Comparing the relationship between ultrasound-estimated fetal weight and birthweight in cohort of small for gestational age fetuses
File(s)Stephens et al 2019 submission to AOGS.pdf (805.98 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Introduction
Small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) confers a higher perinatal risk of adverse outcomes. Birthweight cannot be accurately measured until delivery, therefore accurate estimated fetal weight (EFW) based on ultrasonography is important in identifying this high‐risk population. We aimed to establish the sensitivity of detecting SGA infants antenatally in a unit with a selective third‐trimester ultrasound policy and to investigate the association between EFW and birthweight in these babies.
Material and methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies delivered after 36 weeks of gestation where SGA (<10th percentile) was diagnosed at delivery. The EFW at the time of the third‐trimester ultrasound scan was recorded using standard Hadlock formulae.
Results
In 2017, there were 8392 non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies live born after 36 weeks, excluding late bookers. 797 were live‐born SGA <10th percentile for birthweight and 464 <5th percentile, who met our inclusion criteria. The antenatal detection rate of SGA was 19.6% for babies with birthweight <10th percentile and 24.1% <5th percentile. There was a significant correlation between the EFW and birthweight of fetuses undergoing ultrasound assessment within 2 weeks of delivery (P < .001, r = 0.73 (Pearson correlation). For these cases, EFW was greater than the birthweight in 65% of cases. After adjusting all EFWs using the discrepancy between EFW and actual birthweight for those babies born within 48 hours of the scan, the mean difference between the birthweight and adjusted EFW 7 days before delivery was 111 g (95% CI 87‐136 g) and at 14 days was 200 g (95% CI 153‐248 g). Despite adjusting the EFW, 61/213 cases (28.6%) apparently lost weight between the ultrasound scan and delivery.
Conclusions
Small‐for‐gestational‐age infants with a birthweight <10th percentile are poorly identified antenatally with little improvement for those <5th percentile. In SGA babies, ultrasound EFW overestimated birthweight. Discrepancies between birthweight and EFW are not explicable only by the limitations of third‐trimester sonography, a reduction in fetal weight close to delivery in a proportion of liveborn SGA babies is plausible.
Small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) confers a higher perinatal risk of adverse outcomes. Birthweight cannot be accurately measured until delivery, therefore accurate estimated fetal weight (EFW) based on ultrasonography is important in identifying this high‐risk population. We aimed to establish the sensitivity of detecting SGA infants antenatally in a unit with a selective third‐trimester ultrasound policy and to investigate the association between EFW and birthweight in these babies.
Material and methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies delivered after 36 weeks of gestation where SGA (<10th percentile) was diagnosed at delivery. The EFW at the time of the third‐trimester ultrasound scan was recorded using standard Hadlock formulae.
Results
In 2017, there were 8392 non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies live born after 36 weeks, excluding late bookers. 797 were live‐born SGA <10th percentile for birthweight and 464 <5th percentile, who met our inclusion criteria. The antenatal detection rate of SGA was 19.6% for babies with birthweight <10th percentile and 24.1% <5th percentile. There was a significant correlation between the EFW and birthweight of fetuses undergoing ultrasound assessment within 2 weeks of delivery (P < .001, r = 0.73 (Pearson correlation). For these cases, EFW was greater than the birthweight in 65% of cases. After adjusting all EFWs using the discrepancy between EFW and actual birthweight for those babies born within 48 hours of the scan, the mean difference between the birthweight and adjusted EFW 7 days before delivery was 111 g (95% CI 87‐136 g) and at 14 days was 200 g (95% CI 153‐248 g). Despite adjusting the EFW, 61/213 cases (28.6%) apparently lost weight between the ultrasound scan and delivery.
Conclusions
Small‐for‐gestational‐age infants with a birthweight <10th percentile are poorly identified antenatally with little improvement for those <5th percentile. In SGA babies, ultrasound EFW overestimated birthweight. Discrepancies between birthweight and EFW are not explicable only by the limitations of third‐trimester sonography, a reduction in fetal weight close to delivery in a proportion of liveborn SGA babies is plausible.
Date Issued
2019-11
Date Acceptance
2019-05-10
Citation
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2019, 98 (11), pp.1435-1441
ISSN
1600-0412
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
1435
End Page
1441
Journal / Book Title
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Volume
98
Issue
11
Copyright Statement
© 2019 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology. This is the accepted version of the following article: Stephens, K, Al‐Memar, M, Beattie‐Jones, S, et al. Comparing the relationship between ultrasound‐estimated fetal weight and birthweight in cohort of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 00: 1‐ 7., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13645
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31090917
Subjects
Small for gestational age
fetal growth
fetal growth restriction
fetal size
in utero compromise
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
United States
Date Publish Online
2019-05-15