Literature DB >> 24993892

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

Russell L Deter1, Wesley Lee, Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar, Adi L Tarca, Lami Yeo, Roberto Romero.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To define modified Prenatal Growth Assessment Scores (mPGAS) for single and composite biometric parameters and determine their reference ranges in normal fetuses.
METHODS: Nine anatomical parameters (ap) were measured and the weight estimated (EWTa, EWTb) in a longitudinal study of 119 fetuses with normal neonatal growth outcomes. Expected third trimester size trajectories, obtained from second trimester Rossavik size models, were used in calculating Percent Deviations (% Dev's) and their age-specific reference ranges in each fetus. The components of individual % Dev's values outside their reference ranges, designated +iapPGAS, -iapPGAS, were averaged to give +apPGAS and -apPGAS values for the 3rd trimester. The +iapPGAS and -iapPGAS values for different combinations of ap (c1a (HC, AC, FDL, ThC, EWTa), c1b (HC, AC, FDL, ThC, EWTb), c2 (ThC, ArmC, AVol, TVol), c3 (HC, AC, FDL, EWTa)) were then averaged to give +icPGAS and -icPGAS values at different time points or at the end of the third trimester (+cPGAS, -cPGAS). Values for iapPGAS, ic1bPGAS, and ic2PGAS were compared to their respective apPGAS or cPGAS reference ranges.
RESULTS: All mPGAS values had one 95% range boundary at 0.0%. Upper boundaries of 1D +apPGAS values ranged from 0.0% (HC) to +0.49% (ThC) and were +0.06%, +2.3% and +1.8% for EWT, AVol and TVol, respectively. Comparable values for -apPGAS were 0.0% (BPD, FDL, HDL), to -0.58% (ArmC), -0.13% (EWT), -0.8% (AVol), and 0.0% (TVol). The +cPGAS, 95% reference range upper boundaries varied from +0.36% (c1b) to +0.89% (c2). Comparable values for -cPGAS lower boundaries were -0.17% (c1b) to -0.43% (c2).
CONCLUSIONS: The original PGAS concept has now been extended to individual biometric parameters and their combinations. With the standards provided, mPGAS values can now be tested to see if detection of different types of third trimester growth problems is improved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Individualized growth assessment; Rossavik models; pregnancy; size standards

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24993892      PMCID: PMC5951292          DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2014.934218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med        ISSN: 1476-4954


  130 in total

1.  Diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of ultrasound parameters.

Authors:  William J Ott
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Customized fetal growth standards: rationale and clinical application.

Authors:  Jason Gardosi
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.300

3.  Second-trimester fetal growth and the risk of poor obstetric and neonatal outcomes.

Authors:  N S Fox; M Huang; S T Chasen
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 4.  Should we customize fetal growth standards?

Authors:  F Figueras; J Gardosi
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 2.587

Review 5.  Customized growth curves.

Authors:  J Gardosi
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.190

6.  Mathematic modeling of fetal growth: development of individual growth curve standards.

Authors:  R L Deter; I K Rossavik; R B Harrist; F P Hadlock
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound.

Authors:  H V Jordaan
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1983 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 0.910

8.  A longitudinal study of fetal weight growth.

Authors:  P Jeanty; F Cantraine; R Romero; E Cousaert; J C Hobbins
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Sonographically estimated fetal weight percentile as a predictor of preterm delivery.

Authors:  A Lysikiewicz; L A Bracero; N Tejani
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Med       Date:  2001-02

10.  A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population.

Authors:  Lesley McCowan; Alistair W Stewart; Andre Francis; Jason Gardosi
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.100

View more
  6 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 use of angiogenic biomarkers in maternal blood to identify which SGA fetuses will require a preterm delivery and mothers who will develop pre-eclampsia.

Authors:  Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Roberto Romero; Amy E Whitten; Steven J Korzeniewski; Piya Chaemsaithong; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Lami Yeo; Sonia S Hassan
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2016

5.  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

6.  Fractional fetal thigh volume in the prediction of normal and abnormal fetal growth during the third trimester of pregnancy.

Authors:  Louise E Simcox; Jenny E Myers; Tim J Cole; Edward D Johnstone
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 8.661

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.