Diagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Comparison of Ultrasound Parameters

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is an attempt to evaluate the best ultrasonic method of diagnosing intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR); a retrospective study of patients with singleton pregnancies who had been scanned at the author's institution within 2 weeks of their delivery was undertaken. Estimated fetal weight, abdominal circumference, head circumference/abdominal circumference ratio, abdominal circumference/femur length ratio, and umbilical artery S/D ratio were compared for accuracy in prediction IUGR in the neonate using both univariant and multivariant statistical analysis. Five hundred one (501) patients were analyzed. One hundred fourteen (114) neonates were classified as IUGR (22.8%). Doppler evaluation of the umbilical artery showed the best sensitivity while both abdominal circumference alone and estimated fetal weight showed similar specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and lowest false-positive and -negative results. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the univariant results and showed that, when used in combination, abdominal circumference and Doppler, or estimated fetal weight and Doppler resulted in the best predictive values. Either estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference (alone) are accurate predictors of IUGR. Combined with Doppler studies of the umbilical artery either method will provide accurate evaluation of suspected IUGR.

KEYWORD

IUGR - perinatal mortality - perinatal morbidity - ultrasound parameters

REFERENCES

• 1 Allen M C. Developmental outcome and follow up of the small for gestational age infant.  Semin Perinatol . 1984;  8 123-134
• 2 Goldenberg R L, Nelson K G, Koski J F. Low birth weight, intrauterine growth retardation, and preterm delivery.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1985;  152 980-987
• 3 Jones R AK, Roberton N RC. Problems of the small-for-dates baby.  Clin Obstet Gynecol . 1984;  11 499-504
• 4 Seeds J W. Impaired fetal growth: definition and clinical diagnosis.  Obstet Gynecol . 1984;  64 303-307
• 5 Palo P. Significance of antenatal detection and the choice of the delivery place of severely small for gestational age fetuses.  Am J Perinatol . 1992;  9 135-138
• 6 Blair E, Stanley F. Intrauterine growth and spastic cerebral palsy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1990;  162 229-237
• 7 Ott W J. The diagnosis of altered fetal growth.  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am . 1988;  15 237-249
• 8 Benson C B, Doubilet P M, Saltzman D H. Intrauterine growth retardation: predictive value of US criteria for antenatal diagnosis.  Radiology . 1986;  160 415-417
• 9 Ott W J. Intrauterine growth restriction and Doppler ultrasound.  J Ultrasound Med . 2000;  19 661-665
• 10 DeJong C LD, Francis A, VanGeijn H P, Gardosi J. Customized fetal weight limits for antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol . 2000;  15 36-40
• 11 Smith G CS, Smith M FS, McNay M B, Fleming J EE. The relation between fetal abdominal circumference and birth-weight: findings in 3512 pregnancies.  Br J Obstet Gynecol . 1997;  104 186-190
• 12 Dashe J S, McIntire D D, Lucas M J, Leveno K J. Effects of symmetric and asymmetric fetal growth on pregnancy outcomes.  Obstet Gynecol . 2000;  96 321-327
• 13 Ott W J. Altered fetal growth. In: Ott WJ, ed. Clinical Obstetrical Ultrasound New York: Wiley-Less 1999: 229-262
• 14 Ott W J. Reference curves. In: Ott WJ, ed. Clinical Obstetrical Ultrasound New York: Wiley-Less 1999: 353-384
• 15 Soothill P W, Bobrow C S, Holmes R P. Small for gestational age is not a diagnosis.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol . 1999;  13 225-228
• 16 Craigo S D, Beach M L, Harvey-Wilkes K B, D'Alton M E. Ultrasound predictors of neonatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction.  Am J Perinatol . 1996;  13 465-471