S'abonner

Fetal size vs growth: comparative analysis of 3 models of growth velocity based on third trimester estimated fetal weights for identifying stillbirth risk - 24/01/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.029 
Oliver Hugh, MSc a, Joyce Cowan, DHSc b, Emily Butler, BSc (Hons) a, Jason Gardosi, MD, FRCOG a,
a Perinatal Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom 
b Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand 

Corresponding author: Jason Gardosi, MD., FRCOG
Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Wednesday 24 January 2024

Abstract

Background

Fetal growth velocity is being recognized as an important parameter by which to monitor fetal wellbeing, in addition to assessment of fetal size. However, there are different models and standards in use by which velocity is being assessed.

Objective

We wanted to investigate 3 clinically applied methods of assessing growth velocity and their ability to identify stillbirth risk, in addition to that associated with small for gestational age.

Study Design

Retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded routine-care data of pregnancies with 2 or more third trimester scans in New Zealand. Results of the last 2 scans were used for the analysis. The models investigated to define slow growth were (1) 50+ centile drop between measurements, (2) 30+ centile drop, and (3) estimated fetal weight below a projected optimal weight range, based on predefined, scan interval specific cut-offs to define normal growth. Each method’s ability to identify stillbirth risk was assessed against that associated with small-for-gestational age at last scan.

Results

The study cohort consisted of 71,576 pregnancies. The last 2 scans in each pregnancy were performed at an average of 32+1 and 35+6 weeks of gestation. The 3 models defined “slow growth” at the following differing rates: (1) 50-centile drop 0.9%, (2) 30-centile drop 5.1%, and (3) below projected optimal weight range 10.8%. Neither of the centile-based models identified at-risk cases that were not also small for gestational age at last scan. The projected weight range method identified an additional 79% of non–small-for-gestational-age cases as slow growth, and these were associated with a significantly increased stillbirth risk (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2–3.4).

Conclusion

Centile-based methods fail to reflect adequacy of fetal weight gain at the extremes of the distribution. Guidelines endorsing such models might hinder the potential benefits of antenatal assessment of fetal growth velocity. A new, measurement-interval-specific projection model of expected fetal weight gain can identify fetuses that are not small for gestational age, yet at risk of stillbirth because of slow growth. The velocity between scans can be calculated using a freely available growth rate calculator (growthrate).

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Video


(9.32 Mo)

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : antenatal surveillance, estimated fetal weight, fetal death, fetal growth restriction, growth deceleration, growth velocity, small for gestational age, stillbirth


Plan


 O.H., E.B. and J.G. work for the Perinatal Institute, a not-for-profit social enterprise which provides training and software tools for fetal growth assessment. J.C. reports no conflict of interest.
 Cite this article as: Hugh O, Cowan J, Butler E, et al. Fetal size vs growth: comparative analysis of 3 models of growth velocity based on third trimester estimated fetal weights for identifying stillbirth risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;XX:x.ex–x.ex.


© 2023  The Author(s). Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.