S'abonner

INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity - 31/03/16

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931 
Ngaire H. Anderson, MBChB, PhD a, , Lynn C. Sadler, MBChB, MPH b, e, Christopher J.D. McKinlay, MBChB, PhD c, d, Lesley M.E. McCowan, MBChB, MD a, f
a Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 
b Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 
c Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 
d Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 
e Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women’s Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand 
f South Auckland Clinical School, Auckland, New Zealand 

Corresponding author: Ngaire H. Anderson, MBChB, PhD.

Abstract

Background

The recently published INTERGROWTH-21st Project international population standard for newborn size is intended for global use, but its ability to identify small infants at risk of adverse outcomes in a general obstetric population has not been reported.

Objective

The objective of the study was to compare adverse neonatal outcomes among small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants between the INTERGROWTH-21st standard and a customized birthweight standard (accounting for maternal characteristics of height, weight, parity, and ethnicity). We hypothesized that in a multiethnic general obstetric population in Auckland, New Zealand, a customized birthweight standard would better identify SGA infants at-risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality and stillbirth than the INTERGROWTH-21st standard.

Study Design

Using prospectively gathered maternity data from a general obstetric population in Auckland, New Zealand, from 2006 to 2013 (n = 53,484 births at ≥ 33 weeks), infants were classified as SGA (birthweight < 10th centile) by INTERGROWTH-21st and customized standards. Infants were further categorized as SGA by both criteria, INTERGROWTH-21st only, customized only, or not SGA (met neither criteria). Composite adverse neonatal outcome was defined as neonatal death, neonatal intensive care admission > 48 hours, or ventilation > 4 hours or 5-minute Apgar score < 7. Relative risks for primary outcomes were estimated using modified Poisson regression, with the non-SGA group as the referent.

Results

Incidence of SGA was 4.5% by INTERGROWTH-21st and 11.6% by customized standard. Compared with those not SGA, infants identified as small for gestational age by both criteria had the highest risk of adverse neonatal outcome (relative risk [RR], 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7–4.6) and stillbirth (RR, 8.3, 95% CI, 5.1–13.4). Infants SGA by customized standard only (n = 4015) had an increased risk of adverse neonatal outcome (RR, 2.0, 95% CI, 1.8–2.2) and stillbirth (RR, 3.0, 95% CI, 1.7–5.3). Few infants were identified as SGA by INTERGROWTH-21st only (n = 172), and risks of adverse neonatal outcome and stillbirth were not increased. Findings were unchanged when analyses were limited to term infants (n = 50,739). The INTERGROWTH-21st standard identified more Indian (12.8%) and Asian (5.8%) but fewer European (3.0%) and Pacific (2.9%) infants as SGA (P < .01). Customized criteria identified more than 3 times as many SGA infants among Maori (14.5%), Pacific (13.5%), and European (11.2%) infants and twice as many among Asian (10.3%) infants (P<0.01) compared with INTERGROWTH-21st criteria. The majority of SGA infants by INTERGROWTH-21st only were born to Indian and Asian mothers (95.4%).

Conclusions

In our general obstetric population, birthweight customization identified more SGA infants at risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity compared with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. The INTERGROWTH-21st standard failed to detect many at-risk SGA infants, particularly among ethnic groups with larger maternal size while disproportionately identifying higher rates of SGA among those with smaller maternal size. Local validation is needed prior to implementation of the INTERGROWTH-21st standard to avoid misclassification of infant birth size.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : customized birthweight, INTERGROWTH-21st Project, perinatal morbidity, perinatal mortality, small for gestational age


Plan


 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 Cite this article as: Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, et al. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:509.e1-7.


© 2016  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 214 - N° 4

P. 509.e1-509.e7 - avril 2016 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial
  • Stéphanie Roberge, Suzanne Demers, Mario Girard, Olga Vikhareva, Stéphanie Markey, Nils Chaillet, Lynne Moore, Gaétan Paris, Emmanuel Bujold
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Gestational dating by metabolic profile at birth: a California cohort study
  • Laura L. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, Mary E. Norton, Rebecca J. Baer, Nicole Santos, George W. Rutherford

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.