Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Longitudinal Ultrasound Measures of Fetal Growth and Offspring Outcomes

  • Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology (R Platt, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Epidemiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this narrative review, we outline recent evidence relating longitudinal ultrasound (US) measurements to offspring outcomes in the perinatal period and in childhood, with an emphasis on the methodological approaches for describing fetal growth.

Recent Findings

The utility of longitudinal ultrasonography (US) to measure fetal growth and determine fetal trajectories is valued in both clinical and research environments. Evidence shows that repeated measures of US throughout pregnancy are useful for distinguishing between a growth-restricted and constitutionally small fetus, the former burdened by adverse clinical outcomes. Fetal growth restriction and small for gestational age are not interchangeable terms, although both can exist in the same individual.

Summary

The application of longitudinal US may have predictive value when determining longer-term health and disease outcomes in offspring born growth-restricted. However, it is important to remember that associations between fetal growth restriction and increased risk for non-communicable diseases are likely modified by postnatal growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wollmann HA. Intrauterine growth restriction: definition and etiology. Horm Res. 1998;49(Suppl 2):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Unterscheider J, et al. Fetal growth restriction and the risk of perinatal mortality—case studies from the multicentre PORTO study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharma, K.J., et al. Pregnancies complicated by both preeclampsia and growth restriction between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation are associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016;1–4.

  4. Sonnenschein-Van Der Voort AM, et al. Foetal and infant growth patterns, airway resistance and school-age asthma. Respirology. 2016;21(4):674–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ostgard HF, et al. Neuropsychological deficits in young adults born small-for-gestational age (SGA) at term. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20(3):313–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alkandari F, et al. Fetal ultrasound measurements and associations with postnatal outcomes in infancy and childhood: a systematic review of an emerging literature. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(1):41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paneth N. Invited commentary: the hidden population in perinatal epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(7):793–6. author reply 797-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ott WJ. Intrauterine growth retardation and preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1710–5. discussion 1715-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zeitlin J, et al. The relationship between intrauterine growth restriction and preterm delivery: an empirical approach using data from a European case-control study. BJOG. 2000;107(6):750–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morken NH, Kallen K, Jacobsson B. Fetal growth and onset of delivery: a nationwide population-based study of preterm infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(1):154–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hediger ML, et al. Fetal growth and the etiology of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(2):175–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutcheon JA, Platt RW. The missing data problem in birth weight percentiles and thresholds for “small-for-gestational-age”. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(7):786–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiserud T, et al. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: a multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Papageorghiou AT, 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(9946):869–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buck Louis GM, et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD fetal growth studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):449 e1–449 e41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hooper PM, Mayes DC, Demianczuk NN. A model for foetal growth and diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction. Stat Med. 2002;21(1):95–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Velez MP, et al. Female digit length ratio (2D:4D) and time-to-pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(9):2128–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG, et al. Statistical considerations for the development of prescriptive fetal and newborn growth standards in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG. 2013;120(Suppl 2):71–6, v

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Connor C, et al. Fetal subcutaneous tissue measurements in pregnancy as a predictor of neonatal total body composition. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(10):952–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardosi J, et al. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet. 1992;339(8788):283–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutcheon JA, et al. Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? BJOG. 2008;115(11):1397–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Iliodromiti S, et al. Customised and noncustomised birth weight centiles and prediction of stillbirth and infant mortality and morbidity: a cohort study of 979,912 term singleton pregnancies in Scotland. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002228.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hinkle SN, et al. Comparison of methods for identifying small-for-gestational-age infants at risk of perinatal mortality among obese mothers: a hospital-based cohort study. BJOG. 2016;123(12):1983–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mikolajczyk RT, et al. A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles. Lancet. 2011;377(9780):1855–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Toemen L, et al. Longitudinal growth during fetal life and infancy and cardiovascular outcomes at school-age. J Hypertens. 2016;34(7):1396–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gishti O, et al. Fetal and infant growth patterns associated with total and abdominal fat distribution in school-age children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(7):2557–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gaillard R, Jaddoe VWV. Assessment of fetal growth by customized growth charts. Ann Nutr Metab. 2014;65:149–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(1):80–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Owen P, et al. Using unconditional and conditional standard deviation scores of fetal abdominal area measurements in the prediction of intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(5):439–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Royston P. Calculation of unconditional and conditional reference intervals for foetal size and growth from longitudinal measurements. Stat Med. 1995;14(13):1417–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heppe DHM, et al. Fetal and childhood growth patterns associated with bone mass in school-age children: the generation R study. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(12):2584–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Keijzer-Veen MG, et al. A regression model with unexplained residuals was preferred in the analysis of the fetal origins of adult diseases hypothesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(12):1320–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Slaughter JC, Herring AH, Thorp JM. A Bayesian latent variable mixture model for longitudinal fetal growth. Biometrics. 2009;65(4):1233–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Barker ED, et al. The role of growth trajectories in classifying fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2):248–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bardien, N., et al., Placental insufficiency in fetuses that slow in growth but are born appropriate for gestational age: a prospective longitudinal study. PLoS One [Electronic Resource], 2016. 11(1): p. e0142788.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. O'Connor H, et al. Comparison of asymmetric versus symmetric IUGR e results from a national prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;1:S173–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gaillard R, et al. Tracking of fetal growth characteristics during different trimesters and the risks of adverse birth outcomes. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1140–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sovio U, et al. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the pregnancy outcome prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386(10008):2089–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. McMaster-Fay RA. Re: Customised birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity. BJOG. 2006;113(2):246–7. author reply 247-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Owen P, Harrold AJ, Farrell T. Fetal size and growth velocity in the prediction of intrapartum caesarean section for fetal distress. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(4):445–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gyamfi-Bannerman C, et al. Nonspontaneous late preterm birth: etiology and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):456 e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith GC, et al. First-trimester growth and the risk of low birth weight. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(25):1817–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mook-Kanamori DO, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with first-trimester fetal growth restriction. JAMA. 2010;303(6):527–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Goldenberg RL, et al. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang J, et al. Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):522–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Turner S. Antenatal origins of reduced lung function-but not asthma? Respirology. 2016;21(4):574–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Almakoshi A, et al. Fetal growth trajectory and risk for eczema in a Saudi population. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26(8):811–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rogne T, et al. Fetal growth, cognitive function, and brain volumes in childhood and adolescence. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(3):673–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lohaugen GC, et al. Small for gestational age and intrauterine growth restriction decreases cognitive function in young adults. J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):447–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kooijman MN, et al. Third trimester fetal hemodynamics and cardiovascular outcomes in childhood: the Generation R study. J Hypertens. 2014;32(6):1275–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Soothill PW, Bobrow CS, Holmes R. Small for gestational age is not a diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;13(4):225–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Altman DG, Hytten FE. Intrauterine growth retardation: let’s be clear about it. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96(10):1127–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Abraham M, et al. A systematic review of maternal smoking during pregnancy and fetal measurements with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170946.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Tricia L. Larose, Tormod Rogne & Geir W. Jacobsen

  2. Department of Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Steve W. Turner

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Jennifer A. Hutcheon

  4. Unit for Applied Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Ingrid I. Riphagen

  5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Women and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Marit Martinussen

  6. St. Olav’s University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Marit Martinussen

Authors
  1. Tricia L. Larose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve W. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer A. Hutcheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tormod Rogne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ingrid I. Riphagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marit Martinussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Geir W. Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tricia L. Larose.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology

Appendix 1. MEDLINE through Ovid (1946–2016 October 17)

Appendix 1. MEDLINE through Ovid (1946–2016 October 17)

MEDLINE through Ovid (1946–2016 October 17).

Resource selected:Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Present October 17th 2016

Search History

# ▲

Searches

Results

Type

1

Fetal development/ or “Embryonic and fetal development”/ or Fetal growth retardation/ or ((Fetus/ or Fetus weight/) and (Growth/ or Gestational age/))

50,896

Advanced

2

(anthropometr* or ultrasound or ultrasonograph* or echograph* or sonograph*).mp. or ((conception or fetal or fetus* or foetal or foetus* or in utero or antenatal* or prenatal* or intrauterine) adj15 (measure* or assess* or growth pattern* or growth trajector*)).ti,ab.

440,831

Advanced

3

Child/ or Child, Preschool/ or Child development/ or exp Child development disorders/ or Child Health/ or Pregnancy Outcome/ or Long term adverse effects/ or Infant/ or “Infant, newborn”/ or “Infant, small for gestational age”/ or exp. “Infant, Low birth weight”/ or Child*.ti,ab. or “Prenatal exposure, delayed effects”/

2,567,632

Advanced

4

1 and 2 and 3

4398

Advanced

5

4 and (Humans/ not Animals/)

4165

Advanced

6

limit 5 to yr. = “2014 -Current”

433

Advanced

7

6 not review.pt.

387

Advanced

Embase through Ovid (1974 to 2016 October 14)

Resource selected Embase 1974 to 2016 October 14

Search History

# ▲

Searches

Results

Type

1

Fetus growth/ or Intrauterine growth retardation/ or Fetus development/ or Prenatal growth/ or ((“Fetus”/ or Fetus weight/) and (Growth rate/ or Growth retardation/ or Gestational age/))

74,954

Advanced

2

(anthropometr* or ultrasound or ultrasonograph* or echograph* or sonograph*).mp. or ((conception or fetal or fetus* or foetal or foetus* or in utero or antenatal* or prenatal* or intrauterine) adj15 (measure* or assess* or growth pattern* or growth trajector*)).ti,ab.

739,868

Advanced

3

Child/ or Childhood/ or Child development/ or Preschool child/ or Toddler/ or School child/ or Child health/ or Child growth/ or Early childhood/ or child*.ti,ab. or Pregnancy outcome/ or exp Childhood disease/ or Infant/ or Newborn/ or Infancy/ or Postnatal growth/ or Postnatal development/ or “Small for date infant”/

2,821,960

Advanced

4

1 and 2 and 3

8882

Advanced

5

4 and ((Human/ or Normal human/) not (Animal/ or Animal experiment/ or Animal model/ or Nonhuman/))

7813

Advanced

6

limit 5 to yr. = “2014 -Current”

2162

Advanced

7

6 not review.pt.

2040

Advanced

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larose, T.L., Turner, S.W., Hutcheon, J.A. et al. Longitudinal Ultrasound Measures of Fetal Growth and Offspring Outcomes. Curr Epidemiol Rep 4, 98–105 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-017-0103-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-017-0103-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation