Literature DB >> 32767300

Influence of Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Inaccuracies in Macrosomia on Perinatal Outcome.

Jutta Pretscher1, Sven Kehl1, Patrick Stelzl1, Florian Matthias Stumpfe1, Andreas Mayr2, Matthias Schmid2, Christian Staerk2, Ralf Schild3, Matthias W Beckmann1, Florian Faschingbauer1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of inaccurate sonographic fetal weight estimation in macrosomia on the mode of delivery and neonatal outcome (NO).
METHODS: In 14 633 pregnancies between 2002 and 2016, this retrospective study evaluated the association between sonographic fetal weight estimation, true birth weight (BW), mode of delivery (primary cesarean section [pCS], secondary cesarean section, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates) and NO parameters (5-min Apgar < 7, pH < 7.1, neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admission, shoulder dystocia). Singleton pregnancies > 37 + 0 weeks with ultrasound-estimated fetal weight (EFW) within 7 days before delivery were included. The study population was divided into four groups: Group 1 (false-negative): EFW < 4000 g/BW ≥ 4000 g; Group 2 (true-positive): EFW ≥ 4000 g/BW ≥ 4000 g; Group 3 (false-positive): EFW ≥ 4000 g/BW < 4000 g; and Group 4 (true-negative): EFW < 4000 g/BW < 4000 g.
RESULTS: As expected, the highest secondary cesarean section (sCS) rate was found in Group 2 (true-positive) (30.62 %), compared with only 17.68 % in Group 4 (true-negative). The sCS rate in the false-positive Group 3 was significantly higher (28.48 %) in comparison with the false-negative Group 1 (21.22 %; OR 1.48; 95 % CI, 1.16 to 1.89; P = 0.002). In comparison with the true-negative Group 4, univariate analyses showed significantly higher rates for sCS in all other groups: odds ratio (OR) 2.06 for Group 2 (95 % CI, 1.74 to 2.42; P < 0.001), 1.85 for Group 3 (95 % CI, 1.54 to 2.22, P < 0.001), and 1.25 for Group 1 (95 % CI, 1.05 to 1.49; P < 0.01). No significant differences were found for NO between Groups 1 and 3 for the parameters 5-min Apgar < 7 (P = 0.75), pH < 7.1 (P = 0.28), or NICU admission (P = 0.54). However, there was a significantly higher chance for shoulder dystocia in Group 1 compared with Group 3 (OR 4.58; 95 % CI, 1.34 to 24.30; P = 0.008).
CONCLUSION: Sonographic EFW inaccuracies in fetal macrosomia appear to have a greater impact on the mode of delivery than birth weight itself. Underestimation of fetal weight may be associated with a higher probability of shoulder dystocia. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32767300     DOI: 10.1055/a-1205-0191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultraschall Med        ISSN: 0172-4614            Impact factor:   5.445


  3 in total

1.  Nomogram-based risk prediction of macrosomia: a case-control study.

Authors:  Jing Du; Xiaomei Zhang; Sanbao Chai; Xin Zhao; Jianbin Sun; Ning Yuan; Xiaofeng Yu; Qiaoling Zhang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.105

2.  Obstetric consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of large-for-gestational-age fetus.

Authors:  Marta Papaccio; Anna Fichera; Alessia Nava; Sonia Zatti; Vera Gerosa; Federico Ferrari; Enrico Sartori; Federico Prefumo; Nicola Fratelli
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.447

3.  Percent error of ultrasound examination to estimate fetal weight at term in different categories of birth weight with focus on maternal diabetes and obesity.

Authors:  Luisa Dittkrist; Julia Vetterlein; Wolfgang Henrich; Babett Ramsauer; Dietmar Schlembach; Michael Abou-Dakn; Ulrich Gembruch; Ralf L Schild; Antonia Duewal; Ute M Schaefer-Graf
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 3.007

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.