Protocol for the prospective observational clinical study: estimation of fetal weight by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study) and small-for-gestational age neonates

Caroline Kadji, Mieke M Cannie, Andrew Carlin, Jacques C Jani, Caroline Kadji, Mieke M Cannie, Andrew Carlin, Jacques C Jani

Abstract

Introduction: Macrosomia refers to growth beyond a specific threshold, regardless of gestational age. These fetuses are also frequently referred to as large for gestational age (LGA). Various cut-offs have been used but for research purposes, a cut-off above the 95th centile for birth weight is often preferred because it defines 90% of the population as normal weight. The use of centiles, rather than estimated weights, also accommodates preterm macrosomic infants, although most of the complications, maternal and fetal, arise during the delivery of large babies at term. This means that accurate identification of LGA fetuses (≥95th centile) may play an important role in guiding obstetric interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean section. Traditionally, identification of fetuses suspected of macrosomia has been based on biometric measurements using two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US), yet this method is rather sub-optimal. We present a protocol (V.2.1, date 19 May 2016) for the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study), which is a prospective observational clinical study designed to determine whether MRI at 36 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation, as compared with 2D US, can improve the identification of LGA neonates ≥95th centile.

Methods and analysis: All eligible women attending the 36-week clinic will be invited to participate in the screening study for LGA fetuses ≥95th centile and will undergo US-EFW and MRI-EFW within minutes of each other. From these estimations, a centile will be derived which will be compared with the centile of birth weight used as the gold standard. Besides birth weight, other pregnancy and neonatal outcomes will be collected and analysed. The first enrolment for the study was in May 2016. As of September 2018, 2004 women have been screened and recruited to the study. The study is due to end in April 2019.

Ethics and dissemination: The study will be conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation for good clinical practice and the appropriate regulatory requirement(s). A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Brugmann, reference number CE2016/44. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences.

Trial registration number: NCT02713568.

Keywords: 2d ultrasound; large-for-date fetuses; macrosomia; magnetic resonance imaging.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. King JR, Korst LM, Miller DA, et al. . Increased composite maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with ultrasonographically suspected fetal macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:1953–9. 10.3109/14767058.2012.674990
    1. DeVore GR. The importance of the cerebroplacental ratio in the evaluation of fetal well-being in SGA and AGA fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:5–15. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.024
    1. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, et al. . Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1234–8. 10.1056/NEJM199904223401603
    1. Pay AS, Wiik J, Backe B, et al. . Symphysis-fundus height measurement to predict small-for-gestational-age status at birth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:22 10.1186/s12884-015-0461-z
    1. Robert Peter J, Jj H, Valliapan J, et al. . Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;9:CD008136.
    1. Milner J, Arezina J. The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review. Ultrasound 2018;26:32–41. 10.1177/1742271X17732807
    1. Seravalli V, Baschat AA. A uniform management approach to optimize outcome in fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015;42:275–88. 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.01.005
    1. Boulvain M, Senat MV, Perrotin F, et al. . Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2600–5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61904-8
    1. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Chen M, et al. . Induction of labour for suspected macrosomia at term in non-diabetic women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJOG 2017;124:414–21. 10.1111/1471-0528.14435
    1. Bricker L, Neilson JP. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks gestation). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2000;2:CD001451.
    1. Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2008;4:CD001451.
    1. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, et al. . The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996;276:1480–6. 10.1001/jama.1996.03540180036030
    1. Gupta M, Hockley C, Quigley MA, et al. . Antenatal and intrapartum prediction of shoulder dystocia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;151:134–9. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.025
    1. Baker PN, Johnson IR, Gowland PA, et al. . Fetal weight estimation by echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 1994;343:644–5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92638-7
    1. Uotila J, Dastidar P, Heinonen T, et al. . Magnetic resonance imaging compared to ultrasonography in fetal weight and volume estimation in diabetic and normal pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000;79:255–9. 10.1080/j.1600-0412.2000.079004255.x
    1. Kubik-Huch RA, Wildermuth S, Cettuzzi L, et al. . Fetus and uteroplacental unit: fast MR imaging with three-dimensional reconstruction and volumetry–feasibility study. Radiology 2001;219:567–73. 10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma24567
    1. Zaretsky MV, Reichel TF, McIntire DD, et al. . Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1017–20. 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00895-0
    1. Kacem Y, Cannie MM, Kadji C, et al. . Fetal weight estimation: comparison of two-dimensional US and MR imaging assessments. Radiology 2013;267:902–10. 10.1148/radiol.12121374
    1. Kadji C, De Groof M, Camus MF, et al. . The use of a software-assisted method to estimate fetal weight at and near term using magnetic resonance imaging. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017;41:307–13. 10.1159/000448950
    1. Kadji C, Camus MF, Bevilacqua E, et al. . Repeatability of estimated fetal weight: Comparison between MR imaging versus 2D ultrasound in at- and near-term patients. Eur J Radiol 2017;91:35–40. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.03.005
    1. Kadji C, Cannie MM, De Angelis R, et al. . Prenatal prediction of postnatal large-for-dates neonates using a simplified MRI method: comparison with conventional 2D ultrasound estimates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:250–7. 10.1002/uog.17523
    1. Kadji C, Cannie MM, Van Wettere M, et al. . A longitudinal study on fetal weight estimation at third trimester of pregnancy: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and 2-D ultrasound predictions. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017;42:181–8. 10.1159/000453356
    1. Kadji C, Bevilacqua E, Hurtado I, et al. . Comparison of conventional 2D ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:128.e1–128.e11. 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.009
    1. Malin GL, Bugg GJ, Takwoingi Y, et al. . Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016;123:77–88. 10.1111/1471-0528.13517
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, et al. . Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 1984;150:535–40. 10.1148/radiology.150.2.6691115
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. . Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:333–7. 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4
    1. Yudkin PL, Aboualfa M, Eyre JA, et al. . New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. Early Hum Dev 1987;15:45–52. 10.1016/0378-3782(87)90099-5
    1. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45. 10.2307/2531595
    1. Liddell D. Practical tests of 2 × 2 contingency tables. The Statistician 1976;25:295–304. 10.2307/2988087
    1. Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics 2000;56:345–51. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00345.x
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;2013:200–7.
    1. Vidarsdottir H, Geirsson RT, Hardardottir H, et al. . Obstetric and neonatal risks among extremely macrosomic babies and their mothers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:423.e1–423.e6. 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.036
    1. Frick AP, Syngelaki A, Zheng M, et al. . Prediction of large-for-gestational-age neonates: screening by maternal factors and biomarkers in the three trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:332–9. 10.1002/uog.15780
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology, The American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 40, November 2002. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1045–50.
    1. Chauhan SP, West DJ, Scardo JA, et al. . Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:639–42.
    1. Kayem G, Grangé G, Bréart G, et al. . Comparison of fundal height measurement and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight at term. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009;34:566–71. 10.1002/uog.6378
    1. Simon NV, Levisky JS, Shearer DM, et al. . Influence of fetal growth patterns on sonographic estimation of fetal weight. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 1987;15:376–83. 10.1002/jcu.1870150604

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir