Literature DB >> 35183799

Predictive performance of newborn small for gestational age by a United States intrauterine vs birthweight-derived standard for short-term neonatal morbidity and mortality.

Nathan R Blue, Lisa Mele, William A Grobman, Jennifer L Bailit, Ronald J Wapner, John M Thorp, Steve N Caritis, Mona Prasad, Alan T N Tita, George R Saade, Dwight J Rouse, Sean C Blackwell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of birthweight standards to define small for gestational age may fail to identify neonates affected by poor fetal growth as they include births associated with suboptimal fetal growth.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare intrauterine vs birthweight-derived standards to define newborn small for gestational age to predict neonatal morbidity and mortality. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter observational study of 118,422 births. Live-born singleton, nonanomalous newborns born at 23 to 41 weeks of gestation were included. Those with missing gestational age estimation or without a first- or second-trimester ultrasound to confirm dating, birthweight, or neonatal outcome data were excluded. Birthweight percentile was computed using an intrauterine standard (Hadlock) and a birthweight-derived standard (Olsen). We compared the test characteristics of small for gestational age (birthweight of <10th percentile) by each standard to predict a composite neonatal morbidity and mortality outcome (death before discharge, neonatal intensive care unit admission >48 hours, respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, or seizures). Severe composite morbidity was analyzed as a secondary outcome and was defined as death, neonatal intensive care unit admission >7 days, necrotizing enterocolitis, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, or seizures. The areas under the curve using receiver-operating characteristic methodology and proportions of the primary outcome by small for gestational age status were compared by gestational age category at birth (<34, 34 0/7 to 36 6/7, ≥37 weeks).
RESULTS: Of 115,502 mother-newborn dyads in the parent study, 78,203 (67.7%) were included, with most exclusions occurring because of missing or inadequate dating information, multiple gestations, or delivery outside the gestational age range. The primary composite outcome occurred in 9.5% (95% confidence interval, 9.3-9.7), and the severe composite outcome occurred in 5.3% (95% confidence interval, 5.1-5.4). Small for gestational age was diagnosed by intrauterine and birthweight-derived standards in 14.8% and 7.4%, respectively (P<.001). Neonates considered small for gestational age only by the intrauterine standard experienced the primary outcome more than twice as often as those considered non-small for gestational age by both standards (18.4% vs 7.9%; P<.001). For the prediction of the primary outcome, small for gestational age by the intrauterine standard had higher sensitivity (29% vs 15%; P<.001) but lower specificity (87% vs 93%; P<.001) than by the birthweight standard. Both standards had weak performance overall, although the intrauterine standard had a higher area under the curve (0.58 vs 0.53; P<.001). When subanalyzed by gestational age at birth, the difference in areas under the curve was only present among preterm deliveries 34 to 36 competed weeks. Neither standard demonstrated any discrimination for morbidity prediction among term births (area under the curve, 0.50 for both). When the prediction of severe morbidity was compared, the intrauterine still had better overall prediction than the birthweight standard (areas under the curve, 0.65 vs 0.57; P<.001), although this also varied by gestational age at birth.
CONCLUSION: Among nonanomalous neonates, neither intrauterine nor birthweight-derived standards for small for gestational age accurately predicted neonatal morbidity and mortality, with no discriminatory ability at term. Small for gestational age intrauterine standards performed better than birthweight standards.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  birthweight; fetal growth restriction; fetal growth standard; neonatal morbidity; small for gestational age

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35183799      PMCID: PMC9097811          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM        ISSN: 2589-9333


  38 in total

1.  The case against customised birthweight standards.

Authors:  Jennifer A Hutcheon; Xun Zhang; Robert W Platt; Sven Cnattingius; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 3.980

2.  Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles.

Authors:  Jason Gardosi; Andre Francis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Prescriptive birthweight charts can improve the prediction of adverse outcomes in very preterm infants who are small for gestational age.

Authors:  Liset Hoftiezer; Renske G Snijders; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; Richard A van Lingen; Marije Hogeveen
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 2.299

4.  Population versus customized fetal growth norms and adverse outcomes in an intrapartum cohort.

Authors:  Maged M Costantine; Yinglei Lai; Steven L Bloom; Catherine Y Spong; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; Susan M Ramin; Steve N Caritis; Alan M Peaceman; Yoram Sorokin; Anthony Sciscione; Brian M Mercer; John M Thorp; Fergal D Malone; Margaret Harper; Jay D Iams
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  The risks of adverse neonatal outcome among preterm small for gestational age infants according to neonatal versus fetal growth standards.

Authors:  Win Zaw; Robert Gagnon; Orlando da Silva
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  The likeness of fetal growth and newborn size across non-isolated populations in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study and Newborn Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  José Villar; Aris T Papageorghiou; Ruyan Pang; Eric O Ohuma; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Fernando C Barros; Ann Lambert; Maria Carvalho; Yasmin A Jaffer; Enrico Bertino; Michael G Gravett; Doug G Altman; Manorama Purwar; Ihunnaya O Frederick; Julia A Noble; Cesar G Victora; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Stephen H Kennedy
Journal:  Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol       Date:  2014-07-06       Impact factor: 32.069

7.  The effect of customization and use of a fetal growth standard on the association between birthweight percentile and adverse perinatal outcome.

Authors:  Ulla Sovio; Gordon C S Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity.

Authors:  Ngaire H Anderson; Lynn C Sadler; Christopher J D McKinlay; Lesley M E McCowan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

Authors:  J Stirnemann; J Villar; L J Salomon; E Ohuma; P Ruyan; D G Altman; F Nosten; R Craik; S Munim; L Cheikh Ismail; F C Barros; A Lambert; S Norris; M Carvalho; Y A Jaffer; J A Noble; E Bertino; M G Gravett; M Purwar; C G Victora; R Uauy; Z Bhutta; S Kennedy; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-03-05       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 10.  A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants.

Authors:  Tanis R Fenton; Jae H Kim
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 2.125

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.