1 / 20

Adriane Haragan, MD Faculty Mentor: Gene Chang, MD

A comparison of fundal height and handheld ultrasound measured abdominal circumference to screen for fetal growth abnormalities. Adriane Haragan, MD Faculty Mentor: Gene Chang, MD. Fetal Growth Abnormalities. Common, complex in modern obstetrics Difficult to prevent

rasia
Download Presentation

Adriane Haragan, MD Faculty Mentor: Gene Chang, MD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A comparison of fundal height and handheld ultrasound measured abdominal circumference to screen for fetal growth abnormalities Adriane Haragan, MD Faculty Mentor: Gene Chang, MD

  2. Fetal Growth Abnormalities • Common, complex in modern obstetrics • Difficult to prevent • Consequences of missed diagnosis • Consequences of false positive screening

  3. Background • Fetal Growth Restriction • Various definitions • EFW < 10% • 1/2 cases undetected • Macrosomia • Various definitions • EFW > 4000-4500 g • Diagnosed at time of delivery ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 12 Mattioli KP, Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010 Chauhan SP, Am J Perinatol, 2013

  4. Background: Screening • Fundal height • Pubic symphysis to top of fundus • Measurement in cm correlates to GA +/- 2cm • Screening modality used by majority • Poor sensitivity Persson, B. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986 Robert, PJ. Cochrane Data Syst Rev 2012

  5. Background: Screening • Ultrasound • Fetal Biometry • Measurement of: • HC/BPD/AC/FL • Costly and time intensive • Needs further study Zimmer, EZ. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992 Hadlock, FP. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985

  6. Background: Abdominal Circumference Kayem, G. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009 Smith, GC. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997

  7. Background: Screening • Handheld ultrasound (GE VScan) • Introduced at MUSC 2011 • Quick assessment • Presentation • Fetal Heart Rate • Can measure radius of a circle • 2πr

  8. Hypothesis We hypothesize that using a handheld ultrasound to determine abdominal circumference will be better for detection of fetal growth abnormalities than fundal height measurement.

  9. Methods: Patient Population • Prospective observational pilot study • N = 251 patients • Inclusion Criteria • Singleton pregnancy undergoing growth scan • 24-40 weeks • Ultrasound <20w confirming EDC • Exclusion Criteria • Congenital anomaly • Known aneuploidy • Multiple gestation • Poor dating

  10. Methods • Patients enrolled at time of growth scan • Study personnel • Measure fundal height in cm • Measurement of AC with handheld ultrasound • Record results from formal growth scan • Record birth weights at time of delivery

  11. Demographics and birth outcomes collected Statistical analysis SAS 9.3 statistical software Fisher’s exact test McNemar’s test Methods

  12. Demographics

  13. Correlation R = 0.939 (p<0.001)

  14. Results - Fundal Height 57.8% of our population had BMI > 30

  15. Results - HHAC Sn EFW = 25.9% Sn EFW = 29.2%

  16. Diagnostic Performance

  17. Limitations • Wide variety of gestational ages • High risk population • Prevalence of growth abnormalities low • Inability to adequately compare sensitivity and specificity between two screening modalities • Statistical significance

  18. Conclusions • HHAC was a superior screening modality for prediction of: • EFW < 10th percentile • BW < 10th percentile • BW > 90th percentile • Fundal height was a superior screening modality for prediction of: • EFW > 90th percentile • HHAC could prove to be quick, effective bedside screening modality • Further studies needed in a larger, low risk population • Evaluation in obese population

  19. References Chauhan SP, Beydoun H, Chang E, Sandlin AT, Dahlke JD, Igwe E, Magann EF, Anderson KR, Abuhamad AZ, Ananth CV. Prenatal Detection of Fetal Growth Restriction in Newborns Classified as Small for Gestational Age: Correlates and Risk of Neonatal Morbidity. Am J Perinatol. 2013 Apr 16. Chen HY, Chauhan SP, Ward TC, Mori N, Gass ET, Cisler RA. Aberrant fetal growth and early, late, and postneonatal mortality: an analysis of Milwaukee births, 1996-2007. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204: e1 , e10 Gordon, M. et al. The immediate and long-term outcome of obstetric birth trauma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;117:51-56. 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 Mattioli KP, Sanderson M, Chauhan SP. Inadequate identification of small-for-gestational-age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 109: 140-143 McIntire D. et al. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1234-1238. Robert Peter J, Ho JJ, Valliapan J, Sivasangari S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD008136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008136.pub2. Zimmer EZ, Divon MY. Sonographic diagnosis of IUGR-macrosomia. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;35(1):172-84.

  20. Thank you! • Drs. Chang, Hawk & Sullivan • Keith Willan for ultrasound guidance • Dr. Hulsey for statistical support • Dr. Newman for editorial support

More Related