Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(S 01): e46-e56
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705114
Original Article

Customized versus Population Growth Standards for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Stratification Using Ultrasonographic Fetal Growth Assessment at 22 to 29 Weeks' Gestation

Nathan R. Blue 
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
William A. Grobman
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Jacob C. Larkin
3   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Christina M. Scifres
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Hyagriv N. Simhan
3   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Judith H. Chung
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
,
George R. Saade
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
David M. Haas
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Ronald Wapner
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Uma M. Reddy
8   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Brian Mercer
9   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Samuel I. Parry
10   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Robert M. Silver
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
› Author Affiliations Funding The study is supported by grant funding from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1K12 HD085816, U10 HD063020, U10 HD063037, U10 HD063041, U10 HD063046, U10 HD063047, U10 HD063048, U10 HD063053, and U10 HD063072).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of study is to compare the performance of ultrasonographic customized and population fetal growth standards for prediction adverse perinatal outcomes.

Study Design This was a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, in which l data were collected at visits throughout pregnancy and after delivery. Percentiles were assigned to estimated fetal weights (EFWs) measured at 22 to 29 weeks using the Hadlock population standard and a customized standard (www.gestation.net). Areas under the curve were compared for the prediction of composite and severe composite perinatal morbidity using EFW percentile.

Results Among 8,701 eligible study participants, the population standard diagnosed more fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR) than the customized standard (5.5 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). Neither standard performed better than chance to predict composite perinatal morbidity. Although the customized performed better than the population standard to predict severe perinatal morbidity (areas under the curve: 0.56 vs. 0.54, p = 0.003), both were poor. Fetuses considered FGR by the population standard but normal by the customized standard had morbidity rates similar to fetuses considered normally grown by both standards.

The population standard diagnosed FGR among black women and Hispanic women at nearly double the rate it did among white women (p < 0.001 for both comparisons), even though morbidity was not different across racial/ethnic groups. The customized standard diagnosed FGR at similar rates across groups. Using the population standard, 77% of FGR cases were diagnosed among female fetuses even though morbidity among females was lower (p < 0.001). The customized model diagnosed FGR at similar rates in male and female fetuses.

Conclusion At 22 to 29 weeks' gestation, EFW percentile alone poorly predicts perinatal morbidity whether using customized or population fetal growth standards. The population standard diagnoses FGR at increased rates in subgroups not at increased risk of morbidity and at lower rates in subgroups at increased risk of morbidity, whereas the customized standard does not.

Keywords

customized fetal growth standard - fetal growth restriction - intrauterine growth curve - perinatal morbidity


Publication History

Received: 02 October 2019

Accepted: 27 January 2020

Article published online:
20 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Crispi F, Miranda J, Gratacós E. Long-term cardiovascular consequences of fetal growth restriction: biology, clinical implications, and opportunities for prevention of adult disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (Suppl. 02) S869-S879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Restriction FG. Practice Bulletin No. 204. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e97-e109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Dowswell T. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6: CD007529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gardosi J, Francis A. A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (01) 25.e1-25.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Carberry AE, Raynes-Greenow CH, Turner RM, Jeffery HE. Customized versus population-based birth weight charts for the detection of neonatal growth and perinatal morbidity in a cross-sectional study of term neonates. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 178 (08) 1301-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Costantine MM, Lai Y, Bloom SL. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Population versus customized fetal growth norms and adverse outcomes in an intrapartum cohort. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30 (04) 335-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Francis A, Hugh O, Gardosi J. Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (2S): S692-S699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gardosi J, Clausson B, Francis A. The value of customised centiles in assessing perinatal mortality risk associated with parity and maternal size. BJOG 2009; 116 (10) 1356-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gardosi J, Francis A. Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (01) 28.e1-28.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Platt RW. Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter?. BJOG 2008; 115 (11) 1397-1404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Iliodromiti S, Mackay DF, Smith GC. et al. Customised and noncustomised birth weight centiles and prediction of stillbirth and infant mortality and morbidity: a cohort study of 979,912 term singleton pregnancies in Scotland. PLoS Med 2017; 14 (01) e1002228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sovio U, Smith GCS. The effect of customization and use of a fetal growth standard on the association between birthweight percentile and adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (Suppl. 02) S738-S744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Blue NR, Beddow ME, Savabi M, Katukuri VR, Chao CR. Comparing the Hadlock fetal growth standard to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development racial/ethnic standard for the prediction of neonatal morbidity and small for gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (05) 474.e1-474.e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gardosi J, Francis A, Williams M, Hugh O, Loi S. . Customized Centile Calculator GROW. 8.0.2 ed: Gestation network. Accessed February, 2018 at: https://www.gestation.net/PDFs/Gardosi_et_al_Cust_growth_charts_AJOG_2018.pdf
    PubMed
  • 16 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181 (01) 129-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Haas DM, Parker CB, Wing DA. et al; NuMoM2b study. A description of the methods of the nulliparous pregnancy outcomes study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 539.e1-539.e24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (03) 333-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Blue NR, Savabi M, Beddow ME. et al. The Hadlock method is superior to newer methods for the prediction of the birth weight percentile. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38 (03) 587-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (03) 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Dubey SD. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med 1997; 16 (22) 2529-2542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 NCSS 12 Statistical Software. 2018 . Accessed February 10, 2020 at: https://www.ncss.com/download/ncss/updates/ncss-12/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, McCowan LME. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (04) 509.e1-509.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chiossi G, Pedroza C, Costantine MM, Truong VTT, Gargano G, Saade GR. Customized vs population-based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (02) 156-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Groom KM, Poppe KK, North RA, McCowan LM. Small-for-gestational-age infants classified by customized or population birthweight centiles: impact of gestational age at delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (03) 239.e1-239.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Larkin JC, Hill LM, Speer PD, Simhan HN. Risk of morbid perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies: customized compared with conventional standards of fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119 (01) 21-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McCowan LM, Harding JE, Stewart AW. Customized birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity. BJOG 2005; 112 (08) 1026-1033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Moussa HN, Wu ZH, Han Y. et al. Customized versus population fetal growth norms and adverse outcomes associated with small for gestational age infants in a high-risk cohort. Am J Perinatol 2015; 32 (07) 621-626
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Zhang X, Platt RW, Cnattingius S, Joseph KS, Kramer MS. The use of customised versus population-based birthweight standards in predicting perinatal mortality. BJOG 2007; 114 (04) 474-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dua A, Schram C. An investigation into the applicability of customised charts for the assessment of fetal growth in antenatal population at Blackburn, Lancashire, UK. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26 (05) 411-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kabiri D, Romero R, Gudicha DW. et al. Prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes by fetal biometry: a comparison of customized and population-based standards. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55 (02) 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Owen P, Ogah J, Bachmann LM, Khan KS. Prediction of intrauterine growth restriction with customised estimated fetal weight centiles. BJOG 2003; 110 (04) 411-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ganzevoort W, Thilaganathan B, Baschat A, Gordijn SJ. Point. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (01) 74-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gardosi J. Counterpoint. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220: 74-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar