Accuracy of Sonographically Estimated Fetal Weight Near Delivery in Pregnancies Complicated With Diabetes Mellitus

被引:11
作者
Valent, Amy M. [1 ]
Newman, Tondra [2 ]
Kritzer, Sara [3 ]
Magner, Kristin
Warshak, Carri R.
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Obstet & Ginecol, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Dept Obstet & Ginecol Mount Carmel Hlth Syst, Columbus, OH USA
[3] Northwestern Med, Dept Obstet & Ginecol, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
birth weight; Delta fetal weight; diabetes mellitus; estimated fetal weight; obstetric ultrasound; sonographic estimation; BODY-MASS INDEX; BIRTH-WEIGHT; PREDICTION;
D O I
10.7863/ultra.15.12021
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives-The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of sonographic estimations of fetal weight (FW) and signed percent error between pregnant patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods-We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all singleton nonanomalous live births who delivered after 34 weeks and received a sonographic estimation of FW within 2 weeks of delivery at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center between 2008 and 2011. Our primary outcome compared the Delta FW and signed percent error between DM and non-DM pregnancies. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the prediction of FW greater than 4000 g in each study group. Linear regression analysis assessed correlation coefficients, R-2 values, and variance of the Delta FW by live birth weight. Results-The mean Delta FWs were 62 and 103 g for non-DM and DM pregnancies, respectively (P = .04). However, the signed percent error (mean +/- SD, 1.7% +/- 9.8% versus 2.6% +/- 69.9%; P = .15) was similar between the study groups. Linear regression comparing the Delta FW to the live birth weight revealed a weak correlation in DM (r = 0.34; R-2 = 0.11) and non-DM pregnancies, (r = 0.17; R-2 = 0.03) pregnancies. Overall sensitivity for the prediction of FW greater than 4000 g was poor (0.41 and 0.62 in non-DM and DM pregnancies). However, the specificity was high (0.97 and 0.99 for both groups). Conclusions-Although DM alters the biometric measurements of the fetus with increasing thoracoabdominal size, there are no clinically significant alterations in the accuracy of sonography for FW prediction when performed near delivery. Sonography is highly specific for birth weight greater than 4000 g, which is helpful for delivery planning and management.
引用
收藏
页码:593 / 599
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
Abuhamad A, 2014, ULTRASOUND OBSTET RI, P91
[2]  
ACOG, 2002, OBSTET GYNECOL, V99, P869
[3]   The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies [J].
Alsulyman, OM ;
Ouzounian, JG ;
Kjos, SL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 177 (03) :503-506
[4]  
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics, 2001, Obstet Gynecol, V98, P525
[5]   Ultrasonographic prediction of birth weight in diabetic pregnancies [J].
Best, G ;
Pressman, EK .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (05) :740-744
[6]  
Cai ZJ, 1999, WHO TECH REP SER, V887, P1
[7]   The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study Associations of GDM and obesity with pregnancy outcomes [J].
Catalano, Patrick M. ;
McIntyre, H. David ;
Cruickshank, J. Kennedy ;
McCance, David R. ;
Dyer, Alan R. ;
Metzger, Boyd E. ;
Lowe, Lynn P. ;
Trimble, Elisabeth R. ;
Coustan, Donald R. ;
Hadden, David R. ;
Persson, Bengt ;
Hod, Moshe ;
Oats, Jeremy J. N. .
DIABETES CARE, 2012, 35 (04) :780-786
[8]   LIPOGENESIS IN DEVELOPING HUMAN ADIPOSE-TISSUE [J].
DUNLOP, M ;
COURT, JM .
EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 1978, 2 (02) :123-130
[9]   The effect of body mass index on three methods of fetal weight estimation [J].
Farrell, T ;
Holmes, R ;
Stone, P .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2002, 109 (06) :651-657
[10]   Influence of Maternal Body Mass Index on the Clinical Estimation of Fetal Weight in Term Pregnancies [J].
Fox, Nathan S. ;
Bhavsar, Vrunda ;
Saltzman, Daniel H. ;
Rebarber, Andrei ;
Chasen, Stephen T. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 113 (03) :641-645