Third-trimester growth diversity in small fetuses classified as appropriate-for-gestational age or small-for-gestational age at birth
- PMID: 33998089
- DOI: 10.1002/uog.23688
Third-trimester growth diversity in small fetuses classified as appropriate-for-gestational age or small-for-gestational age at birth
Abstract
Objective: We have shown previously that third-trimester growth in small fetuses (estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile) with birth weight (BW) < 10th percentile is heterogeneous using individualized growth assessment (IGA). We aimed to test our hypothesis that individual growth patterns in small fetuses with BW > 10th percentile are also variable but in different ways.
Methods: This was a study of 191 cases with EFW < 10th percentile and BW > 10th percentile (appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) cohort), derived from the PORTO study. Composite size parameters were used to quantify growth pathology at individual third-trimester timepoints (individual composite prenatal growth assessment score (-icPGAS)). The fetal growth pathology score 1 (-FGPS1), calculated cumulatively from serial -icPGAS values, was used to characterize third-trimester growth patterns. Vascular-system evaluation included umbilical artery (UA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler velocimetry. Outcome variables were birth age (preterm/term delivery) and BW (expressed as growth potential realization index for weight (GPRIWT ) and percentile). The findings from the AGA cohort were compared with those from small fetuses (EFW < 10th percentile) with BW < 10th percentile (small-for-gestational-age (SGA) cohort).
Results: The AGA cohort was found to have 134 fetuses (70%) with normal growth pattern and 57 (30%) with growth restriction based on IGA criteria. Seven growth-restriction -FGPS1 patterns were observed, including the previously defined progressive, late, adaptive and recovering types. The recovering type was the most common growth pattern in the AGA cohort (50.9%). About one-third of fetuses without any evidence of growth restriction had significant unexplained abnormalities in the UA (34%) and MCA (31%) and elevated mean GPRIWT values (113 ± 12.5%). Comparison of the AGA and SGA cohorts indicated a significant difference in the distribution of -FGPS1 growth patterns (P = 0.0001). Compared with the SGA cohort, the AGA cohort had more fetuses with a normal growth pattern (70% vs 38%) and fewer cases with growth restriction (30% vs 62%). While the recovering type was the most common growth-restriction pattern in the AGA cohort (51%), the progressive type was the primary growth-restriction pattern in the SGA cohort (44%). No difference in the incidence of MCA or UA abnormality was found between the SGA and AGA cohorts when comparing subgroups of more than 10 fetuses.
Conclusions: Both normal-growth and growth-restriction patterns were observed in the AGA cohort using IGA, as seen previously in the SGA cohort. The seven types of growth restriction defined in the SGA cohort were also identified in AGA cases, but their distribution was significantly different. In one-third of cases without evidence of growth pathology in the AGA cohort, Doppler abnormalities in the UA and MCA were seen. This heterogeneity underscores the difficulty of accurate classification of fetal and neonatal growth status using conventional population-based methods. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Keywords: birth-weight classification; growth pattern; individualized growth assessment.
© 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Similar articles
-
Growth patterns and cardiovascular abnormalities in SGA fetuses: 2. Normal growth and progressive growth restriction.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Jul;35(14):2818-2827. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1807506. Epub 2020 Sep 13. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022. PMID: 32924675
-
Growth patterns and cardiovascular abnormalities in SGA fetuses: 3. Late, adaptive and recovering growth restriction.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Jul;35(14):2808-2817. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1803262. Epub 2020 Sep 16. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022. PMID: 32938245
-
Prediction of small-for-gestational age and fetal growth restriction at routine ultrasound examination at 35-37 weeks' gestation.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Jun;65(6):761-770. doi: 10.1002/uog.29223. Epub 2025 Apr 26. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025. PMID: 40286315 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical impact of Doppler reference charts on management of small-for-gestational-age fetuses: need for standardization.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;56(2):166-172. doi: 10.1002/uog.20380. Epub 2020 Jun 30. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 31237023
-
The importance of the cerebroplacental ratio in the evaluation of fetal well-being in SGA and AGA fetuses.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):5-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.024. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015. PMID: 26113227 Review.
Cited by
-
Ultrasound parameters of arteries and heart in normal fetuses.Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2024 Jul 29;22(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12947-024-00328-w. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2024. PMID: 39075466 Free PMC article.
-
Fetal growth restriction and stillbirth: Biomarkers for identifying at risk fetuses.Front Physiol. 2022 Aug 19;13:959750. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.959750. eCollection 2022. Front Physiol. 2022. PMID: 36060697 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Fetal Growth Velocity-A Breakthrough in Intrauterine Growth Assessment?J Clin Med. 2024 Jun 29;13(13):3842. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133842. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38999408 Free PMC article. Review.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Steckel RH. Birth weights and stillbirths in historical perspective. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998; 52 (Suppl 1): S16-S20.
-
- Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1967; 71: 159-163.
-
- Deter RL, Harrist RB. Assessment of normal fetal growth. In Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chervenak FA, Isaacson G, Campbell S (eds). Little, Brown and Co: Boston, MA, USA, 1993; 361-385.
-
- Monier I, Blondel B, Ego A, Kaminiski M, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG 2015; 122: 518-527.
-
- Poljak B, Agarwal U, Jackson R, Alfirevic Z, Sharp A. Diagnostic accuracy of individual antenatal tools for prediction of small-for-gestational age at birth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 493-499.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous