How prevalent is being born small for gestational age? Analysis of 7341 children from the ELSPAC study population
Authors:
D. Novotná 1; P. Okrajek 2; Z. Doležel 1; L. Kukla 2; J. Lebl 3
Authors place of work:
Pediatrická klinika Lékařské fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a FN Brno, přednosta prof. MUDr. Z. Doležel, CSc.
1; Výzkumné pracoviště preventivní a sociální pediatrie Lékařské fakulty Masarykovy univerzity, Brno, vedoucí doc. MUDr. L. Kukla, CSc.
2; Pediatrická klinika UK 2. LF a FN Motol, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. J. Lebl, CSc.
3
Published in the journal:
Čes-slov Pediat 2011; 66 (2): 92-98.
Category:
Original Papers
Summary
Intrauterine growth restriction that results in lower birth weight and/or birth length (SGA, small for gestational age) is linked to increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality, short stature in childhood and adulthood and may increase risk of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. Published data on the frequency of newborns assigned as SGA vary according to SGA definition and to the method and accuracy of gestational age estimation. We aimed to analyze the impact of methodology of gestational age estimation on frequency of SGA in children of the Moravian branch of the international multicentre study ELSPAC (European Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood) and to compare the results with international reference values.
The study included 7533 children born in the city of Brno and in the Znojmo district within 16 months in 1991–1992. Majority of essential data were available in 7341 of them. We proved that method of estimation of gestational age substantially modifies the population frequency of SGA, ranging from 5.3% in ultrasound method and 6.8% in estimation according to last menstrual period up to 13.8% according to reported data (as given in the questionnaire). Birth weights and birth lengths of children in the ELSPAC study were compared with international reference data according to Lawrence (1989). Whereas similar results were found at gestational ages 34–36 weeks, values at gestational ages 37–42 weeks were significantly lower in the ELSPAC population. Due to a smaller sample size of the ELSPAC cohort, we recommend using the international reference normative data in clinical praxis, however interpretation of individual values should be based on estimation of gestational age according to ultrasound or last menstrual period.
Key words:
small for gestational age, intrauterine growth retardation, birth weight, birth length, ELSPAC
Zdroje
1. Gluckman PD, Hanson M. The consequences of being born small – an adaptive perspective. Horm Res 2006; 65(Suppl 3): 5–14.
2. De Zegher F, Francois I, van Helvoirt M, et al. Small as fetus and short as child: from endogenous to exogenous growth hormone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82: 2021–2026.
3. Clayton PE, Cianfarani S, Czernichow P, et al. Consensus statement: Management of the child born small for gestational age through to adulthood: A consensus statement of the International Societies of Pediatric Endocrinology and the Growth Hormone Research Society. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007; 92: 804–810.
4. Kramer MS, McLean FH, Boyd ME, et al. The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm and postterm gestations. JAMA 1988; 260: 3306–3308.
5. Thorsell M, Kaijser M, Almström H, et al. Expected day of delivery from ultrasound dating versus last menstrual period – obstetric outcome when dates mismatch. BJOG 2008; 115: 585–589.
6. Usher R, McLean F. Intrauterine growth of live-born Caucasian infants at sea level: Standards obtained from measurements in 7 dimensions of infants born between 25 and 44 weeks of gestation. J Pediatr 1969; 74: 901–991.
7. Rosenberg RE, Ahmed NU, Ahmed S, et al. Determining gestational age in a low-resource setting: validity of last menstrual period. J Health Popul Nutr 2009; 27: 332–338.
8. Lawrence C, Fryer JG, Karlberg P, et al. Modelling of reference values for size at birth. Acta Paediatr Scand 1989; Suppl 350: 55–69.
9. Cole TJ. The secular trend in human physical growth: a biological view. Economics & Human Biology 2003; 1: 161–168.
10. Wen SW, Kramer MS, Platt R, et al. Secular trends of fetal growth in Canada, 1981 to 1997. Pediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003; 17: 347–354.
11. Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H, et al. Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 2002; 141: 538–542.
12. Dober I, Dizseri T, Jarai I, et al. Changes in birth weight, birth length and head circumference of Hungarian children in the country Baranya between1968 and 1979–1981. Anthropol Anz 1993; 51: 341–347.
13. Rosenberg M. Birth weights in three Norwegian cities, 1860–1984. Secular trends and influencing factors. Ann Hum Biol 1988; 15: 275–288.
14. Niklasson A, Ericson A, Fryer JG, et al. An update of the Swedish reference standards for weight, length and head circumference at birth for given gestational age (1977–1981). Acta Paediatr Scand 1991; 80: 756–762.
15. Arbucle TE, Sherman GJ. An analysis of birth weight by gestational age in Canada. CMAJ 1989; 140: 157–165.
16. Davidson S, Litwin A, Peleg D, et al. Are babies getting biger? Secular trends in fetal growth in Israel – a retrospective hospital-based cohort study. IMAJ 2007; 9: 649–651.
17. Roztočil A. Porodnictví. Brno: IDV PZ, 2001: 116.
18. Albertsson-Wikland K, Karlberg J. Natural growth in children born small for gestational age with and without catch-up growth. Acta Paediatr 1994; Suppl 399: 64–70.
19. Wit JM, Finken MJJ, Rijken M, et al. Confusion around the definition of small for gestational age [letter]. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 2005; 3: 52–53.
20. Zaw W, Gagnon R, da Silva O. The risks of adverse neonatal outcome among preterm small for gestational age infants according to neonatal versus fetal growth standards. Pediatrics 2003; 111: 1273–1277.
21. Ferdynus C, Quantin C, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Can birth weight standards based on healthy populations improve the identification of small-for-gestational-age newborns at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes? Pediatrics 2009; 123: 723–730.
22. Walderström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S. Ultrasonic dating of pregnancies: Effect on incidence of SGA diagnoses. A randomised controlled trial. Early Hum Dev 1992; 30: 75–79.
23. Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Greisen G, et al. Does a discrepancy between gestational age determined by biparietal diameter and last menstrual period sometimes signify early intrauterine growth retardation? BJOG 2000; 107: 238–244.
24. Ananth CV, Balasubramanian B, Demissie K, et al. Small for gestational age births in the United States. An age-period – cohort analysis. Epidemiology 2004; 15: 28–35.
25. Sharma P, McKay K, Rosenkrantz TS, et al. Comparisons of mortality and pre-discharge respiratory outcomes in small-for-gestational-age and appropriate-for-gestational-age premature infants. BMC Pediatr 2004; 4: 9–16.
Štítky
Neonatology Paediatrics General practitioner for children and adolescents Paediatric cardiology EndocrinologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech-Slovak Pediatrics
2011 Číslo 2
- What Effect Can Be Expected from Limosilactobacillus reuteri in Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis?
- The Importance of Limosilactobacillus reuteri in Administration to Diabetics with Gingivitis
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Extraesophageal reflux – otorhinolaryngological complication of gastroesophageal reflux
- Do we treate patients with cryptorchism at the recommended age?
- Cricopharyngeal achalasia, a rare cause of chronic irritable cough in infant
- Reactive hyperemic index and endothelial dysfunction in children – pilot study