Liset Hoftiezer1, Michel H P Hof2, Joyce Dijs-Elsinga3, Marije Hogeveen4, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven3, Richard A van Lingen5. 1. Department of Neonatology, Princess Amalia Department of Pediatrics, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands; Department of Neonatology, Amalia Children's Hospital, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Liset.Hoftiezer@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Bioinformatics & Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Perined, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Neonatology, Amalia Children's Hospital, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Neonatology, Princess Amalia Department of Pediatrics, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antenatal detection of intrauterine growth restriction remains a major obstetrical challenge, with the majority of cases not detected before birth. In these infants with undetected intrauterine growth restriction, the diagnosis must be made after birth. Clinicians use birthweight charts to identify infants as small-for-gestational-age if their birthweights are below a predefined threshold for gestational age. The choice of birthweight chart strongly affects the classification of small-for-gestational-age infants and has an impact on both research findings and clinical practice. Despite extensive literature on pathological risk factors associated with small-for-gestational-age, controversy exists regarding the exclusion of affected infants from a reference population. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify pathological risk factors for abnormal fetal growth, to quantify their effects, and to use these findings to calculate prescriptive birthweight charts for the Dutch population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study, using routinely collected data of 2,712,301 infants born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2014. Risk factors for abnormal fetal growth were identified and categorized in 7 groups: multiple gestation, hypertensive disorders, diabetes, other pre-existing maternal medical conditions, maternal substance (ab)use, medical conditions related to the pregnancy, and congenital malformations. The effects of these risk factors on mean birthweight were assessed using linear regression. Prescriptive birthweight charts were derived from live-born singleton infants, born to ostensibly healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies and spontaneous onset of labor. The Box-Cox-t distribution was used to model birthweight and to calculate sex-specific percentiles. The new charts were compared to various existing birthweight and fetal-weight charts. RESULTS: We excluded 111,621 infants because of missing data on birthweight, gestational age or sex, stillbirth, or a gestational age not between 23 and 42 weeks. Of the 2,599,640 potentially eligible infants, 969,552 (37.3%) had 1 or more risk factors for abnormal fetal growth and were subsequently excluded. Large absolute differences were observed between the mean birthweights of infants with and without these risk factors, with different patterns for term and preterm infants. The final low-risk population consisted of 1,629,776 live-born singleton infants (50.9% male), from which sex-specific percentiles were calculated. Median and 10th percentiles closely approximated fetal-weight charts but consistently exceeded existing birthweight charts. CONCLUSION: Excluding risk factors that cause lower birthweights results in prescriptive birthweight charts that are more akin to fetal-weight charts, enabling proper discrimination between normal and abnormal birthweight. This proof of concept can be applied to other populations.
BACKGROUND: Antenatal detection of intrauterine growth restriction remains a major obstetrical challenge, with the majority of cases not detected before birth. In these infants with undetected intrauterine growth restriction, the diagnosis must be made after birth. Clinicians use birthweight charts to identify infants as small-for-gestational-age if their birthweights are below a predefined threshold for gestational age. The choice of birthweight chart strongly affects the classification of small-for-gestational-age infants and has an impact on both research findings and clinical practice. Despite extensive literature on pathological risk factors associated with small-for-gestational-age, controversy exists regarding the exclusion of affected infants from a reference population. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify pathological risk factors for abnormal fetal growth, to quantify their effects, and to use these findings to calculate prescriptive birthweight charts for the Dutch population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study, using routinely collected data of 2,712,301 infants born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2014. Risk factors for abnormal fetal growth were identified and categorized in 7 groups: multiple gestation, hypertensive disorders, diabetes, other pre-existing maternal medical conditions, maternal substance (ab)use, medical conditions related to the pregnancy, and congenital malformations. The effects of these risk factors on mean birthweight were assessed using linear regression. Prescriptive birthweight charts were derived from live-born singleton infants, born to ostensibly healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies and spontaneous onset of labor. The Box-Cox-t distribution was used to model birthweight and to calculate sex-specific percentiles. The new charts were compared to various existing birthweight and fetal-weight charts. RESULTS: We excluded 111,621 infants because of missing data on birthweight, gestational age or sex, stillbirth, or a gestational age not between 23 and 42 weeks. Of the 2,599,640 potentially eligible infants, 969,552 (37.3%) had 1 or more risk factors for abnormal fetal growth and were subsequently excluded. Large absolute differences were observed between the mean birthweights of infants with and without these risk factors, with different patterns for term and preterm infants. The final low-risk population consisted of 1,629,776 live-born singleton infants (50.9% male), from which sex-specific percentiles were calculated. Median and 10th percentiles closely approximated fetal-weight charts but consistently exceeded existing birthweight charts. CONCLUSION: Excluding risk factors that cause lower birthweights results in prescriptive birthweight charts that are more akin to fetal-weight charts, enabling proper discrimination between normal and abnormal birthweight. This proof of concept can be applied to other populations.
Authors: Femke Lammertink; Martijn P van den Heuvel; Erno J Hermans; Jeroen Dudink; Maria L Tataranno; Manon J N L Benders; Christiaan H Vinkers Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Lisanne van Prooyen Schuurman; Erik A Sistermans; Diane Van Opstal; Lidewij Henneman; Mireille N Bekker; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Katelijne Bouman; Sonja de Munnik; Nicolette S den Hollander; Karin E M Diderich; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Attie T J I Go; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Marieke Joosten; Fenne L Komdeur; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Maria P Lombardi; Marike G Polak; Fernanda S Jehee; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Servi J C Stevens; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Karuna R M van der Meij; Merel C van Maarle; Vivian Vernimmen; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Maarten F C M Knapen; Merryn V E Macville; Robert-Jan H Galjaard Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Aline G J Engbers; Robert B Flint; Swantje Völler; Johan C A de Klerk; Irwin K M Reiss; Peter Andriessen; Kian D Liem; Pieter L J Degraeuwe; Siska Croubels; Joske Millecam; Karel Allegaert; Sinno H P Simons; Catherijne A J Knibbe Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Loes C M Bertens; Lizbeth Burgos Ochoa; Tom Van Ourti; Eric A P Steegers; Jasper V Been Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: A E L van Nisselrooij; F A R Jansen; N van Geloven; I H Linskens; E Pajkrt; S-A Clur; L A Rammeloo; L Rozendaal; J M M van Lith; N A Blom; M C Haak Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Emilie Hitzerd; Igna F Reijnders; Annemarie G M G J Mulders; Anton H J Koning; Irwin K M Reiss; A H Jan Danser; Régine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Sinno H P Simons; Maria P H Koster Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Sjoerd A M E G Timmermans; Alexis Werion; Marc E A Spaanderman; Chris P Reutelingsperger; Jan G M C Damoiseaux; Johann Morelle; Pieter van Paassen Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Pauline E van Beek; Iris E van der Horst; Josse Wetzer; Anneloes L van Baar; Brigitte Vugs; Peter Andriessen Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Eline L M Op de Coul; Demi Peek; Yolanda W M van Weert; Servaas A Morré; Ingrid Rours; Chantal Hukkelhoven; Ank de Jonge; Birgit van Benthem; Monique Pereboom Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Veronique Y F Maas; Marjolein Poels; Marije Lamain-de Ruiter; Anneke Kwee; Mireille N Bekker; Arie Franx; Maria P H Koster Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 3.007