Benjamin A Kase1, Carlos A Carreno, Sean C Blackwell. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, and Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital-Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to apply customized standards to ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight (EFW), and assess the frequency of abnormal growth when compared to population-based standards. We also evaluated association with adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a historical cohort using prenatal ultrasound examination data at ≥24 weeks over a 1-year period. Ultrasound-derived EFW and growth percentile (population-based EFW [popEFW]) were reported and compared to a customized EFW (custEFW). RESULTS: In all, 782 women met inclusion criteria. More fetuses were identified as small for gestational age (SGA) (15.1% vs 3.8%; P < .0001) and large for gestational age (LGA) (6.8% vs 1.7%; P < .0001) using custEFW, and adverse perinatal outcomes were more frequent among those identified by the custEFW compared to the popEFW. Both SGA and LGA diagnosed by custEFW were predictive of a neonatal SGA (positive likelihood ratio, 8.64) and LGA (positive likelihood ratio, 15.4). CONCLUSION: CustEFW was a better predictor of abnormal birthweight and adverse outcomes compared to traditional popEFW standards. Published by Mosby, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to apply customized standards to ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight (EFW), and assess the frequency of abnormal growth when compared to population-based standards. We also evaluated association with adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a historical cohort using prenatal ultrasound examination data at ≥24 weeks over a 1-year period. Ultrasound-derived EFW and growth percentile (population-based EFW [popEFW]) were reported and compared to a customized EFW (custEFW). RESULTS: In all, 782 women met inclusion criteria. More fetuses were identified as small for gestational age (SGA) (15.1% vs 3.8%; P < .0001) and large for gestational age (LGA) (6.8% vs 1.7%; P < .0001) using custEFW, and adverse perinatal outcomes were more frequent among those identified by the custEFW compared to the popEFW. Both SGA and LGA diagnosed by custEFW were predictive of a neonatal SGA (positive likelihood ratio, 8.64) and LGA (positive likelihood ratio, 15.4). CONCLUSION: CustEFW was a better predictor of abnormal birthweight and adverse outcomes compared to traditional popEFW standards. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: Adi L Tarca; Roberto Romero; Dereje W Gudicha; Offer Erez; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Lami Yeo; Gaurav Bhatti; Percy Pacora; Eli Maymon; Sonia S Hassan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: D Kabiri; R Romero; D W Gudicha; E Hernandez-Andrade; P Pacora; N Benshalom-Tirosh; D Tirosh; L Yeo; O Erez; S S Hassan; A L Tarca Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.299
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