Comparing Fetal Ultrasound Biometric Measurements to Neonatal Anthropometry at the Extremes of Birthweight

Author:

Gleason Jessica L.1ORCID,Hediger Mary L.1,Chen Zhen2,Grewal Jagteshwar3,Newman Roger4,Grobman William A.5,Owen John6,Grantz Katherine L.1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Epidemiology Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

2. Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

3. Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Office of the Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

Abstract

Objective Error in birthweight prediction by sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) has clinical implications, such as avoidable cesarean or misclassification of fetal risk in labor. We aimed to evaluate optimal timing of ultrasound and which fetal measurements contribute to error in fetal ultrasound estimations of birth size at the extremes of birthweight. Study Design We compared differences in head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length, and EFW between ultrasound and corresponding birth measurements within 14 (n = 1,290) and 7 (n = 617) days of birth for small- (SGA, <10th percentile), appropriate- (AGA, 10th–90th), and large-for-gestational age (LGA, >90th) newborns. Results Average differences between EFW and birthweight for SGA neonates were: −40.2 g (confidence interval [CI]: −82.1, 1.6) at 14 days versus 13.6 g (CI: −52.4, 79.7) at 7 days; for AGA, −122.4 g (−139.6, −105.1) at 14 days versus −27.2 g (−50.4, −4.0) at 7 days; and for LGA, −242.8 g (−306.5, −179.1) at 14 days versus −72.1 g (−152.0, 7.9) at 7 days. Differences between fetal and neonatal HC were larger at 14 versus 7 days, and similar to patterns for EFW and birthweight, differences were the largest for LGA at both intervals. In contrast, differences between fetal and neonatal AC were larger at 7 versus 14 days, suggesting larger error in AC estimation closer to birth. Conclusion Using a standardized ultrasound protocol, SGA neonates had ultrasound measurements closer to actual birth measurements compared with AGA or LGA neonates. LGA neonates had the largest differences between fetal and neonatal size, with measurements 14 days from delivery showing 3- to 4-fold greater differences from birthweight. Differences in EFW and birthweight may not be explained by a single fetal measurement; whether estimation may be improved by incorporation of other knowable factors should be evaluated in future research. Key Points

Funder

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Reference39 articles.

1. Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy;M Scioscia;Obstet Gynecol,2008

2. Assessment of the accuracy of multiple sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas: a 10-year experience from a single center;O Barel;J Ultrasound Med,2013

3. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review;A Coomarasamy;BJOG,2005

4. Predicting large fetuses at birth: do multiple ultrasound examinations and longitudinal statistical modelling improve prediction?;J Zhang;Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol,2012

5. Comparing INTERGROWTH-21st century and Hadlock growth standards to predict small for gestational age and short-term neonatal outcomes;C Nwabuobi;J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med,2020

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3