RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pregnancies with large-for-gestational-age fetuses are at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. There is uncertainty about how to manage birth in such pregnancies. Current guidelines recommend a discussion with women of the pros and cons of options, including expectant management, induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. For women to make an informed decision about birth, antenatal detection of large for gestational age is essential. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of antenatal ultrasound scans to predict large for gestational age at birth. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from a routinely collected database from the West Midlands, United Kingdom. We included pregnancies that had an antenatal ultrasound-estimated fetal weight between 35+0 and 38+0 weeks gestation for any indication and a subgroup where the reason for the scan was that the fetus was suspected to be big. Large for gestational age was defined as >90th customized GROW percentile for estimated fetal weight as well as neonatal weight. In addition, we tested the performance of an uncustomized standard, with Hadlock fetal weight >90th percentile and neonatal weight >4 kg. We calculated diagnostic characteristics for the whole population and groups with different maternal body mass indexes. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 26,527 pregnancies, which, on average, had a scan at 36+4 weeks gestation and delivered 20 days later at a median of 39+3 weeks (interquartile range 15). In total, 2241 (8.4%) of neonates were large for gestational age by customized percentiles, of which 1459 (65.1%) had a scan estimated fetal weight >90th percentile, with a false positive rate of 8.6% and a positive predictive value of 41.0%. In the subgroup of 912 (3.4%) pregnancies scanned for a suspected large fetus, 293 (32.1%) babies were large for gestational age at birth, giving a positive predictive value of 50.3%, with a sensitivity of 77.1% and false positive rate of 36.0%. When comparing subgroups from low (<18.5 kg/m2) to high body mass index (>30 kg/m2), sensitivity increased from 55.6% to 67.8%, false positive rate from 5.2% to 11.5%, and positive predictive value from 32.1% to 42.3%. A total of 2585 (9.7%) babies were macrosomic (birthweight >4 kg), and of these, 1058 (40.9%) were large for gestational age (>90th percentile) antenatally by Hadlock's growth standard, with a false positive rate of 4.9% and a positive predictive value 41.0%. Analysis within subgroups showed better performance by customized than uncustomized standards for low body mass index (<18.5; diagnostic odds ratio, 23.0 vs 6.4) and high body mass index (>30; diagnostic odds ratio, 16.2 vs 8.8). CONCLUSION: Late third-trimester ultrasound estimation of fetal weight for any indication has a good ability to identify and predict large for gestational age at birth and improves with the use of a customized standard. The detection rate is better when an ultrasound is performed for a suspected large fetus but at the risk of a higher false positive diagnosis. Our results provide information for women and clinicians to aid antenatal decision-making about the birth of a fetus suspected of being large for gestational age.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fetal growth velocity is being recognized as an important parameter by which to monitor fetal wellbeing, in addition to assessment of fetal size. However, there are different models and standards in use by which velocity is being assessed. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to investigate 3 clinically applied methods of assessing growth velocity and their ability to identify stillbirth risk, in addition to that associated with small for gestational age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded routine-care data of pregnancies with 2 or more third trimester scans in New Zealand. Results of the last 2 scans were used for the analysis. The models investigated to define slow growth were (1) 50+ centile drop between measurements, (2) 30+ centile drop, and (3) estimated fetal weight below a projected optimal weight range, based on predefined, scan interval specific cut-offs to define normal growth. Each method's ability to identify stillbirth risk was assessed against that associated with small-for-gestational age at last scan. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 71,576 pregnancies. The last 2 scans in each pregnancy were performed at an average of 32+1 and 35+6 weeks of gestation. The 3 models defined "slow growth" at the following differing rates: (1) 50-centile drop 0.9%, (2) 30-centile drop 5.1%, and (3) below projected optimal weight range 10.8%. Neither of the centile-based models identified at-risk cases that were not also small for gestational age at last scan. The projected weight range method identified an additional 79% of non-small-for-gestational-age cases as slow growth, and these were associated with a significantly increased stillbirth risk (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4). CONCLUSION: Centile-based methods fail to reflect adequacy of fetal weight gain at the extremes of the distribution. Guidelines endorsing such models might hinder the potential benefits of antenatal assessment of fetal growth velocity. A new, measurement-interval-specific projection model of expected fetal weight gain can identify fetuses that are not small for gestational age, yet at risk of stillbirth because of slow growth. The velocity between scans can be calculated using a freely available growth rate calculator (www.perinatal.org.uk/growthrate).