Literature DB >> 30883981

Routine ultrasound at 32 vs 36 weeks' gestation: prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates.

A Ciobanu1, N Khan2,3, A Syngelaki1, R Akolekar2,3, K H Nicolaides1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the performance of routine ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal abdominal circumference (AC) at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 and 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation in the prediction of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate.
METHODS: This was a prospective study of 21 989 singleton pregnancies undergoing routine ultrasound examination at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks' gestation and 45 847 undergoing routine ultrasound examination at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. In each case, the estimated fetal weight (EFW) from measurements of fetal head circumference, AC and femur length was calculated using the Hadlock formula and expressed as a percentile according to The Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. The same charts were used for defining a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles. For each gestational-age window, the screen-positive and detection rates, at different EFW percentile cut-offs between the 10th and 50th percentiles, were calculated for prediction of delivery of a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles within 2 weeks and at any stage after assessment. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUC) in screening for a SGA neonate by EFW and AC at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 and at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation were compared.
RESULTS: First, the AUCs in screening by EFW for a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles delivered within 2 weeks and at any stage after screening at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation were significantly higher than those at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks (P < 0.001). Second, at both 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 and 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks' gestation, the predictive performance for a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles born at any stage after screening was significantly higher using EFW Z-score than AC Z-score. Similarly, at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks, but not at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks, the predictive performance for a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles born within 2 weeks after screening was significantly higher using EFW Z-score than AC Z-score. Third, screening by EFW < 10th percentile at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation predicted 70% and 84% of neonates with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles, respectively, born within 2 weeks after assessment, and the respective values for a neonate born at any stage after assessment were 46% and 65%. Fourth, prediction of > 85% of SGA neonates with birth weight < 10th percentile born at any stage after screening at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation requires use of EFW < 40th percentile. Screening at this percentile cut-off predicted 95% and 99% of neonates with birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles, respectively, born within 2 weeks after assessment, and the respective values for a neonate born at any stage after assessment were 87% and 94%.
CONCLUSIONS: The predictive performance for a SGA neonate of routine ultrasonographic examination during the third trimester is higher if, first, the scan is carried out at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation than at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks, second, the method of screening is EFW than fetal AC, third, the outcome measure is birth weight < 3rd than < 10th percentile, and, fourth, if delivery occurs within 2 weeks than at any stage after assessment. Prediction of a SGA neonate by EFW < 10th percentile is modest and prediction of > 85% of cases at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation necessitates use of EFW < 40th percentile.
Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  adverse perinatal outcome; estimated fetal weight; fetal biometry; pyramid of pregnancy care; small-for-gestational age; symphysis-fundus height; third-trimester screening

Year:  2019        PMID: 30883981     DOI: 10.1002/uog.20258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  6 in total

1.  Classification of intrauterine growth restriction at 34-38 weeks gestation with machine learning models.

Authors:  I C Crockart; L T Brink; C du Plessis; H J Odendaal
Journal:  Inform Med Unlocked       Date:  2021-02-12

2.  Impact of biometric measurement error on identification of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses.

Authors:  D Wright; A Wright; E Smith; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  Effect of regular third-trimester ultrasound examination on antenatal detection and perinatal outcomes of small for gestational age infants.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Jun Wei; Guoli Liu; Yani Yan; Zhenjuan Yang; Yuntao Li; Qiuyan Pei
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  Prediction of newborn's body mass index using nationwide multicenter ultrasound data: a machine-learning study.

Authors:  Kwang-Sig Lee; Ho Yeon Kim; Se Jin Lee; Sung Ok Kwon; Sunghun Na; Han Sung Hwang; Mi Hye Park; Ki Hoon Ahn
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Commentary on Special Issue "Fetal Growth: What Is New in the Clinical Research?"

Authors:  Erich Cosmi; Silvia Visentin
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.

Authors:  O Hugh; J Gardosi
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 8.678

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.