdominal circumference ratio above the 95th percentile. The accuracy of the different formulas was compared using means of percentage errors (MPE), medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight. RESULTS: RESULTS for the subgroup of asymmetric SGA fetuses differed significantly from the subgroup of symmetric SGA fetuses. MPE values were closer to zero with most of the formulas in the asymmetric SGA group. Apart from the Siemer, Shepard, Merz and Warsof equations, all formulas showed an underestimation of fetal weight in asymmetric SGA fetuses. In contrast, in the symmetric SGA group, all of the formulas commonly used for fetuses in a normal weight range showed a systematic overestimation of fetal weight. Overall the best accuracy was achieved by using the Sabbagha equation (MPE 1.7 %; SD 9.0 %; MAPE: 6.0). CONCLUSION: An accurate WE in SGA fetuses is feasible using the Sabbagha formula. However, one has to be aware of the significant differences in WE between symmetric and asymmetric SGA fetuses.

A New Sonographic Weight Estimation Formula for Fetuses with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia.

PURPOSE: The accuracy of the sonographic weight estimation (WE) of fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is significantly lower than that of fetuses without any malformations. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the first specific sonographic weight formula for fetuses with CDH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study, a statistical estimation technique known as "multivariable fractional polynomial regression" was applied to a group of 146 fetuses with CDH. Each fetus underwent an ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days of delivery. A new formula was derived using the obtained data and was then compared with other commonly used equations. The accuracy of the different formulas was compared using means of signed percentage errors (SPE), medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and fractions of estimates within prespecified error bounds. RESULTS: The new derived formula is: EFW = 10^(4.6729 107 371 + 0.2365 011 768 * HC + 0.2228 897 682 * FL^2 - 0.0129 895 773 * FL^3 - 1.0470 039 072 * (FL * HC)^0.5 + 0.0004 314 661 * (AC * HC) - [in case of liver herniation] 0.0062 112 122), where EFW is the estimated fetal weight, HC is the head circumference, AC is the abdominal circumference, and FL is the femur length. The new formula proved to be superior to other established equations, showing both the lowest median absolute percentage error (MAE: 6.97) and mean signed percentage error (SPE: 0.40), and the best distribution of absolute percentage errors within prespecified error bounds. CONCLUSION: This new formula significantly improves weight estimation in fetuses with CDH.

Sonographic weight estimation in fetuses with breech presentation.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of weight estimation (WE) in fetuses with breech presentation and to compare it directly with a control group of fetuses in vertex presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, the accuracy of WE in fetuses with breech presentation (n = 244) was evaluated using eight sonographic models and was compared with a control group of fetuses in vertex presentation (n = 244). Each fetus underwent ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days before delivery. The accuracy of the different formulas was compared using means of percentage error (MPE), a measure that reflects systematic error; standard deviation values of MPEs, a measure for random error; medians of absolute percentage error (MAPE), which take both the systematic and random error into account and the percentage of fetal WEs falling within a 10 % range of the actual birth weight. RESULTS: Significantly lower (more negative) MPE values were found in the breech group with the Hadlock (AC, FL) formula, whereas no significant differences were seen with any of the other equations. When compared to zero, in the breech group, a significant systematic error was found with five formulas, while in the control group a significant systematic error was found with three equations. With regard to random error and MAPE, no significant differences were found between the two groups, irrespective of the formula applied. Generally, in both groups, formulas based on three or four biometric indices were more accurate in detecting fetal weight than formulas with only one or two parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Weight estimation in fetuses with breech presentation was as accurate as weight estimation in fetuses with vertex presentation. Using the currently available, well-established formulas should therefore also be appropriate for WE in fetuses with such malpresentations.

Sonographic weight estimation in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of sonographic weight estimation (WE) for fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), and to assess whether certain sonographic models perform better than others in cases of CDH. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, the accuracy of WE in fetuses with CDH (n = 172) was evaluated using eight sonographic models and was compared with a control group of fetuses without malformations (n = 172). Each fetus underwent ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days of delivery. The accuracy of the different formulas was compared using means of percentage errors (MPE), medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight. RESULTS: Fetuses with CDH had a significantly lower abdominal circumference (AC) in comparison with the control group (293.6 vs. 312.0 mm, p < 0.001). All of the formulas tested in fetuses with CDH, except for the Siemer equation (the only model that does not incorporate any abdominal measurements), showed significantly lower (more negative) MPEs, larger MAPEs, and smaller proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight in comparison with the control group.  CONCLUSION: The accuracy of sonographic WE in fetuses with CDH is significantly poorer than in fetuses without malformations, principally because of a larger systematic error due to artificially small AC measurements. The development of new, specific models derived from fetuses with CDH could improve the accuracy of WE for infants with this condition.

What are the limits of accuracy in fetal weight estimation with conventional biometry in two-dimensional ultrasound? A novel postpartum study.

OBJECTIVE: Commonly used formulae for fetal weight estimation, including combinations of several biometric parameters, lack accuracy despite efforts to improve them. This study aimed to investigate the limits of fetal weight estimation based on conventional biometric parameters on two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound by developing and evaluating new weight equations using postpartum biometric parameters. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study including 628 singleton pregnancies at term. Inclusion criteria were healthy newborns with no physical or chromosomal malformations. Postpartum measurement of head circumference, abdominal circumference and thigh length was performed. Six 'best-fit' formulae were derived using forward regression analysis in a formula-finding group (n = 419), and their accuracy was compared with birth weight in an evaluation group (n = 209) using percentage error, absolute percentage error, limits of agreement and the proportion of weight estimations falling within a discrepancy level of ± 10%. RESULTS: The new formulae showed no systematic error, with SD for the percentage error between 7.42 and 8.77 and no significant differences between median absolute percentage errors (4.84-5.71). They included 74.6-81.3% of neonates within a discrepancy level of 10%. With regard to the 95% limits of agreement, weight estimates were within a range of about ± 500 g. CONCLUSION: These results show that a good sonographic weight formula has the following features: no systematic error, an SD of about 7% and inclusion of 80% of cases within a discrepancy level of 10%. The study indicates that the current accuracy of fetal weight estimation with conventional biometric parameters by 2D ultrasound has reached its limits. Further improvement will probably only be achieved through new approaches in ultrasonography.

New sonographic method for fetuses with a large abdominal circumference improves fetal weight estimation.

PURPOSE: Birth weight (BW) is an important prognostic parameter for neonatal morbidity and mortality. Commonly used weight formulas lack accuracy, especially at the lower and upper end of the fetal weight range. Fetal abdominal circumference (AC) as part of most of the commonly used equations has the greatest impact on weight estimation. It has been shown that formulas specifically designed for a small fetal AC can improve weight estimation. The aim was to find out whether a new formula specifically designed for fetuses with a large AC may also improve weight determination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 830 singleton pregnancies. The inclusion criteria were ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters and an AC ≥ 36.0 cm within 7 days of delivery, and an absence of structural or chromosomal malformations. Two "best-fit" formulas were derived by forward regression analysis. The accuracy of the new formulas was compared with commonly used weight equations using percentage error (PE), absolute percentage error (APE), limits of agreement (LOA) and cumulative distribution. RESULTS: New formula I had no systematic error while new formula II and the routine methods significantly overestimated fetal weight. The medians of the APE were the lowest among the new equations (5.77 and 7.25). The new formulas also demonstrated the narrowest LOA. Importantly, at all discrepancy levels (5 %, 10 %, 15 %, and 20 %), new formula I included significantly more cases than the commonly used methods. CONCLUSION: These specifically designed equations help to improve fetal weight estimation for fetuses with an AC ≥ 36.0 cm. For optimal weight estimation, we recommend using new formula I.

New sonographic method for fetuses with small abdominal circumference improves fetal weight estimation.

PURPOSE: Accurate estimation of fetal weight is a valuable tool for determining further obstetric management. Commonly used weight formulas lack accuracy, even though some equations appear to be favorable within defined weight ranges. However, due to the fact that fetal weight is not known in advance, it is not always clear which formula is suitable. In most of the commonly used equations, the fetal abdominal circumference (AC) is not only included but also has the greatest impact on weight estimation. The aim of our study was to develop and evaluate a new formula specifically designed for a small fetal AC in order to improve weight estimation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 323 pregnancies. The inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters and an AC ≤ 29.0 cm within 7 days of delivery, and an absence of structural or chromosomal malformations. Two "best-fit" formulas were derived by forward regression analysis. Finally, the accuracy of the new formulas was compared to commonly used weight equations by using the percentage error, absolute percentage error (APE), limits of agreement (LOA) and cumulative distribution. RESULTS: Contrary to the routine methods, which significantly underestimated fetal weight, the new formulas did not have a systematic error. The medians of the APE were the lowest (7.13 and 7.16) when compared to other equations. Moreover, the new formulas demonstrated the narrowest LOA. At all discrepancy levels (5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%), the new formulas included significantly more cases than the commonly used methods. CONCLUSION: The specifically designed equations help to improve fetal weight estimation for fetuses with an AC ≤ 29.0 cm. For optimal weight estimation, we recommend using the new formula II.

Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥ 4,500 g): comparison of 10 formulas.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the accuracy of 10 commonly used weight estimation formulas in a group of fetuses with extreme macrosomia ( ≥ 4 ,500 g). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten formulas were evaluated in a group of 174 fetuses with a birth weight (BW) ≥ 4 ,500 g. Each fetus underwent ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days of delivery. The accuracy of the different formulas for fetal weight estimation (EFW) was compared by mean percentage error (MPE), median of the absolute percentage error (MAPE), the "limits-of-agreement" method and the percentage of EFW falling within the 10 % range of the true birth weight. RESULTS: MPE showed the largest deviation from zero with the Schild formula (MPE - 15.43 %) and the Shepard formula (MPE + 6.08 %) and was closest to zero with the Hadlock II formula (MPE - 5.34 %). The MPE of all formulas showed significant bias when compared to zero. All tested formulas, except the Shepard and Shinozuka equations, significantly underestimated fetal weight. The lowest MAPE was found for the Merz formula (7.23 %). The Hadlock II formula obtained the highest percentage of EWF within the 10 % range of the true birth weight (66.1 %). CONCLUSION: Exact weight estimation in extreme macrosomia remains an unsolved problem, and can therefore only conditionally provide a sufficient basis for clinical decision processes.

A new formula for optimized weight estimation in extreme fetal macrosomia (≥ 4500 g).

PURPOSE: To develop and to evaluate a specific sonographic weight formula for fetuses with extreme macrosomia (≥ 4500 g). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A statistical estimation technique known as "gradient boosting with component-wise P-splines" was applied to a group of 174 fetuses with a birth weight (BW) ≥ 4500 g. Each fetus underwent an ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days of delivery. The exclusion criteria were multiple pregnancy, intrauterine death, and major structural or chromosomal anomalies. A new formula was derived using the obtained data and was then compared to currently available equations for estimating weight in the macrosomic fetus. RESULTS: The new formula is: log10 (EFW) = 3.6687781710 - 0.0003230278 × (BPD - 100.4080) - 0.0000843433 × (BPD - 100.4080)^2 + 0.0007281281 × (OFD - 120.6322) + 0.0000664323 × (OFD - 120.6322)^2 + 0.000000001794019 × exp(ATD - 120.1552) + 0.0005946974 × (APAD - 121.2069) - 0.0000210137 × (APAD - 121.2069)^2 - 0.000003318 × (APAD - 121.2069)^3, where EFW is the estimated fetal weight, BPD is the biparietal diameter, OFD is the occipitofrontal diameter, ATD is the abdominal transverse diameter, and APAD is the abdominal anteroposterior diameter. The new formula proved to be superior to other established equations, showing the lowest mean absolute percentage error (MAE 2.506), the smallest variance regarding the signed percentage error (SPE) (SD 3.376), and the best distribution of absolute percentage errors within prespecified error bounds. CONCLUSION: This new formula significantly improves weight estimation in fetuses with extreme macrosomia.

On weight gain during pregnancy: relationships between weight gain during pregnancy, duration of pregnancy and the somatic classification of neonates.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain during pregnancy is an important parameter that is related to a number of perinatal outcomes. We aimed to analyse the relationships between weight gain during pregnancy, duration of pregnancy, and the somatic classification of the neonates as small, appropriate, or large for gestational age (SGA, AGA, LGA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were from the German perinatal survey of 1995-2000 (more than 2.2 million singleton pregnancies). We classified all neonates with a birth weight below the 10th population percentile as SGA, those with a birth weight above the 90th percentile as LGA, and all others were AGA. Duration of pregnancy (categorised as ≤ 36, 37-41, or ≥ 42 completed weeks of gestation) and the percentages of SGA, AGA, and LGA neonates were analysed according to maternal weight gain in 1-kg-steps. RESULTS: Small weight gain was associated with higher rates of preterm birth, i.e. birth after ≤ 36 completed weeks of gestation (preterm birth rates >10% for women who gained <9 kg). SGA rates were greater for low weight gain values and LGA rates were greater for high weight gain values. For weight gains <12 kg, SGA rates were always >10%. For weight gains >14 kg LGA rates were always >10% reaching LGA rates >25% for weight gains in the range 33-35 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Weight gain during pregnancy may be of use as a predictor of perinatal outcomes such as the somatic classification of neonates. Further analyses taking account of factors influencing the weight gain during pregnancy are warranted.

[Sirenomelia--a rare cause of an oligoanhydramnion in the second trimester--a case report]. / Sirenomelie--eine seltene Ursache für ein Oligo-hydramnion im zweiten Trimester--Ein Fallbericht.

Sirenomelia is a rare, but complex and lethal malformation. It is caused by a primary defect of the caudal axial skeleton and damage to the primary streak, which appears due to a vascular steal phenomenon. Sirenomelia appears sporadic with an incidence of 1-64,000 births. A risk for sirenomelia can be also found in patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and in monocygotic twins. Leading ultrasound findings are fusioned lower extremities, bilateral renal agenesis, single umbilical artery and a distinct oligohydramnios. 3D ultrasound and color Doppler sonography can additionally be used for diagnostic, as well as amnioninfusion. There are 3 forms of sirenomelia, depending on missing or presence of the feet it is distinguished as sympus apus, monopus or dipus. We are presenting a case of sirenomelia with sympus dipus, which was transferred for further diagnostic of severe oligohydramnios in 21 weeks of gestation by the gynecologist.

Macrosomia: a new formula for optimized fetal weight estimation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a specific formula for estimating weight in the macrosomic fetus. METHODS: Ultrasound estimations of fetal weight were carried out within 1 week of delivery in 424 singleton fetuses with a birth weight of > or = 4000 g. Exclusion criteria were multiple pregnancy, intrauterine death and major structural or chromosomal anomalies. Stepwise regression modeling was used to derive a prediction formula with birth weight as the dependent variable and maternal booking weight and fetal biometric measurements as independent parameters. After a new formula for estimated fetal weight (EFW) had been developed in a formula-finding group (n = 284), it was compared with commonly used weight equations (evaluation group, n = 140). RESULTS: The new formula (log(e)EFW = 7.6377445039 + 0.0002951035 x maternal weight + 0.0003949464 x head circumference + 0.0005241529 x abdominal circumference + 0.0048698624 x femur length) proved to be superior to established equations, with the smallest mean error (mean +/- SD, -10 +/- 202 g), the smallest mean percentage error (mean +/- SD, -0.03 +/- 4.6%) and the lowest mean absolute percentage error (3.69 (range, 0.05-13.57)%) when studied in the evaluation group. With the new formula, 77.9% of estimates fell within +/- 5% of the actual weight at birth, 97.1% within +/- 10%, and 100% within +/- 15% and +/- 20%. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula allows better weight estimation in the macrosomic fetus.

Do specific weight formulas for fetuses < or = 1500 g really improve weight estimation?

PURPOSE: In addition to gestational age, fetal weight is an important predictive parameter for neonatal morbidity and mortality in very small fetuses. In order to improve weight estimation, specific weight formulas for fetuses under 1500 g have been introduced by several authors. The aim of the present study was therefore to compare specific weight equations for fetuses under 1500 g with widely used methods that were designed for the whole fetal weight range. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 459 pregnancies were included in order to evaluate six widely used formulas and four formulas specifically designed for very small fetuses. The inclusion criteria were a singleton pregnancy, birth weight equal to or less than 1500 g, ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters during the 7 days prior to delivery, and an absence of structural or chromosomal malformations. RESULTS: All formulas, except the Hadlock equations, demonstrated a significant systematic error. Regarding the random error, it was similar for most of the methods. The Scott formula showed the narrowest limits of agreement. At a discrepancy level of 5 % and 10 % between estimated fetal weight and actual birth weight, one of the Hadlock formulas included the most cases. CONCLUSION: Weight formulas, specifically designed for very small fetuses, do not improve sonographic weight estimation substantially. Among these formulas, the Scott equation was the most accurate one. However compared to the widely used Hadlock formulas, it was not favorable.

Previous extrauterine pregnancies and neonatal outcomes in primiparous women--an analysis of the German Perinatal Survey.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes in primiparous women with and without previous extrauterine pregnancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed data from 207 171 singleton pregnancies in primiparous women from the German Perinatal Survey of 1998-2000. To minimise confounding factors, we only included women without previous miscarriages or terminations of pregnancy and performed comparisons separately for 3 maternal age groups as well as for all cases together. RESULTS: Women with and without previous extrauterine pregnancies were of comparable height and weight but women with previous extrauterine pregnancies were on average older (29.2 vs. 26.6 years). The preterm birth rate was higher in women with previous extrauterine pregnancies (9.4% vs. 6.8%, odds ratio 1.42 [95% confidence interval 1.18-1.69], p<0.001; analysing all cases together) as was the rate of neonates with a low birth weight ≤ 2 499 g (7.9% vs. 5.7%, odds ratio 1.43 [95% confidence interval 1.17-1.72], p>0.001; analysing all cases together). The proportions of neonates classified as small, appropriate, or large for gestational age were rather similar in women with and without previous extrauterine pregnancies; likewise Apgar scores differed only slightly, although for some comparisons statistical significance was reached in spite of the small magnitude of differences. CONCLUSIONS: Previous extrauterine pregnancies are associated with higher rates of preterm birth and infants of low birth weight in subsequent pregnancies.

Thyroid-stimulating hormone is associated with insulin resistance independently of body mass index and age in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between thyroid function, reflected by thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels, and insulin resistance (IR) in 337 women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: Clinical, metabolic and endocrine parameters were obtained and an oral glucose tolerance test was performed, with calculation of IR indices. The association between thyroid function and IR was evaluated with classification analysis using logistic regression and 10-fold cross-validation to identify a possible TSH threshold for IR. Parameters were then compared between women above and below the TSH threshold using two-sample tests. One-way analyses of covariance were performed to explore whether the impact of TSH on IR is independent of other variables. RESULTS: A TSH cut-off value around 2 mIU/l had the best sensitivity and specificity for identifying women with IR. Women with TSH >or= 2 mIU/l were younger, had a higher body mass index (BMI) and were more insulin-resistant compared with women with TSH < 2 mIU/l. This effect of TSH on IR was independent of age and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: In women with PCOS, a significant association between thyroid function, as reflected by TSH >or= 2 mIU/l, and IR was found and the association appeared to be independent of age and BMI.

A new sonographic weight formula for fetuses

PURPOSE: Birth weight is an important predictive parameter for neonatal morbidity and mortality in the small fetus. Accurate estimation of fetal weight is therefore a valuable tool for determining the further obstetric management. The majority of studies presenting new formulas have included relatively small samples with a narrow range of birth weights, mostly term fetuses. In a previous study, we evaluated several weight formulas over the whole range of birth weights and in defined subgroups. We were able to show that some regression formulas appeared to be favorable within these subgroups. Notably, the highest levels of inaccuracy were found in the group of infants with a birth weight of less than 2500 g. This led us to hypothesize that a formula based on the lower birth weight group might increase the accuracy of weight estimation. The aim of the present study was therefore to develop a new specific formula for estimating weight in fetuses less than or equal to 2500 g and to compare the new regression formula with commonly used weight equations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 260 pregnancies. The inclusion criteria were a singleton pregnancy; birth weight equal to or less than 2500 g; an ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days prior to delivery; and an absence of structural or chromosomal malformations. The data for the first 130 newborns were used to develop a new formula. The remaining 130 infants were used to evaluate the new regression formula and to compare it to commonly used weight equations. Stepwise regression analysis was carried out with the birth weight as the dependent variable and biometric parameters as independent parameters to obtain the best-fit formula. RESULTS: The mean absolute percentage error for the new formula was 7.71 %. Compared to the other formulas, it generated the highest intraclass correlation coefficient. By the limits of agreement, the new formula demonstrated only a slight tendency towards underestimating fetal weight, and it provided the smallest range of all weight equations. CONCLUSION: With proper application, our new formula can improve the accuracy of fetal weight estimation.

Three-dimensional power Doppler sonography of the (sub)endometrium and angiogenic cytokine concentrations.

The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between three-dimensional power Doppler sonography (3D-PDS) of the (sub)endometrium and concentrations of angiogenic cytokines in patients attending an IVF programme. A total of 42 patients was included in a prospective, non-randomized clinical study. 3D-PDS of the (sub)endometrium was performed on the day of oocyte aspiration, with and without contrast agent. Quantitative assessment included the following 3D Doppler parameters: vascularization index, flow intensity, and vascularization flow index. On the same day, concentrations of oestradiol (serum only), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF) 1, IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and leptin were determined in the serum and in the follicular fluid. All 3D-PDS indices were significantly higher with contrast enhancement (P < 0.05). Follicular fluid concentrations of VEGF and IGFBP-3, as well as serum concentrations of leptin, showed significant P-values when correlated with (sub)endometrial Doppler indices. A weak linear dependency appeared between flow intensity and VEGF and leptin. Furthermore, weak dependencies were apparent between 3D Doppler parameters and high follicular fluid concentrations of VEGF and IGFBP-3. It is concluded that there is only little evidence for an association between (sub)endometrial Doppler indices as assessed by 3D-PDS and concentrations of angiogenic cytokines.