Isolated Abdominal Circumference < 5% or Estimated Fetal Weight 10 to 19% as Predictors of Small for Gestational Age Infants

被引:8
|
作者
Turitz, Amy L. [1 ]
Quant, Hayley [1 ]
Schwartz, Nadav [1 ]
Elovitz, Michal [1 ]
Bastek, Jamie A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Perelman Sch Med, Maternal & Child Hlth Res Program, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
abdominal circumference; estimated fetal weight; intrauterine growth restriction; small for gestational age; ultrasound; INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RESTRICTION; ULTRASOUND; RETARDATION; DIAGNOSIS; BIRTH;
D O I
10.1055/s-0033-1353438
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives To determine whether (1) isolated fetal abdominal circumference < 5% (AC5) in absence of growth restriction (estimated fetal weight < 10% [EFW10]) or (2) borderline fetal growth 10 to 19% (EFW10-19) predicts subsequent fetal and/or neonatal growth restriction. Study Design The authors performed a retrospective cohort study (January 2008 to December 2011) of women with singleton pregnancies between 26 and 36 weeks who had >= 1 growth ultrasound. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the association between isolated AC5 or EFW10-19 with both subsequent sonographic diagnosis of EFW10 and neonatal diagnosis of small for gestational age (SGA). Test characteristics were calculated. Results Out of the 10,642 pregnancies, prevalence of isolated AC5, EFW10-19, EFW10, and SGA were as follows: AC5, 5.31%; EFW10-19, 13.30%; EFW10, 7.95%; and SGA, 17.63%. While screening for SGA using EFW10 alone would miss 68.34% of SGA neonates, using isolated AC5 would identify an additional 16.15% of SGA neonates with a 3.7% false positive rate. Using EFW10-19 would identify an additional 40.20% of SGA neonates with a 9.0% false positive rate. Conclusion Fetuses with isolated AC5 or EFW10-19 are at an increased risk of growth restriction. Using isolated AC5 or composite EFW10-19 would identify SGA neonates that are missed using conventional sonographic definitions of growth restriction alone.
引用
收藏
页码:469 / 475
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [21] Fetal cardiac function in late-onset intrauterine growth restriction vs small-for-gestational age, as defined by estimated fetal weight, cerebroplacental ratio and uterine artery Doppler
    Perez-Cruz, M.
    Cruz-Lemini, M.
    Fernandez, M. T.
    Parra, J. A.
    Bartrons, J.
    Gomez-Roig, M. D.
    Crispi, F.
    Gratacos, E.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 46 (04) : 465 - 471
  • [22] Neonatal Outcomes among Fetuses with an Abdominal Circumference &lt;3rd %ile and Estimated Fetal Weight 3rd to 9th %ile Compared to Fetuses with an EFW&lt;3rd %ile
    Horgan, Rebecca
    Nehme, Lea
    Jensen, Hannah J.
    Shah, Anika P.
    Saal, Ryan
    Onishi, Kazuma
    Kawakita, Tetsuya
    Martins, Juliana G.
    Abuhamad, Alfred
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2024, 41 (09) : 1120 - 1125
  • [23] Combined Influence of Gestational Weight Gain and Estimated Fetal Weight on Risk Assessment for Small- or Large-for-Gestational-Age Birth Weight A Prospective Cohort Study
    Pugh, Sarah J.
    Hinkle, Stefanie N.
    Kim, Sungduk
    Albert, Paul S.
    Newman, Roger
    Grobman, William A.
    Wing, Deborah A.
    Grantz, Katherine L.
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2018, 37 (04) : 935 - 940
  • [24] The clinical significance of an estimated fetal weight below the 10th percentile: a comparison of outcomes of &lt;5th vs 5th-9th percentile
    Mlynarczyk, Malgorzata
    Chauhan, Suneet P.
    Baydoun, Hind A.
    Wilkes, Catherine M.
    Earhart, Kimberly R.
    Zhao, Yili
    Goodier, Christopher
    Chang, Eugene
    Plenty, Nicole M. Lee
    Mize, E. Kaitlyn
    Owens, Michelle
    Babbar, Shilpa
    Maulik, Dev
    DeFranco, Emily
    McKinney, David
    Abuhamad, Alfred Z.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 217 (02) : 198.e1 - 198.e11
  • [25] Competing-risks model for prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonate from estimated fetal weight at 19-24 weeks' gestation
    Papastefanou, I.
    Nowacka, U.
    Syngelaki, A.
    Dragoi, V.
    Karamanis, G.
    Wright, D.
    Nicolaides, K. H.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 57 (06) : 917 - 924
  • [26] Comparing the relation between ultrasound-estimated fetal weight and birthweight in cohort of small-for-gestational-age fetuses
    Stephens, Katie
    Al-Memar, Maya
    Beattie-Jones, Suzanne
    Dhanjal, Mandish
    Mappouridou, Stephanie
    Thorne, Elizabeth
    Lees, Christoph
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2019, 98 (11) : 1435 - 1441
  • [27] Using fetal abdominal circumference growth velocity in the prediction of adverse outcome in near-term small-for-gestational-age fetuses
    Cavallaro, A.
    Veglia, M.
    Svirko, E.
    Vannuccini, S.
    Volpe, G.
    Impey, L.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 52 (04) : 494 - 500
  • [28] Small fetal abdominal circumference in the second trimester and subsequent low maternal plasma glucose after a glucose challenge test is associated with the delivery of a small-for-gestational age neonate
    Bienstock, J. L.
    Holcroft, C. J.
    Althaus, J.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 31 (05) : 517 - 519
  • [29] Enhancing Small-for-Gestational-Age Prediction: Multi-Country Validation of Nuchal Thickness, Estimated Fetal Weight, and Machine Learning Models
    Deng, Jiaxuan
    Sethi, Neha Sethi Ap Naresh
    Kamar, Azanna Ahmad
    Saaid, Rahmah
    Loo, Chu Kiong
    Mattar, Citra Nurfarah Zaini
    Jalil, Nurul Syazwani
    Saw, Shier Nee
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2025, : 374 - 386