Literature DB >> 14646420

Identification of Macrosomic, normal and intrauterine growth retarded neonates using the modified Neonatal Growth Assessment Score.

Russell L Deter1, Laurel R Spence.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Separation of Macrosomic, normal and intrauterine growth retarded (IUGR) neonates using the modified Neonatal Growth Assessment Score (NGAS).
METHODS: A sample of 23 neonates with evidence of growth acceleration and 74 neonates classified as normal or IUGR in a previous study was used in this investigation. The prenatal growth of all neonates had been studied longitudinally with ultrasound. From the data collected, Rossavik models describing the growth trajectories of head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), thigh circumference (ThC), femur diaphysis length, head cube (A) and abdominal cube (B) were specified. These models were used to predict birth weight (WT), crown-heel length (CHL), HC, AC and ThC at birth. Actual birth measurements of WT, CHL, HC, AC and ThC were evaluated using age-specific normal size curves and compared to predicted measurements by means of the growth potential realization index (GPRI). GPRI values were evaluated by comparison to previously established normal ranges and used to calculate Neonatal Growth Assessment Scores (NGAS(5)). NGAS(5) values, together with assessments of anatomical measurements and GPRI values, were used to establish macrosomic, normal and IUGR groups. Principal components analysis was applied to the sets of GPRI values available for each neonate to provide a principal component score for separating macrosomic and normal neonates (m(2)NGAS(51)) or one to separate macrosomic, normal and IUGR neonates (m(3)NGAS(51)) using linear discriminant analysis. The groups identified by these multivariate methods were compared to the original classification and their characteristics evaluated.
RESULTS: The m(2)NGAS(51) and a boundary value of 207.5% separated macrosomic and normal neonates with an accuracy of 97.3%. The m(3)NGAS(51) and boundary values of 210.0 and 182.5% separated macrosomic, normal and IUGR neonates with an accuracy of 96.9%. No single GPRI value or anatomical measurement could achieve these levels of accuracy. All normal infants were AGA but only 45.5% of the IUGR group were SGA and only 60.9% of the macrosomic group were LGA. Thirteen different types of IUGR and eleven different types of macrosomia were identified based on GPRI values.
CONCLUSION: The modified NGAS accurately separates macrosomic, normal and IUGR neonates although growth abnormalities are expressed in different ways in different individuals. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14646420     DOI: 10.1159/000074262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther        ISSN: 1015-3837            Impact factor:   2.587


  11 in total

Review 1.  Individualized growth assessment: conceptual framework and practical implementation for the evaluation of fetal growth and neonatal growth outcome.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Lami Yeo; Offer Erez; Uma Ramamurthy; Medha Naik; Roberto Romero
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Fetal growth pathology score: a novel ultrasound parameter for individualized assessment of third trimester growth abnormalities.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; John C P Kingdom; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2017-03-20

3.  Third trimester growth restriction patterns: individualized assessment using a fetal growth pathology score.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2017-07-06

4.  The relationship of newborn adiposity to fetal growth outcome based on birth weight or the modified neonatal growth assessment score.

Authors:  Wesley Lee; Thomas Riggs; Winston Koo; Russell L Deter; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2012-05-29

5.  Personalized third-trimester fetal growth evaluation: comparisons of individualized growth assessment, percentile line and conditional probability methods.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Jia Li; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-09-25

6.  Fetal growth cessation in late pregnancy: its impact on predicted size parameters used to classify small for gestational age neonates.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11

7.  A modified prenatal growth assessment score for the evaluation of fetal growth in the third trimester using single and composite biometric parameters.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11

8.  Individualized fetal growth assessment: critical evaluation of key concepts in the specification of third trimester size trajectories.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2013-09-12

9.  Second trimester growth velocities: assessment of fetal growth potential in SGA singletons.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2017-11-07

10.  Standards for evaluating neonatal growth outcomes using individualized pathological growth potential realization indices.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2021-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.