Search

Background: Fetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin. Methods: Repeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared. Results: Maternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27–31 weeks and 33–38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards. Conclusion: Despite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate determination of pre-pregnancy weight is essential for optimal pregnancy monitoring and antenatal care. Determining pre-pregnancy weight in limited-resources settings is challenging for both clinical practice and public health research. From a 2014-2017 pre-pregnancy cohort in Benin, we evaluated the agreement between the measured pre-pregnancy weight (MPPW) and two proxies: (i) the first trimester pregnancy weight (FTPW) and (ii) the estimated pre-pregnancy weight (EPPW) using Thomas & al. formula. We analysed data from 302 pregnant women with both pre-pregnancy weight measured within 3 months before conception and weight measured during the first trimester. Using segmented linear regression, we first assessed up to which gestational age the weight measured during the first trimester could reasonably estimate the MPPW. Then the Bland & Altman method was used to assess agreement between MPPW and the two proxies. Additional analyses were performed to assess the sensitivity of results to the timing of measurement of either MPPW or the two proxies. On average, FTPW did not feature significant difference with MPPW up to 13.03 (11.99-14.06) weeks of gestational age. FTPW, measured on average at 7 ± 2.4 weeks of gestation, and the EPPW showed similar Bland & Altman limits of agreement with the MPPW. However, while the FTPW slightly underestimated the MPPW by a mean of-0.16 (-0.08; +0.39) kg, the EPPW overestimated it by a mean of + 0.43 (+0.20; +0.66) kg. Minor differences in these results were observed when the MPPW was assessed earlier or within three months before pregnancy, or according to the gestational age at the time of the proxy's measurement. In conclusion, in Southern Benin and up to 12-14 weeks of pregnancy, the FTPW appeared to be a good proxy of the MPPW while using Thomas' formula did not enhance pre-pregnancy weight estimation., Competing Interests: All authors report no potential conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Yovo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Fetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin., Methods: Repeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared., Results: Maternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27-31 weeks and 33-38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards., Conclusion: Despite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.