Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, Ivica

9 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.653

CiteScore 2017: 1.26

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.594
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.684

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 42, Issue 2

Issues

Survival and neonatal morbidity among extremely preterm born infants in relation to gestational age based on the last menstrual period or ultrasonographic examination

Marija Simic
  • Corresponding author
  • Karolinska Institute, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Isis Amer-Wåhlin / Hugo Lagercrantz / Karel Maršál
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Karin Källén
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  • Center of Reproductive Epidemiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-11-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2013-0061

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of gestational age (GA) estimation on the basis of the last menstrual period (LMP) in comparison with GA based on ultrasound examination on rates of survival and neonatal morbidity among extremely preterm infants.

Methods: The Swedish national registry of infants born extremely preterm (Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden Study), including infants born before 27 weeks of gestation, was used to identify 645 infants with available information. Incidences of stillbirth, survival, small for GA (SGA), and major neonatal morbidity were calculated in relationship to the GA estimated by each of the approaches.

Results: Pregnancies, in general, appeared to be longer when GA was estimated by LMP than by ultrasound (17.2% of the pregnancies were longer than 27 weeks). The incidences of stillbirth, neonatal death, and major neonatal morbidity in relationship to GA were similar for both groups. The risks for SGA were elevated when GA according to ultrasound examination was at least 7 days shorter than GA based on the LMP.

Conclusions: In our cohort of infants born extremely preterm, estimation of GA on the basis of LMP indicated a longer pregnancy than estimated by ultrasound but did not influence the incidences of neonatal survival and morbidity.

Keywords: Extremely preterm infants; gestational age estimation; pregnancy; pregnancy dating; ultrasound

References

  • [1]

    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynaecologists. Number 55. September 2004. (replaces number 6, October 1997). Management of postterm pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:639–46.Google Scholar

  • [2]

    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynaecologists. Number 101, February 2009. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:451–61.Google Scholar

  • [3]

    Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg. 1978;187:1–7.Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:613–20.Google Scholar

  • [5]

    Costeloe K, Hennessy E, Gibson AT, Marlow N, Wilkinson AR. The EPICure study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics. 2000;106:659–71.Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Damodaram M, Story L, Kulinskaya E, Rutherford M, Kumar S. Early adverse perinatal complications in preterm growth-restricted fetuses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51:204–9.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    EXPRESS Group. One-year survival of extremely preterm infants after active prenatal care in Sweden. J Am Med Assoc. 2009;301:2225–33.Google Scholar

  • [8]

    EXPRESS Group. Incidence of and risk factors for neonatal morbidity after active perinatal care: Extremely Preterm Infants Study in Sweden (EXPRESS). Acta Paediatr. 2010;99:978–92.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Gardosi J. Clinical strategies for improving the detection of fetal growth restriction. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38:21–31.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Gardosi J, Geirsson RT. Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:933–6.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Geirsson RT, Busby-Earle RMC. Certain dates may not provide a reliable estimate of gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:108–9.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Giapros V, Drougia A, Krallis N, Theocharis P, Andronikou S. Morbidity and mortality patterns in small-for-gestational age infants born preterm. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:153–7.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Hagenfeldt K, Axelsson O, Blenow M, Bojö F, Bygdeman M, Crang-Svalenius E, et al. Rutinmässig ultraljudsundersökning under graviditet. Chapter 4. SBU report no. 139. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care; 1998. pp. 47–54. http://www.sbu.se. Accessed February 4, 2012.

  • [14]

    Högberg U, Larsson N. Early dating by ultrasound and perinatal outcome: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:907–12.Google Scholar

  • [15]

    International Committee for Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. International Committee for Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited. Arch Opthalmol. 2005;123:991–9.Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163:1723–9.Google Scholar

  • [17]

    Källen K. Increased risk of prenatal/neonatal death in infants who were smaller than expected at ultrasound fetometry in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:30–4.Google Scholar

  • [18]

    Kramer MS, McLean FH, Boyd ME, Usher RH. The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations. J Am Med Assoc. 1988;260:3306–8.Google Scholar

  • [19]

    Larroque B, Bréart G, Kaminski M, Dehan M, André M, Burguet A, et al. Epipage study group. Survival of very preterm infants: epipage, a population based cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:139–44.Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Greisen G, Engholm G, Moller H. Does discrepancy between gestational age determined by biparietal diameter and last menstrual period sometimes signify early intrauterine growth retardation? BJOG. 2000;107:238–44.Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Markestad T, Kaaresen PI, Ronnestad A, Reigstad H, Lossiusk K, Medbo S, et al. Norwegian Extreme Preterm Group. Early death, morbidity and need of treatment among extremely premature infants. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1289–98.Google Scholar

  • [22]

    Marsal K, Persson PH, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85:843–8.Google Scholar

  • [23]

    Marsoosi V, Pirjani R, Jamal A, Eslamain L, Rahimi A. Second trimester biparietal diameter size and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Perinat Diagn. 2011;31:995–8.Google Scholar

  • [24]

    Nakling J, Backe B. Adverse obstetric outcome in fetuses that are smaller than expected at second trimester routine ultrasound examination. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:846–51.Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Nguyen T, Larsen T, Engholm G, Møller H. A discrepancy between gestational age estimated by last menstrual period and biparietal diameter may indicate an increased risk of fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcome. BJOG. 2000;107:1122–9.Google Scholar

  • [26]

    Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm. J Pediatr. 1978;92:529–34.Google Scholar

  • [27]

    Persson PH, Weldner BM. Reliability of ultrasound fetometry in estimating gestational age in the second trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:481–3.Google Scholar

  • [28]

    Rowlands S, Royston P. Estimated date of delivery from last menstrual period and ultrasound scan: which is more accurate? Br J Gen Pract. 1993;43:322–5.Google Scholar

  • [29]

    Simic M, Amer-Wahlin I, Marsal K, Kallen K. Differences in ultrasonically estimated gestational age of extremely preterm infants when using various dating formulas. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:179–85.Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Thorsell M, Kaijser M, Almström H, Andolf E. Expected day of delivery from ultrasound dating versus last menstrual period-obstetric outcome when dates mismatch. BJOG. 2008;115:585–9.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Vanhaesebrouck P, Allegaert K, Bottu J, Debauche C, Devlieger H, Docx M, et al. Extremely Preterm Infants in Belgium Study Group. The EPIBEL study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for extremely preterm infants in Belgium. Pediatrics. 2004;114:663–75.Google Scholar

  • [32]

    Waldenstrom U, Axelsson O, Nilsson SA. A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76:336–8.Google Scholar

  • [33]

    Weir M, Evans M, Coughlin K. Ethical decision making in the resuscitation of extremely premature infants: the health care professional’s perspective. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:49–56.Google Scholar

  • [34]

    Wood N, Marlow N, Costeloe K, Gibson A, Wilkinson A. Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:378–84.Google Scholar

  • [35]

    World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2005: make every mother and child count. http://www.who.int/whr/2005/whr2005_en.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2012.

About the article

Corresponding author: Marija Simic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; and Karolinska Institute, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Stockholm, Sweden, Tel.: +46 707530508, E-mail:


Received: 2013-03-17

Accepted: 2013-10-14

Published Online: 2013-11-21

Published in Print: 2014-03-01


Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 247–253, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2013-0061.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Marija Simic, Olof Stephansson, Gunnar Petersson, Sven Cnattingius, Anna-Karin Wikström, and Fatima Crispi
PLOS ONE, 2017, Volume 12, Number 9, Page e0184853
[2]
Merit Kullinger, Bengt Haglund, Helle Kieler, and Alkistis Skalkidou
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2016, Volume 16, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in