Prenatal prediction of adverse outcome using different charts and definitions of fetal growth restriction
Authors: Mascherpa M. , Pegoire C. , Meroni A. , Minopoli M. , Thilaganathan B. , Frick A. , Bhide A. 
Published: December 2023

ABSTRACTObjectiveAntenatal growth assessment using ultrasound aims to identify small fetuses that are at higher risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. This study explored whether the association between suboptimal fetal growth and adverse perinatal outcome varies with different definitions of fetal growth restriction (FGR) and different weight charts/standards.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 17 261 singleton non‐anomalous pregnancies at ≥ 24 + 0 weeks' gestation that underwent routine ultrasound at a tertiary referral hospital. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) and Doppler indices were converted into percentiles using a reference standard (INTERGROWTH‐21st (IG‐21)) and various reference charts (Hadlock, Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) and Swedish). Test characteristics were assessed using the consensus definition, Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine (SMFM) definition and Swedish criteria for FGR. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as perinatal death, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit at term, 5‐min Apgar score < 7 and therapeutic cooling for neonatal encephalopathy. The association between FGR according to each definition and adverse perinatal outcome was compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test the strength of association between ultrasound parameters and adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound parameters were also tested for correlation.ResultsIG‐21, Hadlock and FMF fetal size references classified as growth‐restricted 1.5%, 3.6% and 4.6% of fetuses, respectively, using the consensus definition and 2.9%, 8.8% and 10.6% of fetuses, respectively, using the SMFM definition. The sensitivity of the definition/chart combinations for adverse perinatal outcome varied from 4.4% (consensus definition with IG‐21 charts) to 13.2% (SMFM definition with FMF charts). Specificity varied from 89.4% (SMFM definition with FMF charts) to 98.6% (consensus definition with IG‐21 charts). The consensus definition and Swedish criteria showed the highest specificity, positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio in detecting adverse outcome, irrespective of the reference chart/standard used. Conversely, the SMFM definition had the highest sensitivity across all investigated growth charts. Low EFW, abnormal mean uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA‐PI) and abnormal cerebroplacental ratio were significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome and there was a positive correlation between the covariates. Multivariate logistic regression showed that UtA‐PI > 95th percentile and EFW < 5th percentile were the only parameters consistently associated with adverse outcome, irrespective of the definitions or fetal growth chart/standard used.ConclusionsThe apparent prevalence of FGR varies according to the definition and fetal size reference chart/standard used. Irrespective of the method of classification, the sensitivity for the identification of adverse perinatal outcome remains low. EFW, UtA‐PI and fetal Doppler parameters are significant predictors of adverse perinatal outcome. As these indices are correlated with one other, a prediction algorithm is advocated to overcome the limitations of using these parameters in isolation. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.