Katherine L Grantz1, Sungduk Kim2, William A Grobman3, Roger Newman4, John Owen5, Daniel Skupski6, Jagteshwar Grewal7, Edward K Chien8, Deborah A Wing9, Ronald J Wapner10, Angela C Ranzini11, Michael P Nageotte12, Stefanie N Hinkle7, Sarah Pugh7, Hanyun Li13, Karin Fuchs14, Mary Hediger7, Germaine M Buck Louis7, Paul S Albert2. 1. Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: katherine.grantz@nih.gov. 2. Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 3. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 5. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 6. New York Presbyterian Queens, New York, NY. 7. Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 8. Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI; Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 9. University of California-Irvine, Orange, CA; Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center, Fountain Valley, CA. 10. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 11. Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ. 12. Miller Children's and Women's Hospital Long Beach/Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Long Beach, CA. 13. Glotech Inc, Rockville, MD. 14. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center, Fountain Valley, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying pregnancies with accelerated or diminished fetal growth is challenging and generally based on cross-sectional percentile estimates of fetal weight. Longitudinal growth velocity might improve identification of abnormally grown fetuses. OBJECTIVE: We sought to complement fetal size standards with fetal growth velocity, develop a model to compute fetal growth velocity percentiles for any given set of gestational week intervals, and determine association between fetal growth velocity and birthweight. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study with data collected at 12 US sites (2009 through 2013) from 1733 nonobese, low-risk pregnancies included in the singleton standard. Following a standardized sonogram at 10w0d-13w6d, each woman was randomized to 1 of 4 follow-up visit schedules with 5 additional study sonograms (targeted ranges: 16-22, 24-29, 30-33, 34-37, and 38-41 weeks). Study visits could occur ± 1 week from the targeted GA. Ultrasound biometric measurements included biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length, and estimated fetal weight was calculated. We used linear mixed models with cubic splines for the fixed effects and random effects to flexibly model ultrasound trajectories. We computed velocity percentiles in 2 ways: (1) difference between 2 consecutive weekly measurements (ie, weekly velocity), and (2) difference between any 2 ultrasounds at a clinically reasonable difference between 2 gestational ages (ie, velocity calculator). We compared correlation between fetal growth velocity percentiles and estimated fetal weight percentiles at 4-week intervals, with 32 (±1) weeks' gestation for illustration. Growth velocity was computed as estimated fetal growth rate (g/wk) between ultrasound at that gestational age and from prior visit [ie, for 28-32 weeks' gestational age: velocity = (estimated fetal weight 32-28)/(gestational age 32-28)]. We examined differences in birthweight by whether or not estimated fetal weight and estimated fetal weight velocity were <5th or ≥5th percentiles using χ2. RESULTS: Fetal growth velocity was nonmonotonic, with acceleration early in pregnancy, peaking at 13, 14, 15, and 16 weeks for biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur length, and abdominal circumference, respectively. Biparietal diameter, head circumference, and abdominal circumference had a second acceleration at 19-22, 19-21, and 27-31 weeks, respectively. Estimated fetal weight velocity peaked around 35 weeks. Fetal growth velocity varied slightly by race/ethnicity although comparisons reflected differences for parameters at various gestational ages. Estimated fetal weight velocity percentiles were not highly correlated with fetal size percentiles (Pearson r = 0.40-0.41, P < .001), suggesting that these measurements reflect different aspects of fetal growth and velocity may add additional information to a single measure of estimated fetal weight. At 32 (SD ± 1) weeks, if both estimated fetal weight velocity and size were <5th percentile, mean birthweight was 2550 g; however, even when size remained <5th percentile but velocity was ≥5th percentile, birthweight increased to 2867 g, reflecting the important contribution of higher growth velocities. For estimated fetal weight ≥5th percentile, but growth velocity <5th, birthweight was smaller (3208 vs 3357 g, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We provide fetal growth velocity data to complement our previous work on fetal growth size standards, and have developed a calculator to compute fetal growth velocity. Preliminary findings suggest that growth velocity adds additional information over knowing fetal size alone. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying pregnancies with accelerated or diminished fetal growth is challenging and generally based on cross-sectional percentile estimates of fetal weight. Longitudinal growth velocity might improve identification of abnormally grown fetuses. OBJECTIVE: We sought to complement fetal size standards with fetal growth velocity, develop a model to compute fetal growth velocity percentiles for any given set of gestational week intervals, and determine association between fetal growth velocity and birthweight. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study with data collected at 12 US sites (2009 through 2013) from 1733 nonobese, low-risk pregnancies included in the singleton standard. Following a standardized sonogram at 10w0d-13w6d, each woman was randomized to 1 of 4 follow-up visit schedules with 5 additional study sonograms (targeted ranges: 16-22, 24-29, 30-33, 34-37, and 38-41 weeks). Study visits could occur ± 1 week from the targeted GA. Ultrasound biometric measurements included biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length, and estimated fetal weight was calculated. We used linear mixed models with cubic splines for the fixed effects and random effects to flexibly model ultrasound trajectories. We computed velocity percentiles in 2 ways: (1) difference between 2 consecutive weekly measurements (ie, weekly velocity), and (2) difference between any 2 ultrasounds at a clinically reasonable difference between 2 gestational ages (ie, velocity calculator). We compared correlation between fetal growth velocity percentiles and estimated fetal weight percentiles at 4-week intervals, with 32 (±1) weeks' gestation for illustration. Growth velocity was computed as estimated fetal growth rate (g/wk) between ultrasound at that gestational age and from prior visit [ie, for 28-32 weeks' gestational age: velocity = (estimated fetal weight 32-28)/(gestational age 32-28)]. We examined differences in birthweight by whether or not estimated fetal weight and estimated fetal weight velocity were <5th or ≥5th percentiles using χ2. RESULTS: Fetal growth velocity was nonmonotonic, with acceleration early in pregnancy, peaking at 13, 14, 15, and 16 weeks for biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur length, and abdominal circumference, respectively. Biparietal diameter, head circumference, and abdominal circumference had a second acceleration at 19-22, 19-21, and 27-31 weeks, respectively. Estimated fetal weight velocity peaked around 35 weeks. Fetal growth velocity varied slightly by race/ethnicity although comparisons reflected differences for parameters at various gestational ages. Estimated fetal weight velocity percentiles were not highly correlated with fetal size percentiles (Pearson r = 0.40-0.41, P < .001), suggesting that these measurements reflect different aspects of fetal growth and velocity may add additional information to a single measure of estimated fetal weight. At 32 (SD ± 1) weeks, if both estimated fetal weight velocity and size were <5th percentile, mean birthweight was 2550 g; however, even when size remained <5th percentile but velocity was ≥5th percentile, birthweight increased to 2867 g, reflecting the important contribution of higher growth velocities. For estimated fetal weight ≥5th percentile, but growth velocity <5th, birthweight was smaller (3208 vs 3357 g, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We provide fetal growth velocity data to complement our previous work on fetal growth size standards, and have developed a calculator to compute fetal growth velocity. Preliminary findings suggest that growth velocity adds additional information over knowing fetal size alone. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Mary L Hediger; Karin M Fuchs; Katherine L Grantz; Jagteshwar Grewal; Sungduk Kim; Robert E Gore-Langton; Germaine M Buck Louis; Mary E D'Alton; Paul S Albert Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: I Økland; T G Bjåstad; T F Johansen; H K Gjessing; P Grøttum; S H Eik-Nes Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: E Bertino; E Di Battista; A Bossi; M Pagliano; C Fabris; G Aicardi; S Milani Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Jagteshwar Grewal; Katherine L Grantz; Cuilin Zhang; Anthony Sciscione; Deborah A Wing; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; Ronald Wapner; Mary E D'Alton; Daniel Skupski; Michael P Nageotte; Angela C Ranzini; John Owen; Edward K Chien; Sabrina Craigo; Paul S Albert; Sungduk Kim; Mary L Hediger; Germaine M Buck Louis Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-29
Authors: Julio Mateus; Roger B Newman; Cuilin Zhang; Sarah J Pugh; Jagteshwar Grewal; Sungduk Kim; William A Grobman; John Owen; Anthony C Sciscione; Ronald J Wapner; Daniel Skupski; Edward Chien; Deborah A Wing; Angela C Ranzini; Michael P Nageotte; Nicole Gerlanc; Paul S Albert; Katherine L Grantz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Katherine L Grantz; Jagteshwar Grewal; Sungduk Kim; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; John Owen; Anthony Sciscione; Daniel Skupski; Edward K Chien; Deborah A Wing; Ronald J Wapner; Angela C Ranzini; Michael P Nageotte; Sabrina Craigo; Stefanie N Hinkle; Mary E D'Alton; Dian He; Fasil Tekola-Ayele; Mary L Hediger; Germaine M Buck Louis; Cuilin Zhang; Paul S Albert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Vanessa Babineau; Yaneve N Fonge; Emily S Miller; William A Grobman; Pamela L Ferguson; Kelly J Hunt; John E Vena; Roger B Newman; Constance Guille; Alan T N Tita; Paula C Chandler-Laney; Seonjoo Lee; Tianshu Feng; Pamela Scorza; Lea Takács; Ronald J Wapner; Kristy T Palomares; Daniel W Skupski; Michael P Nageotte; Anthony C Sciscione; Stephen Gilman; Catherine Monk Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 13.113
Authors: Calvin Lambert; Jessica L Gleason; Sarah J Pugh; Aiyi Liu; Alaina Bever; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; Deborah Wing; Nicole M Gerlanc; Fasil Tekola-Ayele; Katherine L Grantz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alex Hincker; Jacob Nadler; Suzanne Karan; Ebony Carter; Shay Porat; Barbara Warner; Yo-El S Ju; Arbi Ben Abdallah; Elizabeth Wilson; Ellen M Lockhart; Yehuda Ginosar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.692