Dataset Information

Assessing fetal growth in Africa: Application of the international WHO and INTERGROWTH-21st standards in a Beninese pregnancy cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin.

Methods

Repeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared.

Results

Maternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27-31 weeks and 33-38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards.

Conclusion

Despite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa.

SUBMITTER: Yovo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8782373 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEstimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal biometry are complementary measures used to screen for fetal growth disturbances. Our aim was to provide international EFW standards to complement the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards that are available for use worldwide.MethodsWomen with an accurate gestational-age assessment, who were enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter, population-based Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) and INTERBIO-21st Fetal Study (FS), two components of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, had ultrasound scans every 5 weeks from 9-14 weeks' until 40 weeks' gestation. At each visit, measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were obtained blindly by dedicated research sonographers using standardized methods and identical ultrasound machines. Birth weight was measured within 12?h of delivery by dedicated research anthropometrists using standardized methods and identical electronic scales. Live babies without any congenital abnormality, who were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan, were selected for inclusion. As most births occurred at around 40 weeks' gestation, we constructed a bootstrap model selection and estimation procedure based on resampling of the complete dataset under an approximately uniform distribution of birth weight, thus enriching the sample size at extremes of fetal sizes, to achieve consistent estimates across the full range of fetal weight. We constructed reference centiles using second-degree fractional polynomial models.ResultsOf the overall population, 2404 babies were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan. Mean time between the last scan and birth was 7.7 (range, 0-14) days and was uniformly distributed. Birth weight was best estimated as a function of AC and HC (without FL) as log(EFW)?=?5.084820?-?54.06633?×?(AC/100)3 ?-?95.80076?×?(AC/100)3 ?×?log(AC/100)?+?3.136370?×?(HC/100), where EFW is in g and AC and HC are in cm. All other measures, gestational age, symphysis-fundus height, amniotic fluid indices and interactions between biometric measures and gestational age, were not retained in the selection process because they did not improve the prediction of EFW. Applying the formula to FGLS biometric data (n?=?4231) enabled gestational age-specific EFW tables to be constructed. At term, the EFW centiles matched those of the INTERGROWTH-21st Newborn Size Standards but, at?<?37?weeks' gestation, the EFW centiles were, as expected, higher than those of babies born preterm. Comparing EFW cross-sectional values with the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards confirmed that preterm postnatal growth is a different biological process from intrauterine growth.ConclusionsWe provide an assessment of EFW, as an adjunct to routine ultrasound biometry, from 22 to 40 weeks' gestation. However, we strongly encourage clinicians to evaluate fetal growth using separate biometric measures such as HC and AC, as well as EFW, to avoid the minimalist approach of focusing on a single value. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the construction of the international INTERGROWTH-21st Neurodevelopment Assessment (INTER-NDA) standards for child development at 2 years by reporting the cognitive, language, motor and behaviour outcomes in optimally healthy and nourished children in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.DesignPopulation-based cohort study, the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.SettingBrazil, India, Italy, Kenya and the UK.Participants1181 children prospectively recruited from early fetal life according to the prescriptive WHO approach, and confirmed to be at low risk of adverse perinatal and postnatal outcomes.Primary measuresScaled INTER-NDA domain scores for cognition, language, fine and gross motor skills and behaviour; vision outcomes measured on the Cardiff tests; attentional problems and emotional reactivity measured on the respective subscales of the preschool Child Behaviour Checklist; and the age of acquisition of the WHO gross motor milestones.ResultsScaled INTER-NDA domain scores are presented as centiles, which were constructed according to the prescriptive WHO approach and excluded children born preterm and those with significant postnatal/neurological morbidity. For all domains, except negative behaviour, higher scores reflect better outcomes and the threshold for normality was defined as ≥10th centile. For the INTER-NDA's cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, language and positive behaviour domains these are ≥38.5, ≥25.7, ≥51.7, ≥17.8 and ≥51.4, respectively. The threshold for normality for the INTER-NDA's negative behaviour domain is ≤50.0, that is, ≤90th centile. At 22-30 months of age, the cohort overlapped with the WHO motor milestone centiles, showed low postnatal morbidity (<10%), and vision outcomes, attentional problems and emotional reactivity scores within the respective normative ranges.ConclusionsFrom this large, healthy and well-nourished, international cohort, we have constructed, using the WHO prescriptive methodology, international INTER-NDA standards for child development at 2 years of age. Standards, rather than references, are recommended for population-level screening and the identification of children at risk of adverse outcomes.

Project description:Three recently completed longitudinal cohort studies have developed intrauterine fetal growth charts, one in the United States and two international. This expert review compares and contrasts the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies, INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study conclusions in light of differences in aims, sampling frames, and analytical approaches. An area of controversy is whether a single growth reference is representative of growth, regardless of ethnic or country origin. The INTERGROWTH and World Health Organization Fetal studies used a similar approach as the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study for infants and children, the aim of which was to create a single international reference for the best physiological growth for children aged 0-5 years. INTERGROWTH made the same assumption (ie, that there would be no differences internationally among countries or racial/ethnic groups in fetal growth when conditions were optimal). INTERGROWTH found differences in crown-rump length and head circumference among countries but interpreted the differences as not meaningful and presented a pooled standard. The World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study was designed to create a pooled reference, although they evaluated for and presented country differences, along with discussion of the implications. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study was designed to assess whether racial/ethnic-specific fetal growth standards were needed, in recognition of the fact that fetal size is commonly estimated from dimensions (head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) in which there are known differences in children and adults of differing racial/ethnic groups. A pooled standard would be derived if no racial/ethnic differences were found. Highly statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in fetal growth were found resulting in the publication of racial/ethnic-specific derived standards. Despite all 3 studies including low-risk status women, the percentiles for fetal dimensions and estimated fetal weight varied among the studies. Specifically, at 39 weeks, the 50th percentile for estimated fetal weight was 3502 g for whites, 3330 g for Hispanics, 3263 g for Asians, and 3256 for blacks in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study, compared with 3186 g for INTERGROWTH and 3403 g for World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study. When applying these standards to a clinical population, it is important to be aware that different percentages of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses will be identified. Also, it may be necessary to use more restrictive cut points, such as the 2.5th or 97.5th, for small-for-gestational-age or large-for-gestational-age fetuses, respectively. Ideally, a comparison of diagnostic accuracy, or misclassification rates, of small-for-gestational-age and large-for-gestational-age fetuses in relation to morbidity and mortality using different criteria is necessary to make recommendations and remains an important data gap. Identification of the appropriate percentile cutoffs in relation to neonatal morbidity and mortality is needed in local populations, depending on which fetal growth chart is used. On a final point, assessment of fetal growth with a one-time measurement remains standard clinical practice, despite recognition that a single measurement can indicate only size. Ultimately, it is knowledge about fetal growth in addition to other factors and clinical judgment that should trigger intervention.

Project description:BackgroundPerinatal and newborn complications are major risk factors for unfavorable fetal and neonatal outcomes. Gestational dating and growth monitoring can be instrumental in the identification and management of high-risk pregnancies and births. The INTERGROWTH-21st Project developed the first global standards for gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth monitoring, supplying a toolkit for clinicians. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the first known implementation study of these standards in a low resource setting.MethodsThe study was performed in two 12-month phases from March 2016 to March 2018 at Jacaranda Health, a private maternity hospital in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions and a provider survey were utilized to evaluate providers' experiences during implementation. Client chart data, for pregnant women attending antenatal care and/or delivering at Jacaranda Health along with their newborns, were captured to assess uptake and effect of the standards on clinical decision-making.ResultsFacility-level support and provider buy-in proved to be critical factors driving the success of implementing the standards. However, additional support was needed to strengthen capacity to conduct and interpret ultrasounds and maintain motivation among providers. We observed a significant increase in the uptake of obstetric ultrasounds, particularly gestational dating, during the implementation of the standards. Although no significant changes were detected in the identification of high-risk pregnancies, referrals and deliveries by Cesarean section during implementation, we did observe a significant reduction in inductions for post-date. No significant barriers were reported regarding the use of the newborn standards. Over 80% of providers advocated for the standards to remain in place with some enhancements related mainly to training, advocacy and procurement.ConclusionsThe findings are timely with increasing global adoption of the standards and the challenging and multi-faceted nature of translating new, evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundGestational hypertensive and acute hypotensive disorders are associated with maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, physiological blood pressure changes in pregnancy are insufficiently defined. We describe blood pressure changes across healthy pregnancies from the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) to produce international, gestational age-specific, smoothed centiles (third, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th) for blood pressure.Methods and findingsSecondary analysis of a prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (2009 to 2016) was conducted across 8 diverse urban areas in Brazil, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Oman, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We enrolled healthy women at low risk of pregnancy complications. We measured blood pressure using standardised methodology and validated equipment at enrolment at <14 weeks, then every 5 ± 1 weeks until delivery. We enrolled 4,607 (35%) women of 13,108 screened. The mean maternal age was 28·4 (standard deviation [SD] 3.9) years; 97% (4,204/4,321) of women were married or living with a partner, and 68% (2,955/4,321) were nulliparous. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.3 (SD 3.0) kg/m2. Systolic blood pressure was lowest at 12 weeks: Median was 111.5 (95% CI 111.3 to 111.8) mmHg, rising to a median maximum of 119.6 (95% CI 118.9 to 120.3) mmHg at 40 weeks' gestation, a difference of 8.1 (95% CI 7.4 to 8.8) mmHg. Median diastolic blood pressure decreased from 12 weeks: 69.1 (95% CI 68.9 to 69.3) mmHg to a minimum of 68.5 (95% CI 68.3 to 68.7) mmHg at 19+5 weeks' gestation, a change of -0·6 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.4) mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure subsequently increased to a maximum of 76.3 (95% CI 75.9 to 76.8) mmHg at 40 weeks' gestation. Systolic blood pressure fell by >14 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure by >11 mmHg in fewer than 10% of women at any gestational age. Fewer than 10% of women increased their systolic blood pressure by >24 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure by >18 mmHg at any gestational age. The study's main limitations were the unavailability of prepregnancy blood pressure values and inability to explore circadian effects because time of day was not recorded for the blood pressure measurements.ConclusionsOur findings provide international, gestational age-specific centiles and limits of acceptable change to facilitate earlier recognition of deteriorating health in pregnant women. These centiles challenge the idea of a clinically significant midpregnancy drop in blood pressure.

Project description:BackgroundGestational weight gain (GWG) is a critical factor for maternal and fetal health.ObjectiveTo identify maternal predictors of inadequate GWG according to the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and Intergrowth-21st standards.MethodsA prospective epidemiological cohort study conducted from 2017 to 2023 in southeastern Brazil assessed 1,557 women at three different stages of pregnancy (≤ 18, 20-26, and 30-36 weeks of gestation) and at delivery. Sociodemographic, obstetric, lifestyle, nutritional, and maternal morbidity characteristics were collected, along with biochemical parameters.ResultsAmong the participants, 38.7% had GWG above IOM recommendations, while 67.5% had GWG above the Intergrowth-21st standards. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that women with pre-pregnancy obesity and women with the highest body fat percentage had, respectively, a 95% (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.08-3.51) and 1% (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05) higher chance of GWG above IOM recommendations. Pregnant women in the lowest tertile of height, smokers, number of previous pregnancies, and women living in crowded homes had, respectively, a 57% (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.80), 36% (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.37-0.86), 35% (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.97), and 14% (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.59-0.86) lower chance of GWG above IOM recommendations. Women with diabetes were 2.53 times more likely (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.32-4.83) to have GWG below IOM recommendations. Using the Intergrowth-21st standards, women with the highest body fat percentage had a 12% (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.24) higher chance of GWG above the 90th percentile. Pregnant women in the lowest tertile of height were 2.82 times more likely (OR = 2.82; 95% CI: 1.08-8.13) and women with the lowest hemoglobin concentrations had a 41% lower chance (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.88) of having GWG below the 10th percentile. While both guidelines identified body fat percentage and pre-pregnancy obesity as significant predictors of excessive GWG, the Intergrowth-21st standards captured a higher percentage of women exceeding GWG limits.ConclusionThe findings underscore the importance of comparing two instruments for assessing the adequacy of GWG. The IOM and Intergrowth-21st standards provide complementary insights, which can help implement targeted interventions for specific groups of women based on their nutritional and socioeconomic status, lifestyle, and obstetric factors to prevent pregnancy-related complications.

Project description:ObjectivesThere are no international standards for relating fetal crown-rump length (CRL) to gestational age (GA), and most existing charts have considerable methodological limitations. The INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project aimed to produce the first international standards for early fetal size and ultrasound dating of pregnancy based on CRL measurement.MethodsUrban areas in eight geographically diverse countries that met strict eligibility criteria were selected for the prospective, population-based recruitment, between 9?+?0 and 13?+?6?weeks' gestation, of healthy well-nourished women with singleton pregnancies at low risk of fetal growth impairment. GA was calculated on the basis of a certain last menstrual period, regular menstrual cycle and lack of hormonal medication or breastfeeding in the preceding 2 months. CRL was measured using strict protocols and quality-control measures. All women were followed up throughout pregnancy until delivery and hospital discharge. Cases of neonatal and fetal death, severe pregnancy complications and congenital abnormalities were excluded from the study.ResultsA total of 4607 women were enrolled in the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study, one of the three main components of the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, of whom 4321 had a live singleton birth in the absence of severe maternal conditions or congenital abnormalities detected by ultrasound or at birth. The CRL was measured in 56 women at <?9?+?0?weeks' gestation; these were excluded, resulting in 4265 women who contributed data to the final analysis. The mean CRL and SD increased with GA almost linearly, and their relationship to GA is given by the following two equations (in which GA is in days and CRL in mm): mean CRL?=?-50.6562 + (0.815118 × GA) + (0.00535302?× GA(2) ); and SD of CRL?=?-2.21626?+?(0.0984894?×?GA). GA estimation is carried out according to the two equations: GA?=?40.9041?+?(3.21585?×?CRL(0.5) )?+?(0.348956 × CRL); and SD of GA?=?2.39102?+?(0.0193474?×?CRL).ConclusionsWe have produced international prescriptive standards for early fetal linear size and ultrasound dating of pregnancy in the first trimester that can be used throughout the world.