Russell L Deter1, Wesley Lee1, Roberto Romero2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Perinatology Research Branch, Program for Perinatal Research and Obstetrics, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, MD, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Provide standards for detecting neonatal growth abnormalities with the average pathological Growth Potential Realization Index (av. pGPRI). METHODS: Individualized Growth Assessment (IGA) evaluations of 117 neonates with normal growth outcomes were carried out using measurements of WT, HC, AC, ThC and CHL. Growth Potential Realization Index (GPRI) values for each parameter were calculated from predicted and actual birth measurements, the former obtained using Rossavik size models derived from the second-trimester growth potential estimates. Subtraction of either the upper and lower boundaries of GPRI reference ranges from these GPRI measurements gave + pGPRI and - pGPRI measurements. GPRI's within their reference ranges were assigned pGPRI values of zero. Average values for these two types of pGPRI's were calculated for the WT, HC, CHL set (n = 117) and the WT, HC, AC, ThC, CHL set (n = 112). RESULTS: The 95% reference ranges for the av. +pGPRI's and av. -pGPRI's in the WT, HC, CHL set were 0% to +0.50% and 0% to -0.40%, respectively. In the WT, HC, AC, ThC, CHL set, the comparable results were 0% to +0.50% and 0% to -0.72%. CONCLUSION: Standards are provided for classifying neonatal growth outcomes with a parameter quantifying growth pathology that was based on individualized growth potentials.
OBJECTIVE: Provide standards for detecting neonatal growth abnormalities with the average pathological Growth Potential Realization Index (av. pGPRI). METHODS: Individualized Growth Assessment (IGA) evaluations of 117 neonates with normal growth outcomes were carried out using measurements of WT, HC, AC, ThC and CHL. Growth Potential Realization Index (GPRI) values for each parameter were calculated from predicted and actual birth measurements, the former obtained using Rossavik size models derived from the second-trimester growth potential estimates. Subtraction of either the upper and lower boundaries of GPRI reference ranges from these GPRI measurements gave + pGPRI and - pGPRI measurements. GPRI's within their reference ranges were assigned pGPRI values of zero. Average values for these two types of pGPRI's were calculated for the WT, HC, CHL set (n = 117) and the WT, HC, AC, ThC, CHL set (n = 112). RESULTS: The 95% reference ranges for the av. +pGPRI's and av. -pGPRI's in the WT, HC, CHL set were 0% to +0.50% and 0% to -0.40%, respectively. In the WT, HC, AC, ThC, CHL set, the comparable results were 0% to +0.50% and 0% to -0.72%. CONCLUSION: Standards are provided for classifying neonatal growth outcomes with a parameter quantifying growth pathology that was based on individualized growth potentials.
Authors: Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2013-09-12