Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 3/2017

01-09-2017 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Measurement and evaluation of fetal fat layer in the prediction of fetal macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes

Authors: Mohamed Elessawy, Christina Harders, Helmut Kleinwechter, Norbert Demandt, Ghada Abu Sheasha, Nicolai Maass, Ulrich Pecks, Christel Eckmann-Scholz

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To explore the predictive power of measuring the abdominal fetal fat layer (FFL) as a soft tissue marker at 31, 34, and 37 weeks’ gestation to improve the detection of fetal macrosomia in pregnant women with GDM, in addition to the biometric values with close monitoring of maternal blood sugar level and BMI changes.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study at the Department of Obstetrics, University Hospitals, Campus Kiel, Germany, in collaboration with diabetic clinic staff. Participants underwent a third-trimester scan and extra FFL measurements were performed at 31, 34, and 37 weeks of gestation. The clinical outcomes of pregnancy and birth weight were collected from the obstetric record. All of the enrolled women had an early pregnancy ultrasound scan to confirm gestational age.

Results

The FFL at 34 and 37 weeks, with respective cutoff values of >0.48 cm and >0.59 cm, showed a very good sensitivity of 60% for both gestational points, and specificity of 89.3 and 90.6%, respectively. The probability of fetal macrosomia could be more than doubled if the FFL at 34 weeks was more than 0.48 cm. However, the probability of macrosomia dropped to 16% if the FFL was ≤0.48 cm. The median FFLs of macrosomic fetuses at 34 and 37 weeks were 0.50 (IQR 0.10) and 0.60 (IQR 0.25) cm, respectively. The mean age of the study population (n = 80) was 32.26 (SD = 5.06) years. In our study population, ten newborns were born with birth weight >4000 g. The body mass index (BMI) for the mothers of later-onset macrosomic newborns showed higher median values of 30 (IQR 8), 32 (IQR 5), and 33 (IQR 9) at 31, 34, and 37 weeks, respectively, in comparison to mothers of non-macrosomic newborn. However, the BMI did not show any statistically significant difference from those with normal-weight newborn and did not show any specific sensitivity for predicting macrosomia.

Conclusion

Measuring the FFL at 34 and 37 weeks of gestation, in addition to the standard measurement, might be useful for predicting macrosomia and is worth further evaluation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reece EA (2010) The fetal and maternal consequences of gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23(3):199–203CrossRefPubMed Reece EA (2010) The fetal and maternal consequences of gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23(3):199–203CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Zhang X et al (2008) How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):517.e1–517.e6CrossRef Zhang X et al (2008) How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):517.e1–517.e6CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Crosby DA et al (2015) Interpregnancy changes in maternal weight and body mass index. Am J Perinatol 30(2):199–204PubMed Crosby DA et al (2015) Interpregnancy changes in maternal weight and body mass index. Am J Perinatol 30(2):199–204PubMed
4.
go back to reference Geifman-Holtzman O et al (2010) The clinical utility of oral glucose tolerance test at term: can it predict fetal macrosomia? Arch Gynecol Obstet 281(5):817–821CrossRefPubMed Geifman-Holtzman O et al (2010) The clinical utility of oral glucose tolerance test at term: can it predict fetal macrosomia? Arch Gynecol Obstet 281(5):817–821CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (2009) (HAPO) Study: associations with neonatal anthropometrics. Diabetes 58(2):453–459CrossRef Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (2009) (HAPO) Study: associations with neonatal anthropometrics. Diabetes 58(2):453–459CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Negrato CA et al (2008) Mild gestational hyperglycaemia as a risk factor for metabolic syndrome in pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24(4):324–330CrossRefPubMed Negrato CA et al (2008) Mild gestational hyperglycaemia as a risk factor for metabolic syndrome in pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24(4):324–330CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Tian C et al (2016) Excessive weight gain during pregnancy and risk of macrosomia: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(1):29–35CrossRefPubMed Tian C et al (2016) Excessive weight gain during pregnancy and risk of macrosomia: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(1):29–35CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ventura SJ et al (2000) Births: final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep 48(3):1–100 Ventura SJ et al (2000) Births: final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep 48(3):1–100
9.
go back to reference Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Henrich W (2013) Prenatal detection and consequences of fetal macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 33(3):143–148CrossRefPubMed Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Henrich W (2013) Prenatal detection and consequences of fetal macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 33(3):143–148CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Surkan PJ et al (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):720–726CrossRefPubMed Surkan PJ et al (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):720–726CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Yeh J, Shelton J (2005) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):444 (author reply 444–445) CrossRefPubMed Yeh J, Shelton J (2005) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):444 (author reply 444–445) CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(1):80–89CrossRefPubMed Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(1):80–89CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Pinette MG et al (1999) Estimation of fetal weight: mean value from multiple formulas. J Ultrasound Med 18(12):813–817CrossRefPubMed Pinette MG et al (1999) Estimation of fetal weight: mean value from multiple formulas. J Ultrasound Med 18(12):813–817CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference O’Connor C et al (2013) Longitudinal measurement of fetal thigh soft tissue parameters and its role in the prediction of birth weight. Prenat Diagn 33(10):945–951PubMed O’Connor C et al (2013) Longitudinal measurement of fetal thigh soft tissue parameters and its role in the prediction of birth weight. Prenat Diagn 33(10):945–951PubMed
15.
go back to reference Esinler D et al (2015) Finding the best formula to predict the fetal weight: comparison of 18 formulas. Gynecol Obstet Invest 80(2):78–84CrossRefPubMed Esinler D et al (2015) Finding the best formula to predict the fetal weight: comparison of 18 formulas. Gynecol Obstet Invest 80(2):78–84CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Bethune M, Bell R (2003) Evaluation of the measurement of the fetal fat layer, interventricular septum and abdominal circumference percentile in the prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(6):586–590CrossRefPubMed Bethune M, Bell R (2003) Evaluation of the measurement of the fetal fat layer, interventricular septum and abdominal circumference percentile in the prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(6):586–590CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wong SF et al (2001) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in macrosomic fetuses: diabetic versus non-diabetic pregnancies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 41(4):429–432CrossRefPubMed Wong SF et al (2001) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in macrosomic fetuses: diabetic versus non-diabetic pregnancies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 41(4):429–432CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Faschingbauer F et al (2015) Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(1):59–67CrossRefPubMed Faschingbauer F et al (2015) Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(1):59–67CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kehl RJ et al (1996) Fetal growth and body composition in infants of women with diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Med 5(5):273–280PubMed Kehl RJ et al (1996) Fetal growth and body composition in infants of women with diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Med 5(5):273–280PubMed
20.
go back to reference Anblagan D et al (2013) Measurement of fetal fat in utero in normal and diabetic pregnancies using magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42(3):335–340CrossRefPubMed Anblagan D et al (2013) Measurement of fetal fat in utero in normal and diabetic pregnancies using magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42(3):335–340CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference West DL, Brans YW (1986) Maternal diabetes and neonatal macrosomia. Dynamic skinfold thickness measurements. Am J Perinatol 3(1):9–12CrossRefPubMed West DL, Brans YW (1986) Maternal diabetes and neonatal macrosomia. Dynamic skinfold thickness measurements. Am J Perinatol 3(1):9–12CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lakshmi S et al (2012) Differences in body composition and metabolic status between white UK and Asian Indian children (EarlyBird 24 and the Pune Maternal Nutrition Study). Pediatr Obes 7(5):347–354CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lakshmi S et al (2012) Differences in body composition and metabolic status between white UK and Asian Indian children (EarlyBird 24 and the Pune Maternal Nutrition Study). Pediatr Obes 7(5):347–354CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Measurement and evaluation of fetal fat layer in the prediction of fetal macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes
Authors
Mohamed Elessawy
Christina Harders
Helmut Kleinwechter
Norbert Demandt
Ghada Abu Sheasha
Nicolai Maass
Ulrich Pecks
Christel Eckmann-Scholz
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4433-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 3/2017 Go to the issue