Impact of adding abdominal circumference to the definition of fetal growth restriction.

BACKGROUND

Fetal growth restriction has traditionally been defined as fetuses with an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age. In 2020, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommended that the definition be expanded to include either an estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or a fetal abdominal circumference<10th percentile.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the impact of adding the criterion abdominal circumference<10th percentile on the rate of diagnosis of fetal growth restriction vs using the criterion estimated fetal weight<10th percentile alone. In addition, we evaluated the definition proposed by Copel and Bahtiyar, estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or abdominal circumference<5th percentile.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, descriptive study from 3 consultative maternal-fetal medicine practices. Biometry was compiled from ultrasound examinations from January 2019 to July 2020. The inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, gestational age of ≥24 weeks, presence of fetal cardiac activity, and presence of 4 standard fetal biometry parameters (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length). We tabulated the indications for the examinations and the number of examinations meeting several criteria for the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction: Traditional criterion (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile), Copel-Bahtiyar criteria (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or abdominal circumference<5th percentile), and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine criteria (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or abdominal circumference<10th percentile).

RESULTS

During the study period, 20,633 ultrasound examinations met the inclusion criteria. In 62% of examinations, there was ≥1 factor for fetal growth restriction, and in 51% of examinations, there was ≥1 factor for large for gestational age. The rate of estimated fetal weight<10th percentile was 9.7%. The rate of abdominal circumference<5th percentile was 5.7%, and the rate of abdominal circumference<10th percentile was 9.2%. The rate of fetal growth restriction was 9.7% using the traditional definition (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile only). The rate of fetal growth restriction was 10.2% using the Copel-Bahtiyar definition (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or abdominal circumference<5th percentile), significantly higher than using the traditional definition (P<.001). The rate of fetal growth restriction was 11.6% using the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition (estimated fetal weight<10th percentile or abdominal circumference<10th percentile), significantly higher than using either the traditional or Copel-Bahtiyar definition (P<.001 for both). Among examinations with an abdominal circumference<10th percentile, 79% also had an estimated fetal weight<10th percentile and was considered fetal growth restriction even without considering abdominal circumference.

CONCLUSION

Adding the criterion abdominal circumference<5th percentile or abdominal circumference<10th percentile to the definition of fetal growth restriction resulted in a statistically significant increase in the rate of diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. However, the absolute increase in the rate was small and was not expected to place a large burden on practice resources.