Abstract:Objective: To compare the predictive performance of estimated fetal weight (EFW) percentiles, according to eight growth standards, to detect fetuses at risk for adverse perinatal outcome. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 3437 African-American women. Population-based (Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st , World Health Organization (WHO), Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF)), ethnicity-specific (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)), customized (Gestation-Related Optimal Weight (GROW)) and African-American customized (Perinatology Research Branch (PRB)/NICHD) growth standards were used to calculate EFW percentiles from the last available scan prior to delivery. Prediction performance indices and relative risk (RR) were calculated for EFW < 10th and > 90th percentiles, according to each standard, for individual and composite adverse perinatal outcomes. Sensitivity at a fixed (10%) false-positive rate (FPR) and partial (FPR < 10%) and full areas under the receiver-operating-characteristics curves (AUC) were compared between the standards. Results: Ten percent (341/3437) of neonates were classified as small-for-gestational age (SGA) at birth, and of these 16.4% (56/341) had at least one adverse perinatal outcome. SGA neonates had a 1.5-fold increased risk of any adverse perinatal outcome (P < 0.05). The screen-positive rate of EFW < 10th percentile varied from 6.8% (NICHD) to 24.4% (FMF). EFW < 10th percentile, according to all standards, was associated with an increased risk for each of the adverse perinatal outcomes considered (P < 0.05 for all). The highest RRs associated with EFW < 10th percentile for each adverse outcome were 5.1 (95% CI, 2.1-12.3) for perinatal mortality (WHO); 5.0 (95% CI, 3.2-7.8) for perinatal hypoglycemia (NICHD); 3.4 (95% CI, 2.4-4.7) for mechanical ventilation (NICHD); 2.9 (95% CI, 1.8-4.6) for 5-min Apgar score < 7 (GROW); 2.7 (95% CI, 2.0-3.6) for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (NICHD); and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.9-3.1) for composite adverse perinatal outcome (NICHD). Although the RR CIs overlapped among all standards for each individual outcome, the RR of composite adverse perinatal outcome in pregnancies with EFW < 10th percentile was higher according to the NICHD (2.46; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1) than the FMF (1.47; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8) standard. The sensitivity for composite adverse perinatal outcome varied substantially between standards, ranging from 15% for NICHD to 32% for FMF, due mostly to differences in FPR; this variation subsided when the FPR was set to the same value (10%). Analysis of AUC revealed significantly better performance for the prediction of perinatal mortality by the PRB/NICHD standard (AUC = 0.70) compared with the Hadlock (AUC = 0.66) and FMF (AUC = 0.64) standards. Evaluation of partial AUC (FPR < 10%) demonstrated that the INTERGROWTH-21st standard performed better than the Hadlock standard for the prediction of NICU admission and mechanical ventilation (P < 0.05 for both). Although fetuses with EFW > 90th percentile were also at risk for any adverse perinatal outcome according to the INTERGROWTH-21st (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9) and Hadlock (RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6) standards, many times fewer cases (2-5-fold lower sensitivity) were detected by using EFW > 90th percentile, rather than EFW < 10th percentile, in screening by these standards. Conclusions: Fetuses with EFW < 10th percentile or EFW > 90th percentile were at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes according to all or some of the eight growth standards, respectively. The RR of a composite adverse perinatal outcome in pregnancies with EFW < 10th percentile was higher for the most-stringent (NICHD) compared with the least-stringent (FMF) standard. The results of the complementary analysis of AUC suggest slightly improved detection of adverse perinatal outcome by more recent population-based (INTERGROWTH-21st ) and customized (PRB/NICHD) standards compared with the Hadlock and FMF standards. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Comparison of fetal growth patterns from Western India with Intergrowth-21st

Comparison of fetal growth patterns from Western India with Intergrowth-21 st

Comparison of the INTERGROWTH-21st, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and WHO fetal growth standards

Reference gender-specific neonatal size at birth growth curves for singleton and twin neonates from North India

EP08.49: Comparative assessment of antenatal growth charts in identifying small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses in Indian population

International gestational age-specific centiles for umbilical artery Doppler indices: a longitudinal prospective cohort study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

Fetal growth curves for an ethnically diverse military population: the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine-accredited platform experience

Fetal Growth Curves: Is There a Universal Reference?

Conditional Standards for the Quantification of Foetal Growth in an Ethnic Chinese Population: a Longitudinal Study.

Which Fetal Growth Charts Should Be Used? A Retrospective Observational Study in China

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

Accurate birth weight prediction from fetal biometry using the Gompertz model

Impact of a Stage-Based Classification on the Incidence of Fetal Growth Restriction, Preterm Birth Rates and Birthweight in a Rural Community of Central India

EP08.50: Comparative assessment of antenatal growth charts in estimating femur length in Indian population

Differences in Postnatal Growth of Preterm Infants in Northern China Compared to the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by fetal biometry: comparison of customized and population-based standards

Development and external validation of Indian population-specific Garbhini-GA2 model for estimating gestational age in second and third trimesters

Which fetal biometry charts should be used? A large validation study in mainland China

OC04.11: Fetal Growth Velocity References from a Chinese Population‐based Fetal Growth Study

Outcome dependent growth curves for singleton pregnancies based on birth weight of babies for Polish population

Growth Parameters of under 2-year-old Indian Children: A Comparison to WHO MGRS 2006 Charts