Objective
We sought to apply customized standards to ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight
(EFW), and assess the frequency of abnormal growth when compared to population-based
standards. We also evaluated association with adverse perinatal outcomes.
Study Design
This was a historical cohort using prenatal ultrasound examination data at ≥24 weeks
over a 1-year period. Ultrasound-derived EFW and growth percentile (population-based
EFW [popEFW]) were reported and compared to a customized EFW (custEFW).
Results
In all, 782 women met inclusion criteria. More fetuses were identified as small for
gestational age (SGA) (15.1% vs 3.8%; P < .0001) and large for gestational age (LGA) (6.8% vs 1.7%; P < .0001) using custEFW, and adverse perinatal outcomes were more frequent among those
identified by the custEFW compared to the popEFW. Both SGA and LGA diagnosed by custEFW
were predictive of a neonatal SGA (positive likelihood ratio, 8.64) and LGA (positive
likelihood ratio, 15.4).
Conclusion
CustEFW was a better predictor of abnormal birthweight and adverse outcomes compared
to traditional popEFW standards.
Key words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Creasy and Resnik's maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice.Saunders/Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA2009
- Antenatal testing–a reevaluation: executive summary of a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop.Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 687-701
- Approximately one-third of medically indicated late preterm births are complicated by fetal growth restriction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 263.e1-263.e4
- The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21: 86-96
- Fetal growth and perinatal viability in California.Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 59: 624-632
- A United States national reference for fetal growth.Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 87: 163-168
- A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 25.e1-25.e7
- Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 28.e1-28.e8
- Application of a customized birthweight standard in the assessment of perinatal outcome in a high risk population.Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105: 531-535
- Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customized versus population-based birthweight standards.BJOG. 2001; 108: 830-834
- A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 44: 428-431
- Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151: 333-337
- Prediction of intrauterine fetal death in small-for-gestational-age fetuses: impact of including ultrasound biometry in customized models.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 39: 288-292
- New definition of small for gestational age based on fetal growth potential.Horm Res. 2006; 65: 15-18
- A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 499.e1-499.e10
- Risk of morbid perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies: customized compared with conventional standards of fetal growth.Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119: 21-27
- Intrauterine growth as estimated from liveborn birth-weight data at 24 to 42 weeks of gestation.Pediatrics. 1963; 32: 793-800
- A standard of fetal growth for the United States of America.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976; 126: 555-564
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: June 14, 2012
Accepted:
June 6,
2012
Received in revised form:
April 17,
2012
Received:
March 13,
2012
Footnotes
This research was funded in part by the Larry C. Gilstrap, MD, Center for Perinatal and Women's Health Research.
The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Reprints not available from the author.
Cite this article as: Kase BA, Carreno CA, Blackwell SC. Customized estimated fetal weight: a novel antenatal tool to diagnose abnormal fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:218.e1-5.
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
