Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2011; 28(10): 773-780
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1280859
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Maternal Body Mass Index: A Poor Diagnostic Test for Detection of Abnormal Fetal Growths

Suneet P. Chauhan1 , Everett F. Magann2 , Yueqin Zhao1 , Jennifer M. Klimpel3 , Jacob A. Brown3 , John C. Morrison4
  • 1Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
  • 2University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas
  • 3Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, Virginia
  • 4University of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 June 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We sought to determine if maternal body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) identifies newborns with abnormal fetal growth (small for gestational age [SGA], large for gestational age [LGA], or macrosomia) at ≥37 weeks. Singletons with reliable gestational age and without diabetes or hypertension were analyzed. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUC) curves were calculated for BMI (first visit, delivery, and the change during pregnancy) to identify abnormal growth. If the AUC was ≤0.75 then the diagnostic test was not useful. Among 3582 cohorts, SGA occurred in 10%, LGA in 9%, and 11% were macrosomic. AUC indicates that BMI at delivery is significantly better than BMI at first visit for identification of aberrant growth, but their AUCs were less than 0.75, indicating it is not a useful diagnostic test. Maternal BMIs (at first visit, delivery, or the change during pregnancy) are poor predictors of abnormal fetal growth.

KEYWORDS

Body mass index - large for gestational age - macrosomia - small for gestational age

REFERENCES

  • 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Seeds J W, Peng T C. Does augmented growth impose an increased risk of fetal death?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  183 316-322 discussion 322-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boulet S L, Alexander G R, Salihu H M, Pass M A. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  188 1372-1378
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Chauhan S P, Grobman W A, Gherman R A et al.. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  193 332-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .Fetal Macrosomia. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 22. Washington DC: ACOG; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Chauhan S P, Sullivan C A, Lutton T C, Magann E F, Morrison J C. Parous patients' estimate of birth weight in postterm pregnancy.  J Perinatol. 1995;  15 192-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .The Investigation and Management of the Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Chauhan S P, Hendrix N W, Magann E F, Morrison J C, Kenney S P, Devoe L D. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients.  Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  91 72-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chauhan S P, Magann E F. Screening for fetal growth restriction.  Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  49 284-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gillean J R, Coonrod D V, Russ R, Bay R C. Big infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  192 1948-1953 discussion 1953-1955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 National Institutes of Health . National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. The evidence report.  Obes Res. 1998;  6 (Suppl 2) 51S-209S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cnattingius S, Bergström R, Lipworth L, Kramer M S. Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.  N Engl J Med. 1998;  338 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cheng C J, Bommarito K, Noguchi A, Holcomb W, Leet T. Body mass index change between pregnancies and small for gestational age births.  Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  104 286-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Leung T Y, Leung T N, Sahota D S et al.. Trends in maternal obesity and associated risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in a population of Chinese women.  BJOG. 2008;  115 1529-1537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Surkan P J, Hsieh C C, Johansson A L, Dickman P W, Cnattingius S. Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births.  Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  104 720-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ehrenberg H M, Mercer B M, Catalano P M. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the prevalence of macrosomia.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .Obesity in Pregnancy. Committee opinion 315. Washington DC: ACOG; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Alexander G R, Himes J H, Kaufman R B, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth.  Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  87 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jaeschke R, Guyatt G H, Sackett D L. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.  JAMA. 1994;  271 703-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fan J, Upadhye S, Worster A. Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.  CJEM. 2006;  8 19-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 DeLong E R, DeLong D M, Clarke-Pearson D L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.  Biometrics. 1988;  44 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B. Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point.  Biom J. 2005;  47 458-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Farmer R M, Medearis A L, Hirata G I, Platt L D. The use of a neural network for the ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight in the macrosomic fetus.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;  166 1467-1472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Johnson J M, Chauhan S P, Ennen C S, Niederhauser A, Magann E F. A comparison of 3 criteria of oligohydramnios in identifying peripartum complications: a secondary analysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  197 207 e1-e7 discussion 207 e7-e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ghosh G S, Gudmundsson S. Uterine and umbilical artery Doppler are comparable in predicting perinatal outcome of growth-restricted fetuses.  BJOG. 2009;  116 424-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chauhan S P, Sullivan C A, Lutton T C, Magann E F, Morrison J C. Parous patients' estimate of birth weight in postterm pregnancy.  J Perinatol. 1995;  15 192-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hassibi S, Farhataziz N, Zaretsky M, McIntire D, Twickler D M. Optimization of fetal weight estimates using MRI: comparison of acquisitions.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  183 487-492
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chauhan S P, Magann E F, Carroll C S, Barrilleaux P S, Scardo J A, Martin Jr J N. Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chu S Y, Callaghan W M, Bish C L, D'Angelo D. Gestational weight gain by body mass index among US women delivering live births, 2004–2005: fueling future obesity.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  200 271 e1-e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Suneet P ChauhanM.D. 

Eastern Virginia Medical School, 825 Fairfax Avenue

Suite 544, Norfolk, VA 23507

Email: chauhasp@evms.edu

      >