An Evidence-Based Approach to Defining Fetal Macrosomia

Abstract

Objective This study aims to determine the risk of adverse outcomes associated with the current diagnostic criteria for fetal macrosomia.

Study Design We evaluated three techniques for characterizing birth weight as a predictor of shoulder dystocia or third- or fourth-degree laceration in 79,879 vaginal deliveries. First, we compared deliveries with birth weights above or below 4,500 g. We then performed logistic regression using birth weight as a continuous predictor, both with and without fractional polynomial transformation. Finally, we calculated the number of cesarean sections required to prevent one incident of the interrogated outcomes (number needed to treat [NNT]).

Results Rates of adverse intrapartum outcomes increase incrementally with increasing birth weight and are predicted most accurately with logistic regression following fractional polynomial transformation. The NNT for third- or fourth-degree laceration dropped from 14.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9–14.7) at a birth weight of 3,500 g to 6.4 (95% CI, 6.1–6.8) at 4,500 g and, for shoulder dystocia, from 54.9 (95% CI, 51.5–58.6) at 3,500 g to 5.6 (95% CI, 5.2–6.0) at 4,500 g.

Conclusion The conventional distinction between “normal” and “macrosomic” does not reflect the incremental effect of increasing birth weight on the risk of obstetric morbidity. Outcomes analysis can inform fetal growth standards to better reflect relevant thresholds of risk.

Keywords

macrosomia - fetal growth standards - shoulder dystocia

• References

• 1 Spellacy WN, Miller S, Winegar A, Peterson PQ. Macrosomia—maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66 (2) 158-161
• 2 Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (5) 1372-1378
• 3 Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD. Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (4 Pt 1): 507-513
• 4 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 22: Fetal Macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (6) 1393
• 5 Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The association between birthweight 4000 g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (6) 672.e1-672.e4
• 6 Kolderup LB, Laros Jr RK, Musci TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (1) 37-41
• 7 Stotland NE, Caughey AB, Breed EM, Escobar GJ. Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87 (3) 220-226
• 8 Walle T, Hartikainen-Sorri AL. Obstetric shoulder injury. Associated risk factors, prediction and prognosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72 (6) 450-454
• 9 Conway DL, Langer O. Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178 (5) 922-925
• 10 Larkin JC, Speer PD, Simhan HN. A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (6) 499.e1-499.e10
• 11 Modanlou HD, Dorchester WL, Thorosian A, Freeman RK. Macrosomia—maternal, fetal, and neonatal implications. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55 (4) 420-424
• 12 Bérard J, Dufour P, Vinatier D , et al. Fetal macrosomia: risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases >4500 g. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 77 (1) 51-59
• 13 Lipscomb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85 (4) 558-564
• 14 Boyd ME, Usher RH, McLean FH. Fetal macrosomia: prediction, risks, proposed management. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61 (6) 715-722
• 15 Acker DB, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66 (6) 762-768
• 16 Vintzileos AM, Oyelese Y, Ananth CV. The “anathema” of arbitrary categorization of continuous predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (3) 200-203
• 17 Greenland S. Problems in the average-risk interpretation of categorical dose-response analyses. Epidemiology 1995; 6 (5) 563-565
• 18 Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Multivariable Model-Building: A Pragmatic Approach to Regression Analysis Based on Fractional Polynomials for Modelling Continuous Variables. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2008. :xvii, 303
• 19 Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 1999; 28 (5) 964-974
• 20 Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Building multivariable regression models with continuous covariates in clinical epidemiology—with an emphasis on fractional polynomials. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (4) 561-571
• 21 Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Stability of multivariable fractional polynomial models with selection of variables and transformations: a bootstrap investigation. Stat Med 2003; 22 (4) 639-659
• 22 DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (3) 837-845
• 23 Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996; 276 (18) 1480-1486