Local References for Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight Based on 2,211 Singleton Pregnancies in the City of Curitiba, South of Brazil

Abstract

Objective To develop reference curves of estimated fetal weight for a local population in Curitiba, South of Brazil, and compare them with the curves established for other populations.

Methods An observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted. A reference model for estimated fetal weight was developed using a local sample of 2,211 singleton pregnancies with low risk of growth disorders and well-defined gestational age. This model was compared graphically with the Hadlock and Intergrowth 21^st curves.

Results Reference curves for estimated fetal weight were developed for a local population. The coefficient of determination was R² = 99.11%, indicating that 99.11% of the fetal weight variations were explained by the model. Compared with Hadlock curves, the 50^th, 90^th, and 97^th percentiles in this model were lower, whereas the 10^th percentile nearly overlapped, and the 3^rd percentile was slightly higher in the proposed model. The percentiles were higher in the proposed model compared with the Intergrowth 21^st curves, particularly for the 3^rd, 10^th, and 50^th percentiles.

Conclusion We provide a local reference curve for estimated fetal weight. The proposed model was different from other models, and these differences might be due to the use of different populations for model construction.

Resumo

Objetivo Desenvolver curvas de referência para o peso fetal estimado em uma população de Curitiba, Sul do Brasil, e compará-las com curvas estabelecidas para outras populações.

Métodos Foi realizado um estudo observacional, transversal e retrospectivo. Um modelo de referência para o peso fetal estimado foi desenvolvido usando uma amostra local de 2.211 gestações únicas de baixo risco de distúrbios do crescimento e idade gestacional bem definida. Este modelo foi comparado graficamente com as curvas de Hadlock e Intergrowth 21 ^st.

Resultados As curvas de referência para o peso fetal estimado foram desenvolvidas para uma população local. O coeficiente de determinação foi de R² = 99,11%, indicando que 99,11% das variações do peso fetal foram explicadas pelo modelo. Em comparação com as curvas de Hadlock, os percentis 50, 90, e 97 neste modelo foram inferiores, enquanto o percentil 10 quase se sobrepôs, e o percentil 3 foi ligeiramente superior no modelo proposto. Os percentis foram maiores no modelo proposto em comparação com as curvas do Intergrowth 21st, particularmente para os percentis 3, 10, e 50.

Conclusão Fornecemos uma curva de referência local para o peso fetal estimado. O modelo proposto foi diferente de outros modelos, e essas diferenças podem ser devido ao uso de diferentes populações para a construção do modelo.

Keywords

fetal weight - prenatal ultrasonography - growth charts - percentiles - reference curves

Palavras-chave

peso fetal - ultrassonografia pré-natal - curvas de crescimento - percentis - curvas de referência

Contributors

All of the authors contributed with the project and data interpretation, the writing of the article, the critical review of the intellectual content, and with the final approval of the version to be published.

• References

• 1 Madan A, Holland S, Humbert JE, Benitz WE. Racial differences in birth weight of term infants in a northern California population. J Perinatol 2002; 22 (03) 230-235 . Doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7210703
• 2 Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, Papageroghiou A, Baschat AA, Baker PN. , et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48 (03) 333-339 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.15884
• 3 Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. ; Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team. 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why?. Lancet 2005; 365 (9462): 891-900 . Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5
• 4 Arcangeli T, Thilaganathan B, Hooper R, Khan KS, Bhide A. Neurodevelopmental delay in small babies at term: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40 (03) 267-275 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.11112
• 5 United Nations Children's Fund, World Health Organization. Low Birthweight: Country, Regional and Global Estimates. New York: UNICEF; 2004
• 6 Amorim MMR, Leite DFB, Gadelha TGN, Muniz AGV, Melo ASO, Rocha AM. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2009; 31 (05) 241-248 . Doi: 10.1590/S0100-72032009000500007
• 7 Romano-Zelekha O, Freedman L, Olmer L, Green MS, Shohat T. ; Israel Network for Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Should fetal weight growth curves be population specific?. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25 (08) 709-714 . Doi: 10.1002/pd.1194
• 8 Jacquemyn Y, Sys SU, Verdonk P. Fetal biometry in different ethnic groups. Early Hum Dev 2000; 57 (01) 1-13 . Doi: 10.1016/s0378-3782(99)00049-3
• 9 Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339 (8788): 283-287 . Doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)91342-6
• 10 Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, Sarris I, Villar J, Conde-Agudelo A, Papageorghiou AT. Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG 2012; 119 (12) 1425-1439 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03451.x
• 11 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo demográfico 2010: características gerais da população, religião e pessoas com deficiência. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2012
• 12 Instituto Paranaense de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Caderno estatístico: município de Curitiba. Curitiba: IPARDES; 2012
• 13 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181 (01) 129-133 . Doi: 10.1148/radiology.181.1.1887021
• 14 Altman DG, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101 (01) 29-34 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13006.x
• 15 Stirnemann J, Villar J, Salomon LJ, Ohuma E, Ruyan P, Altman DG. , et al; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st); Scientific Advisory Committee; Steering Committees; INTERGROWTH-21st; INTERBIO-21st; Executive Committee; In addition for INTERBIO 21st; Project Coordinating Unit; Data Analysis Group; Data Management Group; In addition for INTERBIO 21st; Ultrasound Group; In addition for INTERBIO-21st; Anthropometry Group; In addition for INTERBIO-21st; Laboratory Processing Group; Neonatal Group; Environmental Health Group; Neurodevelopment Group; Participating countries and local investigators; In addition for INTERBIO-21st; In addition for INTERBIO-21st. International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21^st Project. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49 (04) 478-486 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.17347
• 16 Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Syngelaki A, Wright A, Akolekar R. Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52 (01) 44-51 . Doi: 10.1002/uog.19073
• 17 Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Neerup Jensen L. , et al. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: a multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med 2017; 14 (01) e1002220 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220
• 18 Cecatti JG, Machado MR, dos Santos FF, Marussi EF. [Curve of normal fetal weight values estimated by ultrasound according to gestation age]. Cad Saude Publica 2000; 16 (04) 1083-1090 . Doi: 10.1590/s0102-311X2000000400026
• 19 Araujo Júnior E, Martins Santana EF, Martins WP. , et al. Reference charts of fetal biometric parameters in 31,476 Brazilian singleton pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33 (07) 1185-1191 . Doi: 10.7863/ultra.33.7.1185