R J Sokol1, L Chik, M P Dombrowski, I E Zador. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hutzel Hospital/ Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to improve the accuracy of estimating fetal weights among macrosomic fetuses with the traditional measurements of abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference. STUDY DESIGN: We used 4831 cases without anomalies from an ultrasonography laboratory database with an estimated fetal weight obtained a maximum of 14 days before delivery. Abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference were each regressed on birth weight to obtain estimated fetal weight by abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference, respectively. We compared the individual variation for estimated fetal weight by abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference by calculating a within-subject standard deviation to quantify the level of disparity. We adjusted the estimated fetal weight to the date of delivery and for dependencies on maternal diabetes mellitus, weight, and height. We then weighted cases with birth weight >4500 g and diabetic cases with birth weight >4000 g 20-fold (weighted estimated fetal weight) for the purpose of creating a favorable bias for classifying these cases. The equation of Hadlock et al, with abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference, was applied as a benchmark estimated fetal weight. RESULTS: Of the 4831 newborns, 308 (6.4%) had a birth weight >4000 g, and 56 (1.2%) had a birth weight >4500 g. There were 154 pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus; 26 (16.9%) of the resulting infants weighed >4000 g, and 5 (3.2%) weighed >4500 g. At 95% specificity, the weighted estimated fetal weight had a sensitivity of 85.7% at a cut point of 3912 g, compared with a sensitivity of 71.4% at 3604 g by use of the estimated fetal weight of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to improve the accuracy of identifying the macrosomic fetus compared to reliance on the equation by Hadlock et al. A fetus was found to be at significantly increased risk for birth weight >4000 g when the estimated fetal weight based on abdominal circumference is larger than that based on either head circumference or femur length or when there is a large within-subject variance in estimated fetal weight based on abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference. We also found that there were significantly different groups of patients whose estimated fetal weights require different equations for better estimates. Even given ultrasonographic measurements, taking into account maternal height, weight, and presence of diabetes mellitus can improve macrosomia detection. Although these findings remain to be optimized and validated, the approach used here appears to yield better predictions than the current "one function fits all" approach.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to improve the accuracy of estimating fetal weights among macrosomic fetuses with the traditional measurements of abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference. STUDY DESIGN: We used 4831 cases without anomalies from an ultrasonography laboratory database with an estimated fetal weight obtained a maximum of 14 days before delivery. Abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference were each regressed on birth weight to obtain estimated fetal weight by abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference, respectively. We compared the individual variation for estimated fetal weight by abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference by calculating a within-subject standard deviation to quantify the level of disparity. We adjusted the estimated fetal weight to the date of delivery and for dependencies on maternal diabetes mellitus, weight, and height. We then weighted cases with birth weight >4500 g and diabetic cases with birth weight >4000 g 20-fold (weighted estimated fetal weight) for the purpose of creating a favorable bias for classifying these cases. The equation of Hadlock et al, with abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference, was applied as a benchmark estimated fetal weight. RESULTS: Of the 4831 newborns, 308 (6.4%) had a birth weight >4000 g, and 56 (1.2%) had a birth weight >4500 g. There were 154 pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus; 26 (16.9%) of the resulting infants weighed >4000 g, and 5 (3.2%) weighed >4500 g. At 95% specificity, the weighted estimated fetal weight had a sensitivity of 85.7% at a cut point of 3912 g, compared with a sensitivity of 71.4% at 3604 g by use of the estimated fetal weight of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to improve the accuracy of identifying the macrosomic fetus compared to reliance on the equation by Hadlock et al. A fetus was found to be at significantly increased risk for birth weight >4000 g when the estimated fetal weight based on abdominal circumference is larger than that based on either head circumference or femur length or when there is a large within-subject variance in estimated fetal weight based on abdominal circumference, femur length, and head circumference. We also found that there were significantly different groups of patients whose estimated fetal weights require different equations for better estimates. Even given ultrasonographic measurements, taking into account maternal height, weight, and presence of diabetes mellitus can improve macrosomia detection. Although these findings remain to be optimized and validated, the approach used here appears to yield better predictions than the current "one function fits all" approach.
Authors: W Siggelkow; M Schmidt; C Skala; D Boehm; S von Forstner; H Koelbl; A Tresch Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 2.344