2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fetal growth velocity references from a Chinese population–based fetal growth study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Fetal growth velocity standards have yet to be established for the Chinese population. This study aimed to establish such standards suitable for the Chinese population.

          Methods

          We performed a multicenter, population–based longitudinal cohort study including 9075 low–risk singleton pregnant women. Data were collected from the clinical records of 24 hospitals in 18 provinces of China. Demographic characteristics, reproductive history, fetal ultrasound measurements, and perinatal outcome data were collected. The fetal ultrasound measurements included biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC), and femur diaphysis length (FDL). We used linear mixed models with cubic splines to model the trajectory of four ultrasound parameters and estimate fetal weight. Fetal growth velocity was determined by calculating the first derivative of fetal size curves. We also used logistic regression to estimate the association between fetal growth velocities in the bottom 10th percentile and adverse perinatal outcomes.

          Results

          Fetal growth velocity was not consistent over time or among individuals. The estimated fetal weight (EFW) steadily increased beginning at 12 gestational weeks and peaked at 35 gestational weeks. The maximum velocity was 211.71 g/week, and there was a steady decrease in velocity from 35 to 40 gestational weeks. The four ultrasound measurements increased in the early second trimester; BPD and HC peaked at 13 gestational weeks, AC at 14 gestational weeks, and FDL at 15 gestational weeks. BPD and HC also increased from 19 to 24 and 19 to 21 gestational weeks, respectively. EFW velocity in the bottom 10th percentile indicated higher risks of neonatal complications (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.79–2.78) and preterm birth < 37 weeks (OR = 3.68, 95% CI: 2.64–5.14). Sensitivity analyses showed that EFW velocity in the bottom 10th percentile was significantly associated with more adverse pregnancy outcomes for appropriate–for–gestational age neonates.

          Conclusions

          We established fetal growth velocity curves for the Chinese population based on real–world clinical data. Our findings demonstrated that Chinese fetal growth patterns are somewhat different from those of other populations. Fetal growth velocity could provide more information to understand the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, especially for appropriate–for–gestational age neonates.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-04149-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of in utero and early-life conditions on adult health and disease.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study.

            In utero estimates of fetal weight were evaluated prospectively in 109 fetuses with the use of sonographic models developed in a previous study. This report confirms that the best in utero weight estimates result from the use of models based on measurements of head size, abdominal size, and femur length. Since the accuracy of these models (1 SD = 7.5%) is significantly better than those based on measurements of head and body (e.g., biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference), we recommend routine use of such models in obstetric sonography.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight

              Background Perinatal mortality and morbidity continue to be major global health challenges strongly associated with prematurity and reduced fetal growth, an issue of further interest given the mounting evidence that fetal growth in general is linked to degrees of risk of common noncommunicable diseases in adulthood. Against this background, WHO made it a high priority to provide the present fetal growth charts for estimated fetal weight (EFW) and common ultrasound biometric measurements intended for worldwide use. Methods and Findings We conducted a multinational prospective observational longitudinal study of fetal growth in low-risk singleton pregnancies of women of high or middle socioeconomic status and without known environmental constraints on fetal growth. Centers in ten countries (Argentina, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Norway, and Thailand) recruited participants who had reliable information on last menstrual period and gestational age confirmed by crown–rump length measured at 8–13 wk of gestation. Participants had anthropometric and nutritional assessments and seven scheduled ultrasound examinations during pregnancy. Fifty-two participants withdrew consent, and 1,387 participated in the study. At study entry, median maternal age was 28 y (interquartile range [IQR] 25–31), median height was 162 cm (IQR 157–168), median weight was 61 kg (IQR 55–68), 58% of the women were nulliparous, and median daily caloric intake was 1,840 cal (IQR 1,487–2,222). The median pregnancy duration was 39 wk (IQR 38–40) although there were significant differences between countries, the largest difference being 12 d (95% CI 8–16). The median birthweight was 3,300 g (IQR 2,980–3,615). There were differences in birthweight between countries, e.g., India had significantly smaller neonates than the other countries, even after adjusting for gestational age. Thirty-one women had a miscarriage, and three fetuses had intrauterine death. The 8,203 sets of ultrasound measurements were scrutinized for outliers and leverage points, and those measurements taken at 14 to 40 wk were selected for analysis. A total of 7,924 sets of ultrasound measurements were analyzed by quantile regression to establish longitudinal reference intervals for fetal head circumference, biparietal diameter, humerus length, abdominal circumference, femur length and its ratio with head circumference and with biparietal diameter, and EFW. There was asymmetric distribution of growth of EFW: a slightly wider distribution among the lower percentiles during early weeks shifted to a notably expanded distribution of the higher percentiles in late pregnancy. Male fetuses were larger than female fetuses as measured by EFW, but the disparity was smaller in the lower quantiles of the distribution (3.5%) and larger in the upper quantiles (4.5%). Maternal age and maternal height were associated with a positive effect on EFW, particularly in the lower tail of the distribution, of the order of 2% to 3% for each additional 10 y of age of the mother and 1% to 2% for each additional 10 cm of height. Maternal weight was associated with a small positive effect on EFW, especially in the higher tail of the distribution, of the order of 1.0% to 1.5% for each additional 10 kg of bodyweight of the mother. Parous women had heavier fetuses than nulliparous women, with the disparity being greater in the lower quantiles of the distribution, of the order of 1% to 1.5%, and diminishing in the upper quantiles. There were also significant differences in growth of EFW between countries. In spite of the multinational nature of the study, sample size is a limiting factor for generalization of the charts. Conclusions This study provides WHO fetal growth charts for EFW and common ultrasound biometric measurements, and shows variation between different parts of the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                xlwang@bjmu.edu.cn
                weiyuanbysy@163.com
                Journal
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2393
                9 October 2021
                9 October 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 688
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.11135.37, ISNI 0000 0001 2256 9319, Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, , Peking University, ; Beijing, 100191 China
                [2 ]GRID grid.411642.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0605 3760, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, , Peking University Third Hospital, ; Beijing, 100191 China
                [3 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Qinhuangdao, Qinhuangdao, 066000 China
                [4 ]Department of Obstetrics, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hunan, Changsha, 410007 China
                [5 ]GRID grid.410649.e, Department of Obstetrics, , Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, ; Nanning, 530000 China
                [6 ]Department of Obstetrics, Tongzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 101100 China
                [7 ]GRID grid.412625.6, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, ; Xiamen, 361003 China
                [8 ]Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Dongchangfu District, Liaocheng, 252004 China
                [9 ]Department of Obstetrics, Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Lanzhou, 730050 China
                [10 ]GRID grid.459856.3, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , Changchun Obstetrics–Gynecology Hospital, ; Changchun, 130042 China
                [11 ]GRID grid.256112.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1797 9307, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, , Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, ; Fu Zhou, 350122 China
                [12 ]Department of Function, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Shijiazhuang, Shijiazhuang, 050051 China
                [13 ]Children’s Hospital of Shanxi, Women Health Center of Shanxi, Taiyuan, 030013 China
                [14 ]GRID grid.452206.7, Department of Obstetrics, , the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, ; Chongqing, 400010 China
                [15 ]GRID grid.460080.a, Department of Obstetrics, , Zhengzhou Central Hospital, ; Zhengzhou, 450007 China
                [16 ]Department of Obstetrics, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Changzhi, Changzhi, 046011 China
                [17 ]Department of Obstetrics, Maternity and Infant Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang, 110014 China
                [18 ]GRID grid.440222.2, Department of Obstetrics, , Hubei Maternal and Child Health Hospital, ; Wuhan, 430070 China
                [19 ]GRID grid.477980.5, Department of Obstetrics, , Inner Mongolia Maternal and Child Health Hospital, ; Hohhot, 010060 China
                [20 ]GRID grid.417009.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1758 4591, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, , the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, ; Guangzhou, 510150 China
                [21 ]GRID grid.412467.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1806 3501, Shengjing Hospital Affiliated to China Medical University, ; Shenyang, 117004 China
                Article
                4149
                10.1186/s12884-021-04149-x
                8501691
                34627184
                508827c1-f362-4bf1-9c57-44ac186afe3d
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 10 May 2021
                : 15 September 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                fetal growth,fetal growth velocity,estimated fetal weight,longitudinal study

                Comments

                Comment on this article