Validation of Delphi procedure consensus criteria for defining fetal growth restriction

L C G Molina, L Odibo, S Zientara, S G Običan, A Rodriguez, M Stout, A O Odibo, L C G Molina, L Odibo, S Zientara, S G Običan, A Rodriguez, M Stout, A O Odibo

Abstract

Objective: Recently, a Delphi procedure was used to establish new criteria for defining fetal growth restriction (FGR). These criteria require clinical validation. We sought to validate the Delphi consensus criteria by comparing their performance with that of our current definition (estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile) in predicting adverse neonatal outcome (ANO).

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of women referred for fetal growth assessment between 26 and 36 weeks' gestation. The current standard definition of FGR used in our clinical practice is EFW < 10th percentile using Hadlock's fetal growth standard. The Delphi consensus criteria for FGR include either a very small fetus (abdominal circumference (AC) or EFW < 3rd percentile) or a small fetus (AC or EFW < 10th percentile) with additional abnormal Doppler findings or a decrease in AC or EFW by two quartiles or more. The primary outcome was the prediction of a composite of ANO including one or more of: admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, cord pH < 7.1, 5-min Apgar score < 7, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, neonatal seizures or neonatal death. The discriminatory capacities of the two definitions of FGR for composite ANO and delivery of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate, defined as birth weight < 10th percentile, were compared using area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC). The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the methods were also compared.

Results: Of 1055 pregnancies included in the study, composite ANO occurred in 139 (13.2%). There were only two cases of early FGR (before 32 weeks); therefore, the study focused on late FGR. Our current FGR diagnostic criterion of EFW < 10th percentile was not associated significantly with composite ANO (relative risk (RR), 1.1 (95% CI, 0.6-1.8)), while the Delphi FGR criteria were (RR, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.2-3.3)). Our current definition of FGR showed higher discriminatory ability in the prediction of a SGA neonate (AUC, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73)) than did the Delphi definition (AUC, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.67)) (P = 0.001). The AUCs of both definitions were poor for the prediction of composite ANO, despite slightly improved performance using the Delphi consensus definition of FGR (AUC, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.55)) compared with that of our current definition (AUC, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.48-0.53)) (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: The newly postulated criteria for defining FGR based on a Delphi procedure detects fewer cases of neonatal SGA than does our current definition of EFW < 10th percentile, but is associated with a slight improvement in predicting ANO. Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords: Delphi consensus; FGR; SGA; adverse neonatal outcome; birth weight; small-for-gestational age.

Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

REFERENCES

    1. Lausman A, Kingdom J; MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. Intrauterine growth restriction: screening, diagnosis, and management. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35: 741-748.
    1. Figueras F, Gratacós E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36: 86-98.
    1. Gaccioli F, Sovio U, Cook E, Hund M, Charnock-Jones DS, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction using ultrasound and the sFLT1/PlGF ratio in nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2018; 2: 569-581.
    1. Barker DJ. Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 270-283.
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements - a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333-337.
    1. Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS, Sciscione A, Wing DA, Grobman WA, Newman RB, Wapner R, D'Alton ME, Skupski D, Nageotte MP, Ranzini AC et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 449.e1-449.e41.
    1. Nwabuobi C, Odibo L, Camisasca-Lopina H, Leavitt K, Tuuli M, Odibo AO. Comparing INTERGROWTH-21st Century and Hadlock growth standards to predict small for gestational age and short-term neonatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33: 1906-1912.
    1. Odibo AO, Nwabuobi C, Odibo L, Leavitt K, Obican S, Tuuli MG. Customized fetal growth standard compared with the INTERGROWTH-21st century standard at predicting small-for-gestational-age neonates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97: 1381-1387.
    1. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, Altman DG, Ohuma EO, Stones W, Gravett MG, Barros FC, Victora C, Purwar M, Jaffer Y, Noble JA et al. The INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards: toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218: S630-S640.
    1. Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Todros T, Cheikh Ismail L, Lambert A, Jaffer YA, Bertino E, Gravett MG, Purwar M, Noble JA, Pang R et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014; 384: 869-879.
    1. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Baschat AA, Baker PN, Silver RM, Wynia K, Ganzevoort W. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 333-339.
    1. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Ganzevoort W. Building consensus and standards in fetal growth restriction studies. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 49: 117-126.
    1. Khalil A, Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Wynia K, Ganzevoort W, Figueras F, Kingdom J, Marlow N, Papageorghiou AT, Sebire N, Zietlin J, Baschat AA. Essential variables for reporting research studies on fetal growth restriction: a Delphi consenus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 609-614.
    1. Verburg BO, Steegers EA, De Ridder M, Snijders RJ, Smith E, Hofman A, Moll HA, Jaddoe VW, Witteman JC. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: longitudinal data from a population-based cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 388-396.
    1. Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR; Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1070-1082.
    1. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Bilardo CM, Chalouhi GE, Ghi T, Kagan KO, Lau TK, Papageorghiou AT, Raine-Fenning NJ, Stirnemann J, Suresh S, Tabor A et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 102-113.
    1. Committee on Obstetric Practice, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129: e150-e154.
    1. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 163-168.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa