Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2018; 35(07): 632-642
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608926
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Characterization of Thermal and Mechanical Indices from Serial Ultrasound Exams and Associations with Neonatal Anthropometry: The NICHD Fetal Growth Studies

Melissa M. Smarr
1   Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Germaine M. Buck Louis
1   Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Paul S. Albert
2   Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Biostatistics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Sungduk Kim
2   Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Biostatistics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Karin M. Fuchs
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Jagteshwar Grewal
1   Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Mary E. D'Alton
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Katherine L. Grantz
4   Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Department of Epidemiology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 August 2017

31 October 2017

Publication Date:
30 November 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article aims to determine if the number of maternal ultrasound scans where the highest thermal (TI) or mechanical (MI) indices recorded during obstetrical ultrasound exceed 1.0 were associated with neonatal anthropometric measurements.

Study Design A prospective cohort of 2,334 nonobese low-risk pregnant women from 12 U.S. clinical sites underwent a total of six ultrasound scans, for which the highest TI and MI values were recorded. Neonatal anthropometric measurements were obtained within 12 to 24 hours of delivery. Multiple linear regression models adjusted for maternal race/ethnicity, body mass index, weight gain, and gestational age were used to examine associations between the number of maternal ultrasounds during gestation with a TI or MI exceeding 1.0 and the mean change in neonatal anthropometry.

Results Ultrasounds with TI or MI >1.0 were not associated with birth weight, neonatal length, nor head, chest, and abdominal circumferences. TI >1.0 was negatively associated with neonatal mid-upper arm and mid-upper thigh circumferences. MI >1.0 was negatively associated with neonatal skinfold measurements of the anterior thigh and triceps, and neonatal circumferences of the mid-upper thigh and umbilicus.

Conclusion Prenatal ultrasound examinations in which TI or MI intermittently exceeded 1.0 did not identify a pattern of alterations of birth size.

Keywords

birth weight - mechanical index - neonatal anthropometry - thermal index - ultrasound safety
 

  • References

  • 1 Nelson TR, Fowlkes JB, Abramowicz JS, Church CC. Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sonologist. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (02) 139-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fowlkes JB. ; Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive summary. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27 (04) 503-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 ter Haar G. The new British Medical Ultrasound Society Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment. Ultrasound 2010; 18 (02) 50-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29 (01) 157-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kurjak A, Chervenak FA. Donald School Textbook of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers, Medical Publishers Pvt. Limited; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Maeda K. Diagnostic ultrasound safety ultrasound safety indices. J Health Med Informat 2014; 5: 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Abramowicz JS. Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol 2013; 37 (05) 295-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S. , et al. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1988; 2 (8611): 585-588
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moore Jr RM, Diamond EL, Cavalieri RL. The relationship of birth weight and intrauterine diagnostic ultrasound exposure. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71 (04) 513-517
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Newnham JP, Evans SF, Michael CA, Stanley FJ, Landau LI. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993; 342 (8876): 887-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Evans S, Newnham J, MacDonald W, Hall C. Characterisation of the possible effect on birthweight following frequent prenatal ultrasound examinations. Early Hum Dev 1996; 45 (03) 203-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS. , et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (04) 449.e1-449.e41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Ulijaszek SJ, Kerr DA. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr 1999; 82 (03) 165-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hediger ML, Fuchs KM, Grantz KL. , et al. Ultrasound quality assurance for singletons in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35 (08) 1725-1733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Catalano PM, Thomas AJ, Avallone DA, Amini SB. Anthropometric estimation of neonatal body composition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173 (04) 1176-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Williams AM, Brain JL. The normal position of the umbilicus in the newborn: an aid to improving the cosmetic result in exomphalos major. J Pediatr Surg 2001; 36 (07) 1045-1046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Doull IJ, McCaughey ES, Bailey BJ, Betts PR. Reliability of infant length measurement. Arch Dis Child 1995; 72 (06) 520-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fok TF, Hon KL, Wong E. , et al; Hong Kong Neonatal Measurements Working Group. Trunk anthropometry of Hong Kong Chinese infants. Early Hum Dev 2005; 81 (09) 781-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. Anthropometry Procedures Manual. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_07_08/manual_an.pdf . Accessed November 14, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pereira-Da-Silva L, Bergmans KI, van Kerkhoven LA, Leal F, Virella D, Videira-Amaral JM. Reducing discomfort while measuring crown-heel length in neonates. Acta Paediatr 2006; 95 (06) 742-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rodríguez G, Samper MP, Ventura P, Pérez-González JM. Sex-specific charts for abdominal circumference in term and near-term Caucasian newborns. J Perinat Med 2008; 36 (06) 527-530
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shinwell ES, Shlomo M. Measured length of normal term infants changes over the first two days of life. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2003; 16 (04) 537-540
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stetzer BP, Thomas A, Amini SB, Catalano PM. Neonatal anthropometric measurements to predict birth weight by ultrasound. J Perinatol 2002; 22 (05) 397-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Johnson TS, Engstrom JL, Gelhar DK. Intra- and interexaminer reliability of anthropometric measurements of term infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1997; 24 (05) 497-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 de Onis M, Onyango AW, Van den Broeck J, Chumlea WC, Martorell R. Measurement and standardization protocols for anthropometry used in the construction of a new international growth reference. Food Nutr Bull 2004; 25 (1, Suppl): S27-S36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E. , et al. The impact of maternal obesity on midtrimester sonographic visualization of fetal cardiac and craniospinal structures. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28 (12) 1607-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E. , et al. Suboptimal second-trimester ultrasonographic visualization of the fetal heart in obese women: should we repeat the examination?. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24 (09) 1205-1209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wolfe HM, Sokol RJ, Martier SM, Zador IE. Maternal obesity: a potential source of error in sonographic prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76 (3 Pt 1): 339-342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar