Search

Objective: To simulate the outcomes of Boulvain's trial by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for estimated fetal weight (EFW) as a second-line confirmatory imaging., Study Design: Data derived from the Boulvain's trial and the study PREMACRO (PREdict MACROsomia) were used to simulate a 1000-patient trial. Boulvain's trial compared induction of labor (IOL) to expectant management in suspected macrosomia, whereas PREMACRO study compared the performance of ultrasound-EFW (US-EFW) and MRI-EFW in the prediction of birthweight. The primary outcome was the incidence of significant shoulder dystocia (SD). Cesarean delivery (CD), hyperbilirubinemia (HB), and IOL at < 39 weeks of gestation (WG) were selected as secondary outcomes. A subgroup analysis of the Boulvain's trial was performed to estimate the incidence of the primary and secondary outcomes in the true positive and false positive groups for the two study arms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for the prediction of macrosomia by MRI-EFW at 36 WG were calculated, and a decision tree was constructed for each outcome., Results: The PPV of US-EFW for the prediction of macrosomia in the PREMACRO trial was 56.3 %. MRI-EFW was superior to US-EFW as a predictive tool resulting in lower rates of induction for false-positive cases. Repeating Boulvain's trial using MRI-EFW as a second-line test would result in similar rates of SD (relative risk [RR]:0.36), CD (RR:0.84), and neonatal HB (RR:2.6), as in the original trial. Increasing the sensitivity and specificity of MRI-EFW resulted in a similar relative risk for SD as in Boulvain's trial, but with reduced rates of IOL < 39 WG, and improved the RR of CD in favor of IOL. We found an inverse relationship between IOL rate and incidence of SD for both US-EFW and MRI-EFW, although overall rates of IOL, CD, and neonatal HB would be lower with MRI-derived estimates of fetal weight., Conclusion: The superior accuracy of MRI-EFW over US-EFW for the diagnosis of macrosomia could result in lower rates of IOL without compromising the relative advantages of the intervention but fails to demonstrate a significant benefit to justify a replication of the original trial using MRI-EFW as a second-line test., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the influence of the test-to-delivery interval (TDI) on the performance of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting birthweight (BW)., Study Design: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, single center, blinded cohort study that compared MRI and US for the prediction of BW ≥ 95th percentile in singleton pregnancies. Patients that were included in the initial study underwent US and MRI for estimation of fetal weight between 36 + 0/7 and 36 + 6/7 weeks of gestation (WG). The primary outcome of the current study was to report the changes of US and MRI sensitivity and specificity in the prediction of BW > 95th percentile, BW > 90th percentile, BW < 10th percentile, and BW < 5th percentile, according to the TDI. The secondary outcome was to represent the performance of both tools in the prediction of BW > 90th percentile when TDI is<2 weeks, between 2 and 4 weeks, and>4 weeks. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed accordingly., Results: 2378 patients were eligible for final analysis. For the prediction of BW > 95th or 90th percentile, the sensitivity of MRI remains high until 2 weeks, and it decreases slowly between 2 and 4 weeks, in contrast to the sensitivity of US which decreases rapidly 2 weeks after examination (p < 0.001). For the prediction of BW < 10th or 5th percentile, the sensitivity of both tools decreases in parallel between 1 and 2 weeks. The specificities of both tools remain high from examination till delivery. These findings are reproducible with the use of the antenatal customized and the postnatal national growth charts., Conclusion: The performance of MRI in the prediction of BW, especially in large-for-gestational age, is maximal when delivery occurs within two weeks of the examination, decreasing slightly thereafter, in contrast with the performance of US which decreases drastically over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Extremes of fetal growth can increase adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is equally applicable to single and multiple gestations. Traditionally, these cases have been identified using simple two-dimensional ultrasound which is quite limited by its low precision. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has now been used for many years in obstetrics, mainly as an adjunct to ultrasound for congenital abnormalities and increasingly as part of the post-mortem examination. However, MRI can also be used to accurately assess fetal weight as first demonstrated by Baker et al in 1994, using body volumes rather than standard biometric measurements. This publication was followed by several others, all of which confirmed the superiority of MRI; however, despite this initial promise, the technique has never been successfully integrated into clinical practice. In this review, we provide an overview of the literature, detail the various techniques and formulas currently available, discuss the applicability to specific high-risk groups and present our vision for the future of MRI within clinical obstetrics., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Fetuses at the extremes of growth abnormalities carry a risk of perinatal morbidity and death. Their identification traditionally is done by 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging, the performance of which is not always optimal. Magnetic resonance imaging superbly depicts fetal anatomy and anomalies and has contributed largely to the evaluation of high-risk pregnancies. In 1994, magnetic resonance imaging was introduced for the estimation of fetal weight, which is done by measuring the fetal body volume and converting it through a formula to fetal weight. Approximately 10 studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging is more accurate than 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging in the estimation of fetal weight. Yet, despite its promise, the magnetic resonance imaging technique currently is not implemented clinically. Over the last 5 years, this technique has evolved quite rapidly. Here, we review the literature data, provide details of the various measurement techniques and formulas, consider the application of the magnetic resonance imaging technique in specific populations such as patients with diabetes mellitus and twin pregnancies, and conclude with what we believe could be the future perspectives and clinical application of this challenging technique. The estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound imaging is based mainly on an algorithm that takes into account the measurement of biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. The estimation of fetal weight by magnetic resonance imaging is based on one of the 2 formulas: (1) magnetic resonance imaging-the estimation of fetal weight (in kilograms)=1.031×fetal body volume (in liters)+0.12 or (2) magnetic resonance imaging-the estimation of fetal weight (in grams)=1.2083×fetal body volume (in milliliters)ˆ0.9815. Comparison of these 2 formulas for the detection of large-for-gestational age neonates showed similar performance for preterm (P=.479) and for term fetuses (P=1.000). Literature data show that the estimation of fetal weight with magnetic resonance imaging carries a mean or median relative error of 2.6 up to 3.7% when measurements were performed at <1 week from delivery; whereas for the same fetuses, the relative error at 2-dimensional ultrasound imaging varied between 6.3% and 11.4%. Further, in a series of 270 fetuses who were evaluated within 48 hours from birth and for a fixed false-positive rate of 10%, magnetic resonance imaging detected 98% of large-for-gestational age neonates (≥95th percentile for gestation) compared with 67% with ultrasound imaging estimates. For the same series, magnetic resonance imaging applied to the detection of small-for-gestational age neonates ≤10th percentile for gestation, for a fixed 10% false-positive rate, reached a detection rate of 100%, compared with only 78% for ultrasound imaging. Planimetric measurement has been 1 of the main limitations of magnetic resonance imaging for the estimation of fetal weight. Software programs that allow semiautomatic segmentation of the fetus are available from imaging manufacturers or are self-developed. We have shown that all of them perform equally well for the prediction of large-for-gestational age neonates, with the advantage of the semiautomatic methods being less time-consuming. Although many challenges remain for this technique to be generalized, a 2-step strategy after the selection of a group who are at high risk of the extremes of growth abnormalities is the most likely scenario. Results of ongoing studies are awaited (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier # NCT02713568)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Macrosomia refers to growth beyond a specific threshold, regardless of gestational age. These fetuses are also frequently referred to as large for gestational age (LGA). Various cut-offs have been used but for research purposes, a cut-off above the 95th centile for birth weight is often preferred because it defines 90% of the population as normal weight. The use of centiles, rather than estimated weights, also accommodates preterm macrosomic infants, although most of the complications, maternal and fetal, arise during the delivery of large babies at term. This means that accurate identification of LGA fetuses (≥95th centile) may play an important role in guiding obstetric interventions, such as induction of labour or caesarean section. Traditionally, identification of fetuses suspected of macrosomia has been based on biometric measurements using two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US), yet this method is rather sub-optimal. We present a protocol (V.2.1, date 19 May 2016) for the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study), which is a prospective observational clinical study designed to determine whether MRI at 36 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation, as compared with 2D US, can improve the identification of LGA neonates ≥95th centile., Methods and Analysis: All eligible women attending the 36-week clinic will be invited to participate in the screening study for LGA fetuses ≥95th centile and will undergo US-EFW and MRI-EFW within minutes of each other. From these estimations, a centile will be derived which will be compared with the centile of birth weight used as the gold standard. Besides birth weight, other pregnancy and neonatal outcomes will be collected and analysed. The first enrolment for the study was in May 2016. As of September 2018, 2004 women have been screened and recruited to the study. The study is due to end in April 2019., Ethics and Dissemination: The study will be conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation for good clinical practice and the appropriate regulatory requirement(s). A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Brugmann, reference number CE2016/44. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT02713568., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Our aim was to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer variability and the impact of operator experience on the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) as measured by 2-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging., Material and Methods: We estimated fetal weight in 46 singleton pregnancies at 35.6-41.4 weeks gestation using 2D-US according to the Hadlock formula and using MR imaging according to the equation developed by Baker. Each examination was performed twice, once by an inexperienced operator and once by an experienced operator. The MR-EFW was derived from the planimetric measurement of fetal body volume (FBV) using an assisted semi-automated method. Intra- and inter-observer variability was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of maternal BMI, delivery weight, diabetes and fetal gender on the differences in US-EFW between the inexperienced and experienced operators., Results: US-EFW showed higher intra-observer variability than MR-EFW, irrespective of operator experience. The 95% limits of agreement of MR were narrower compared with those of the US measurements. Similarly, US-EFW showed higher inter-observer variability than MR-EFW. MR-EFW improvement over 2D-US for the limits of agreement was 77.9% for intra-observer variability and 74.5% for inter-observer variability. Regression analysis showed that the differences between US-EFW measurements were not related to any of the tested variables., Conclusions: Operator experience has a marginal impact on the variability of US-EFW and no impact on MR-EFW variability. The variability in US-EFW measurements is unpredictable., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to apply a semi-automated calculation method of fetal body volume and, thus, of magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight (MR-EFW) prior to planned delivery and to evaluate whether the technique of measurement could be simplified while remaining accurate., Methods: MR-EFW was calculated using a semi-automated method at 38.6 weeks of gestation in 36 patients and compared to the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Per patient, 8 sequences were acquired with a slice thickness of 4-8 mm and an intersection gap of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 20 mm. The median absolute relative errors for MR-EFW and the time of planimetric measurements were calculated for all 8 sequences and for each method (assisted vs. PACS), and the difference between the methods was calculated., Results: The median delivery weight was 3,280 g. The overall median relative error for all 288 MR-EFW calculations was 2.4% using the semi-automated method and 2.2% for the PACS method. Measurements did not differ between the 8 sequences using the assisted method (p = 0.313) or the PACS (p = 0.118), while the time of planimetric measurement decreased significantly with a larger gap (p < 0.001) and in the assisted method compared to the PACS method (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Our simplified MR-EFW measurement showed a dramatic decrease in time of planimetric measurement without a decrease in the accuracy of weight estimates., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: To prospectively define fetal density in the second half of pregnancy by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and to compare estimates of fetal weight based on ultrasonography (US) and MR imaging with actual birth weight., Materials and Methods: Written informed consent was obtained for this ethics committee-approved study. In this cross-sectional study between March 2011 and May 2012, fetal density was calculated as actual birth weight at delivery divided by fetal body volume at MR imaging in 188 fetuses between 20 weeks and 2 days and 42 weeks and 1 day of gestational age. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of variables, including sex, on fetal density. The US estimate of fetal weight was performed according to Hadlock et al, and the MR estimate of fetal weight was calculated based on the equation developed by Baker et al. US and MR estimates of fetal weight were compared with actual birth weights by using regression analysis., Results: Median fetal density was equal to 1.04 (range, 0.95-1.18). Fetal density was significantly associated with gestational age at delivery but not with fetal sex. In 26.6% of fetuses, the US estimate of fetal weight had a relative error of more than 10%, while a similar relative error for the MR estimate of fetal weight occurred in only 1.1% of fetuses. The limits of agreement were narrower with the MR estimate of fetal weight compared with the US estimate of fetal weight., Conclusion: In the second half of pregnancy, fetal density varies with gestational age. Fetal weight estimates by using fetal MR imaging are better than those by using prenatal US.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of estimating fetal weight (EFW) using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging as compared with two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US) in the prediction of small-for-gestational age neonates (SGA).Materials and Methods: Written informed consent was obtained for this Ethical Committee approved study. Between March 2011 and May 2016, women with singleton pregnancies underwent US-EFW and MR-EFW within 48 h before delivery. US-EFW was based on Hadlock et al. and MR-EFW on the formula described by Backer et al. after planimetric measurement of the fetal body volume (FBV). Our outcome measure was performance in prediction of small-for-gestational age neonates by MR imaging versus US-EFW, using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results: Two hundred and seventy women were included in the study with 18 newborns (6.7%) of birthweight ≤10th, 12 (4.5%) ≤ 5th and 7 (2.6%) ≤ 3rd centile. The area under the ROC curve for prediction of birthweight ≤10th centile by prenatal MR imaging was significantly better than by US (difference between the AUROC = 0.060, p = .01; standard error = 0.023). Similarly, the area under the ROC curve for prediction of birthweight ≤5th centile by prenatal MR imaging was significantly better than by US (difference between the AUROC = 0.019, p = .03; standard error = 0.009). Finally, there was no significant difference between the areas under the ROC curve for the prediction of birthweight ≤3rd centile between the two imaging modalities (difference between the AUROC = 0.021, p = .13; standard error = 0.014).Conclusion: MR-EFW performed immediately prior to delivery predicts SGA neonates significantly better than US-EFW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term.Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation.Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p < 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p < 0.05 for both variables).Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During prenatal follow-up of twin pregnancies, accurate identification of birthweight and birthweight discordance is important to identify the high-risk group and plan perinatal care. Unfortunately, prenatal evaluation of birthweight discordance by 2-dimensional ultrasound has been far from optimal.Objective: The objective of the study was to prospectively compare estimates of fetal weight based on 2-dimensional ultrasound (ultrasound-estimated fetal weight) and magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight) with actual birthweight in women carrying twin pregnancies.Study Design: Written informed consent was obtained for this ethics committee-approved study. Between September 2011 and December 2015 and within 48 hours before delivery, ultrasound-estimated fetal weight and magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight were conducted in 66 fetuses deriving from twin pregnancies at 34.3-39.0 weeks; gestation. Magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight derived from manual measurement of fetal body volume. Comparison of magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight and ultrasound-estimated fetal weight measurements vs birthweight was performed by calculating parameters as described by Bland and Altman. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed for the prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates using magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight and ultrasound-estimated fetal weight. For twins 1 and 2 separately, the relative error or percentage error was calculated as follows: (birthweight - ultrasound-estimated fetal weight (or magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight)/birthweight) × 100 (percentage). Furthermore, ultrasound-estimated fetal weight, magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight, and birthweight discordance were calculated as 100 × (larger estimated fetal weight-smaller estimated fetal weight)/larger estimated fetal weight. The ultrasound-estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance were correlated using linear regression analysis and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The same was done between the magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight and birthweight discordance. To compare data, the χ2, McNemar test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used as appropriate. We used the Fisher r-to-z transformation to compare correlation coefficients.Results: The bias and the 95% limits of agreement of ultrasound-estimated fetal weight are 2.99 (-19.17% to 25.15%) and magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight 0.63 (-9.41% to 10.67%). Limits of agreement were better between magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight and actual birthweight as compared with the ultrasound-estimated fetal weight. Of the 66 newborns, 27 (40.9%) were of weight of the 10th centile or less and 21 (31.8%) of the fifth centile or less. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for prediction of birthweight the 10th centile or less by prenatal ultrasound was 0.895 (P < .001; SE, 0.049), and by magnetic resonance imaging it was 0.946 (P < .001; SE, 0.024). Pairwise comparison of receiver-operating characteristic curves showed a significant difference between the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (difference, 0.087, P = .049; SE, 0.044). The relative error for ultrasound-estimated fetal weight was 6.8% and by magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight, 3.2% (P < .001). When using ultrasound-estimated fetal weight, 37.9% of fetuses (25 of 66) were estimated outside the range of ±10% of the actual birthweight, whereas this dropped to 6.1% (4 of 66) with magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight (P < .001). The ultrasound-estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance correlated significantly following the linear equation: ultrasound-estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.03 + 0.91 × birthweight (r = 0.75; P < .001); however, the correlation was better with magnetic resonance imaging: magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.02 + 0.81 × birthweight (r = 0.87; P < .001).Conclusion: In twin pregnancies, magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight performed immediately prior to delivery is more accurate and predicts small-for-gestational-age neonates significantly better than ultrasound-estimated fetal weight. Prediction of birthweight discordance is better with magnetic resonance imaging as compared with ultrasound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]