Jacob C Larkin1, Paul D Speer, Hyagriv N Simhan. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA, USA. larkinjc@mail.magee.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a customized standard of large-for-gestational age (LGA) identifies pregnancies with increased perinatal risk. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated 7510 estimates of fetal weight to generate a fetal growth curve. Next, we analyzed the gestational age at delivery, physiologic and pathological variables from 5072 pregnancies to predict birthweight, and calculated a customized ideal birthweight and cutoff for LGA. In a separate analysis of 32,271 pregnancies, rates of macrosomia-related adverse outcomes were compared in pregnancies that had been identified as LGA by a customized standard (LGA(cust)) and those pregnancies that had been identified as LGA or macrosomic by conventional standards. RESULTS: LGA(cust) pregnancies carried increased risk of shoulder dystocia, third- or fourth-degree laceration, and cephalopelvic disproportion. LGA(cust) pregnancies that did not meet conventional criteria for LGA/macrosomia were at increased risk of all measured outcomes. CONCLUSION: A customized standard of LGA identifies a previously unrecognized population that is at increased risk of perinatal morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a customized standard of large-for-gestational age (LGA) identifies pregnancies with increased perinatal risk. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated 7510 estimates of fetal weight to generate a fetal growth curve. Next, we analyzed the gestational age at delivery, physiologic and pathological variables from 5072 pregnancies to predict birthweight, and calculated a customized ideal birthweight and cutoff for LGA. In a separate analysis of 32,271 pregnancies, rates of macrosomia-related adverse outcomes were compared in pregnancies that had been identified as LGA by a customized standard (LGA(cust)) and those pregnancies that had been identified as LGA or macrosomic by conventional standards. RESULTS: LGA(cust) pregnancies carried increased risk of shoulder dystocia, third- or fourth-degree laceration, and cephalopelvic disproportion. LGA(cust) pregnancies that did not meet conventional criteria for LGA/macrosomia were at increased risk of all measured outcomes. CONCLUSION: A customized standard of LGA identifies a previously unrecognized population that is at increased risk of perinatal morbidity.
Authors: Maged M Costantine; Lisa Mele; Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Steve N Caritis; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland D Anderson Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Lindsey A Sjaarda; Paul S Albert; Sunni L Mumford; Stefanie N Hinkle; Pauline Mendola; S Katherine Laughon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah J Pugh; Stefanie N Hinkle; Sungduk Kim; Paul S Albert; Roger Newman; William A Grobman; Deborah A Wing; Katherine L Grantz Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Pathik D Wadhwa; Hyagriv N Simhan; Sonja Entringer; Claudia Buss; Roger Smith; Calvin J Hobel; Naveed Farhana; Lawrence Shimmin; James E Hixson; Charles F Sing Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jan Modzelewski; Anna Kajdy; Katarzyna Muzyka-Placzyńska; Dorota Sys; Michał Rabijewski Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 2.430