Risk of Cesarean Delivery When Second-Trimester Ultrasound Dating Disagrees with Definite Last Menstrual Period

ABSTRACT

Estimates of gestational age based on early second-trimester ultrasound often differ from that based on the last menstrual period (LMP) even when a woman is certain about her LMP. Discrepancies in these gestational age estimates may be associated with an increased risk of cesarean section and low birth weight. We analyzed 7228 singleton, low-risk, white women from The Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound trial. The women were recruited at less than 14 weeks of gestation and received ultrasound exams between 15 and 22 weeks. Our results indicate that among nulliparous women, the risk of cesarean section increased from 10% when the ultrasound-based gestational age exceeded the LMP-based estimate by 4 days to 60% when the discrepancy increased to 21 days. Moreover, for each additional day the ultrasound-based estimate exceeded the LMP-based estimate, birth weight was higher by 9.6 g. Our findings indicate that a positive discrepancy (i.e., ultrasound-based estimate exceeds LMP-based estimate) in gestational age is associated with an increased risk of cesarean section. A negative discrepancy, by contrast, may reflect early intrauterine growth restriction and an increased risk of low birth weight.

KEYWORDS

Gestational age - last menstrual period - cesarean section - low birth weight

REFERENCES

• 1 Kramer M S, McLean F H, Boyd M E, Usher R H. The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations.  JAMA. 1988;  260 3306-3308
• 2 Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Gardosi J. Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  174(1 Pt 1) 278-281
• 3 Goldenberg R L, Davis R O, Cutter G R, Hoffman H J, Brumfield C G, Foster J M. Prematurity, postdates, and growth retardation: the influence of use of ultrasonography on reported gestational age.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;  160 462-470
• 4 Høgberg U, Larsson N. Early dating by ultrasound and perinatal outcome. A cohort study.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;  76 907-912
• 5 Yang H, Kramer M S, Platt R W et al.. How does early ultrasound scan estimation of gestational age lead to higher rates of preterm birth?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  186 433-437
• 6 Berg A T. Menstrual cycle length and the calculation of gestational age.  Am J Epidemiol. 1991;  133 585-589
• 7 Gardosi J, Vanner T, Francis A. Gestational age and induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;  104 792-797
• 8 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics . ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynecologists. Number 55, September 2004 (replaces practice pattern number 6, October 1997). Management of Postterm Pregnancy.  Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  104 639-646
• 9 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 1122-1129
• 10 Larsen T, Nguyen T H, Greisen G, Engholm G, Møller H. 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
• 11 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;  81 846-851
• 12 Källén K. Increased risk of perinatal/neonatal death in infants who were smaller than expected at ultrasound fetometry in early pregnancy.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  24 30-34
• 13 Morin I, Morin L, Zhang X et al.. Determinants and consequences of discrepancies in menstrual and ultrasonographic gestational age estimates.  BJOG. 2005;  112 145-152
• 14 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;  115 585-589
• 15 Ewigman B G, Crane J P, Frigoletto F D, LeFevre M L, Bain R P, McNellis D. RADIUS Study Group . Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  329 821-827
• 16 Hadlock F P, Deter R L, Harrist R B, Park S K. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters.  Radiology. 1984;  152 497-501
• 17 Hadlock F P, Harrist R B, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard.  Radiology. 1991;  181 129-133
• 18 Wood S N. Generalized Additive Models. An Introduction with R. New York; Chapman & Hall, Inc. 2006
• 19 Menacker F, Curtin S C. Trends in Cesarean Birth and Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean, 1991–99. National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 49, No. 13 Hyattsville, MD; National Center for Health Statistics 2001
• 20 Health Data OECD .2003 and OECD Health Data 2002. Available at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_bir_by_cae_sec-health-births-by-caesarean-section
• 21 Hoffman M K, Vahratian A, Sciscione A C, Troendle J F, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 1029-1034
• 22 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle J F, Sciscione A C, Hoffman M K. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 698-704
• 23 Smith G C, Smith M F, McNay M B, Fleming J E. First-trimester growth and the risk of low birth weight.  N Engl J Med. 1998;  339 1817-1822
• 24 Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds E M. Customised antenatal growth charts.  Lancet. 1992;  339 283-287
• 25 Heinrich U E. Intrauterine growth retardation and familial short stature.  Baillieres Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1992;  6 589-601