Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 16, 2021

Diagnostic accuracy of modified Hadlock formula for fetal macrosomia in women with gestational diabetes and pregnancy weight gain above recommended

Boris Lovrić, Siniša Šijanović, Joško Lešin and Josip Juras

Abstract

Objectives

Women with gestational diabetes (GDM) and weight gain during pregnancy above recommended more often give birth to macrosomic children. The goal of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the modified formula for ultrasound assessment of fetal weight created in a pilot study using a similar specimen in comparison to the Hadlock-2 formula.

Methods

This is a prospective, cohort, applicative, observational, quantitative, and analytical study, which included 213 pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy, GDM, and pregnancy weight gain above recommended. Participants were consecutively followed in the time period between July 1st, 2016, and August 31st, 2020. Ultrasound estimations were made within three days before the delivery. Fetal weights estimated using both formulas were compared to the newborns’ weights.

Results

A total of 133 fetal weight estimations were made. In comparison to the newborns’ weight modified formula had significantly smaller deviation in weight estimation compared to the Hadlock-2 formula, higher frequency of deviation within 5% of newborns weights (78.2% [95% CI=0.74–0.83] vs. 60.2%), smaller frequency of deviations from 5 to 10% (19.5 vs. 33.8%) and above 10%, which was even more significant among macrosomic children. There were 36/50 (72%) correctly diagnosed cases of macrosomia by modified and 33/50 (66%) by Hadlock-2 formula. Area under the curve (AUC) for the modified formula was 0.854 (95% CI=0.776–0.932), and for the Hadlock-2 formula 0.824 (95% CI=0.740–0.908). The positive predictive value of the modified formula was 81.81%, the negative 97.91%.

Conclusions

In cases of greater fetal weights, the modified formula showed greater precision.


Corresponding author: Asst. Prof. Josip Juras, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UHC Zagreb, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Petrova ulica 13, Zagreb, Croatia, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: Permission of two Ethical Committees has been obtained before evolvement of first participant (Clinical Department and School of Medicine). This study is presented in accordance with guidelines for studies of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) [10].

References

1. Beta, J, Khan, N, Khalil, A, Fiolna, M, Ramadan, G, Akolekar, R. Maternal and neonatal complications of fetal macrosomia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;54:308–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20279.Search in Google Scholar

2. Chauhan, SP, Grobman, WA, Gherman, RA, Chauhan, VB, Chang, G, Magann, EF, et al.. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:332–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.020.Search in Google Scholar

3. Black, MH, Sacks, DA, Xiang, AH, Lawrence, JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG-defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabetes Care 2013;36:56–62. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0741.Search in Google Scholar

4. Nahavandi, S, Price, S, Sumithran, P, Ekinci, EI. Exploration of the shared pathophysiological mechanisms of gestational diabetes and large for gestational age offspring. World J Diabetes 2019;10:333–40. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v10.i6.333.Search in Google Scholar

5. Vieira, MC, McCowan, LME, North, RA, Myers, JE, Walker, JJ, Baker, PN, et al.. Antenatal risk factors associated with neonatal morbidity in large-for-gestational-age infants: an international prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:1015–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13362.Search in Google Scholar

6. Faschingbauer, F, Voigt, F, Goecke, TW, Siemer, J, Beckmann, MW, Yazdi, B, et al.. Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥ 4,500  g): comparison of 10 formulas. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:E62–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1312819.Search in Google Scholar

7. Cesnaite, G, Domza, G, Ramasauskaite, D, Volochovic, J. The accuracy of 22 fetal weight estimation formulas in diabetic pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2020;47:54–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500452.Search in Google Scholar

8. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1996–2002.Search in Google Scholar

9. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Weight gain during pregnancy: reexamining the guidelines. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2009.Search in Google Scholar

10. Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, Gatsonis, CA, Glasziou, PP, Irwig, L, et al.. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;351:h5527. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527.Search in Google Scholar

11. Dudley, NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:80–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1751.Search in Google Scholar

12. Coomarasamy, A, Connock, M, Thornton, J, Khan, KS. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG 2005;112:1461–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00702.x.Search in Google Scholar

13. Combs, CA, Rosenn, B, Miodovnik, M, Siddiqi, TA. Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia? J Matern Fetal Med 2000;9:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<55::aid-mfm12>3.0.co;2-9.10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<55::AID-MFM12>3.0.CO;2-9Search in Google Scholar

14. Hosmer, DW, Lemeshow, S, Sturdivant, RX. Assessing the fit of the model. In: Hosmer, DW, Lemeshow, S, Sturdivant, RX, editors. Applied logistic regression, 3rd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013:177 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387.Search in Google Scholar

15. Shmueli, A, Salman, L, Hadar, E, Aviram, A, Bardin, R, Ashwal, E, et al.. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by maternal diabetes: finding the best formula. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019;299:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4934-y.Search in Google Scholar

16. Bryant, DR, Leonardi, MR, Landwehr, JB, Bottoms, SF. Limited usefulness of fetal weight in predicting neonatal brachial plexus injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:686–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(98)70065-1.Search in Google Scholar

17. Benson, CB, Doubilet, PM, Saltzman, DH. Sonographic determination of fetal weights in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:441–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(87)90303-6.Search in Google Scholar

18. Hoopmann, M, Abele, H, Wagner, N, Wallwiener, D, Kagan, KO. Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:204–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000299475.Search in Google Scholar

19. Sokol, RJ, Chik, L, Dombrowski, MP, Zador, IE. Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus: improving ultrasonography-based prediction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1489–95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.106853.Search in Google Scholar

20. Hart, NC, Hilbert, A, Meurer, B, Schrauder, M, Schmid, M, Siemer, J, et al.. Macrosomia: a new formula for optimized fetal weight estimation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:42–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7493.Search in Google Scholar

21. Tarca, AL, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Ahn, H, Garcia, M, Xu, Z, Korzeniewski, SJ, et al.. Single and serial fetal biometry to detect preterm and term small- and large-for-gestational-age neonates: a longitudinal cohort study. PloS One 2016;11:e0164161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164161.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2021-0013).


Received: 2021-01-11
Accepted: 2021-03-31
Published Online: 2021-04-16
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston