Abstract
Objective
To produce a customised birthweight standard for Slovenia.
Methods
This retrospective study used a cohort from the National Perinatal Information System of Slovenia (NPIS). Prospectively collected information from pregnancies delivered in all of Slovenia’s 14 maternal hospitals between 1st January 2003 and 31st December 2012 was included. Coefficients were derived using a backward stepwise multiple regression technique.
Results
A total of 126,627 consecutive deliveries with complete data were included in the multivariable analysis. Maternal height, weight in early pregnancy and parity as well as the baby’s sex were identified as physiological variables, with coefficients comparable to findings in other countries. The expected 280-day birthweight, free from pathological influences, of a standard size mother (height 163 cm, weight 64 kg) in her first pregnancy was 3451.3 g. Pathological influences on birthweight within this population included low and high maternal age, low and high body mass index (BMI), smoking, pre-existing and gestational diabetes and pre-existing and gestational hypertension.
Conclusion
The analysis confirmed the main physiological variables that affect birthweight in studies from other countries, and was able to quantify additional pathological factors of maternal age and gestational diabetes. Development of a country-specific customised birthweight standard will aid clinicians in Slovenia with the distinction between normal and abnormal small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetuses, thus avoiding unnecessary interventions and improving identification of at risk pregnancies, and long-term outcomes for infants.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Morais M, Mehta C, Murphy K, Shah PS, Giglia L, Smith PA, et al. How often are late preterm births the result of non-evidence based practices: analysis from a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary referral centres in a nationalised healthcare system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;120:1508–15.10.1111/1471-0528.12401Search in Google Scholar
2. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, Kennelly MM, McAuliffe FM, O’Donoghue K, et al. Definition and management of fetal growth restriction: a survey of contemporary attitudes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;174:41–5.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.11.022Search in Google Scholar
3. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. The Lancet 1992;339:283–7.10.1016/0140-6736(92)91342-6Search in Google Scholar
4. Clausson B, Gardosi J, Francis A, Cnattingius S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customised versus population-based birthweight standards. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:830–4.Search in Google Scholar
5. Figueras F, Figueras J, Meler E, Eixarch E, Coll O, Gratacos E, et al. Customised birthweight standards accurately predict perinatal morbidity. Arch Dis Child – Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007;92:F277–80.10.1136/adc.2006.108621Search in Google Scholar
6. Gardosi J, Francis A. Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotted on customised antenatal growth charts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:309–17.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08267.xSearch in Google Scholar
7. Mongelli M, Figueras F, Francis A, Gardosi J. A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;47:128–31.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00698.xSearch in Google Scholar
8. Gardosi J, Francis A. Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:28.e1–28.10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.034Search in Google Scholar
9. Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Reduction of false-positive diagnosis of fetal growth restriction by application of customized fetal growth standards. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:844–8.10.1016/0029-7844(96)00285-2Search in Google Scholar
10. Ego A, Subtil D, Grange G, Thiebaugeorges O, Senat M-V, Vayssiere C, et al. Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1042–9.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.816Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Gardosi J, Giddings S, Buller S, Southam M, Williams M. Preventing stillbirths through improved antenatal recognition of pregnancies at risk due to fetal growth restriction. Public Health 2014;128:698–702.10.1016/j.puhe.2014.06.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Gardosi J, Giddings S, Clifford S, Wood L, Francis A. Association between reduced stillbirth rates in England and regional uptake of accreditation training in customised fetal growth assessment. Br Med J Open 2013;3:e003942.10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003942Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, Williams M. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:S609–18.10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Investigation and Management of the Small for Gestational Age Fetus. Green Top Guideline No 31 [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 May 20]. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
15. Babnik J, Blejec T, Cetin-Lovšin I, Lovšin B, Lučovnik M, Kavšek G, et al. [Perinatal information system (PIS): definitions and methodology guidelines for receiving data via e-transfer.] 2013 [cited 2018 May 20]. Available from: http://www.nijz.si/sites/www.nijz.si/files/uploaded/podatki/podatkovne_zbirke_raziskave/pis/peris-metodoloska-navodila-2017_v1-9.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
16. Personal Data Protection Act. Off J Repub Slov 2007;94:12707.Search in Google Scholar
17. Tranquilli AL, Dekker G, Magee L, Roberts J, Sibai BM, Steyn W, et al. The classification, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a revised statement from the ISSHP. Pregnancy Hypertens Int J Womens Cardiovasc Health 2014;4:97–104.10.1016/j.preghy.2014.02.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:168–74.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06030168.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
19. McCowan L, Stewart AW, Francis A, Gardosi J. A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;44:428–31.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2004.00272.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Gardosi J, Francis A. A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:25.e1–7.10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.035Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Lean SC, Derricott H, Jones RL, Heazell AEP. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bhutta ZA, editor. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186287.10.1371/journal.pone.0186287Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Unterscheider J, Geary MP, Daly S, McAuliffe FM, Kennelly MM, Dornan J, et al. The customized fetal growth potential: a standard for Ireland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;166:14–7.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Iliodromiti S, Mackay DF, Smith GC, Pell JP, Sattar N, Lawlor DA, 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:e1002228.10.1371/journal.pmed.1002228Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
24. Carberry AE, Gordon A, Bond DM, Hyett J, Raynes-Greenow CH, Jeffery HE. Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2011 [cited 2018 May 20]. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD008549.pub2.10.1002/14651858.CD008549.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. McCowan LM, Harding JE, Stewart AW. Customised birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:1026–33.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00656.xSearch in Google Scholar
26. Villar J, Ismail LC, Victora CG, Ohuma EO, Bertino E, Altman DG, et al. International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014;384:857–68.10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60932-6Search in Google Scholar
27. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, McCowan LME. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:509.e1–509.10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Francis A, Hugh O, Gardosi J. Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:S692–9.10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Customised GROW charts - Gestation Network [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 20]. Available from: www.gestation.net.Search in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
