Neonatal and fetal growth charts to identify preterm infants <30 weeks gestation at risk of adverse outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 219 (2) ◽  
pp. 195.e1-195.e14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nansi S. Boghossian ◽  
Marco Geraci ◽  
Erika M. Edwards ◽  
Jeffrey D. Horbar
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Choi ◽  
Adrienne Gordon ◽  
Lisa Hilder ◽  
Amanda Henry ◽  
Jon A. Hyett ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Abnormal fetal growth is a risk factor for perinatal mortality and morbidity. There is considerable debate about the choice and performance of growth charts to classify newborns as small or large for gestational age (SGA and LGA) as a proxy for the at-risk infants. Several international charts have been proposed to be adopted worldwide. We aim to evaluate the performance of commonly-used growth charts (including international INTERGROWTH-21st-standards) for predicting adverse outcomes among SGA and LGA babies. Methods A population cohort of 2.4 million singleton births (24+0–40+6 weeks) delivered in Australia, 2004–2013. Performance was evaluated by prevalence, relative risk and diagnostic accuracy for adverse outcome based on AUC. Results There was wide variation in SGA and LGA classification across charts. For example, compared to other charts, the INTERGROWTH-21st-standards classified half of the number of term-SGA babies (prevalence: 3-4% vs. 7-10%) (&lt;10th-centile) and double the number of LGA babies (prevalence: 24-25% vs. 8-18%) (&gt;90th-centile), resulting in a smaller cohort of term-SGA at higher-risk of adverse outcome, and a larger LGA cohort with lower-risk of adverse outcome. All charts performed poorly for detecting adverse outcomes (AUC range for a composite outcome: 0.49-0.68) and across birthweight centiles. Conclusions Significant differences in the classification of newborns and the chart performance raises concerns about whether the INTERGROWTH-21st-standards are applicable to a multi-ethnic population such as Australia. Key messages Significant differences in the classification of newborns and the relatively poor predictive ability of growth charts means that over reliance on infant size alone may misclassify, and thus miss at-risk infants.


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Pritchard ◽  
Susan Walker ◽  
Stephen Tong ◽  
Anthea Lindquist

Abstract Background Sex impacts birthweight, with male babies heavier on average. However, growth charts in pregnancy are often sex-neutral. Small babies (&lt;10th centile) are at risk of adverse outcomes. We aimed to identify the impact of using sex-specific charts during pregnancy, and if this detected more babies at risk of stillbirth. Methods Retrospective cohort study including all infants born in Victoria from 2005-2015 (n = 529,261). We applied the same growth centiles, either adjusted or not adjusted for fetal sex. We compared overall &lt;10th centile populations, populations of males considered small by sex-specific charts only, and populations of females considered small by sex-neutral charts only. Stillbirth risk was our primary outcome. Results Of those &lt;10th centile by sex-neutral charts, 39.6% were male and 60.5% female, but using sex-specific charts, 50.3% were male and 49.7% female. 19.2% of &lt; 10th centile females were reclassified as &gt; 10th centile using sex-specific charts. These females were not at increased risk of stillbirth or adverse outcomes compared with a healthy weight infant, but were at greater risk of being delivered by obstetricians on suspicion of growth restriction. A further 25.0% of male infants were reclassified as &lt; 10th centile by sex-specific charts. These male newborns, compared to a healthy weight baby, were at greater risk of stillbirth (RR 1.94, 95%CI 1.30-2.90) and other adverse outcomes. Conclusions Use of growth centiles not adjusted for fetal sex disproportionately classifies female infants as &lt; 10th centile, increasing their risk of unnecessary intervention, and fails to identify a cohort of male infants at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth. Key messages Male babies are heavier than female babies. Thus, ultrasound charts growth charts should be sex-specific.


Author(s):  
Leah Zilversmit Pao ◽  
Emily W. Harville ◽  
Jeffrey K. Wickliffe ◽  
Arti Shankar ◽  
Pierre Buekens

Metals, stress, and sociodemographics are commonly studied separately for their effects on birth outcomes, yet often jointly contribute to adverse outcomes. This study analyzes two methods for measuring cumulative risk to understand how maternal chemical and nonchemical stressors may contribute to small for gestational age (SGA). SGA was calculated using sex-specific fetal growth curves for infants of pregnant mothers (n = 2562) enrolled in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Study. The exposures (maternal lead, mercury, cadmium, Cohen’s perceived stress, Edinburgh depression scores, race/ethnicity, income, and education) were grouped into three domains: metals, psychosocial stress, and sociodemographics. In Method 1 we created cumulative risk scores using tertiles. Method 2 employed weighted quantile sum (WQS) regression. For each method, logistic models were built with three exposure domains individually and race/ethnicity, adjusting for age, parity, pregnancy weight gain, and marital status. The adjusted effect of overall cumulative risk with three domains, was also modeled using each method. Sociodemographics was the only exposure associated with SGA in unadjusted models ((odds ratio) OR: 1.35, 95% (confidence interval) CI: 1.08, 1.68). The three cumulative variables in adjusted models were not significant individually, but the overall index was associated with SGA (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.35). In the WQS model, only the sociodemographics domain was significantly associated with SGA. Sociodemographics tended to be the strongest risk factor for SGA in both risk score and WQS models.


Placenta ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 70-77
Author(s):  
Nir Melamed ◽  
Liran Hiersch ◽  
Amir Aviram ◽  
Elad Mei-Dan ◽  
Sarah Keating ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document