Evaluating the Prevalence of Small for Gestational Age and Its Associated Risk Factors

AUTHORS

Mojgan Barati 1 , Farideh Moramezi 1 , Hoda Moramezi 1 , * , Nava Shirzadi 1 , Parsia Shirzadi 1

1 Fertility, Infertility and Perinatology Research Center, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, IR Iran

How to Cite: Barati M, Moramezi F, Moramezi H, Shirzadi N, Shirzadi P. Evaluating the Prevalence of Small for Gestational Age and Its Associated Risk Factors, Jentashapir J Health Res. 2016 ; 7(3):e36171. doi: 10.17795/jjhr.36171.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Jentashapir Journal of Health Research: 7 (3); e36171
Published Online: March 5, 2016
Article Type: Brief Report
Received: January 8, 2016
Accepted: January 8, 2016
Crossmark

Crossmark

CHEKING

READ FULL TEXT
Abstract

Background: Small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses have birth weights below 10th percentile or abdominal circumference less than 10th percentile for gestational age

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of SGA and its associated risk factors in Iran.

Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study. A total of 341 pregnant women were evaluated in fetal health care clinic of perinatology from January 2013 to January 2014.

Results: Of 312 pregnant women, 33 had SGA fetuses. The average of body mass index (BMI) was lower in SGA group than non-SGA. Pulsatility index has no stastical meaningful between SGA and nonSGA groups. In Gestational age had no difference between 2 groups. Severe SGA (< 3rd centile estimated fetal weight) was observed in 2.6% of all cases.

Conclusions: In conclusion, the prevalence of SGA was approximately one tenth of all pregnancies. SGA incidence was associated with nulliparity and more frequently seen in lower age group.

Keywords

SGA Pregnancy Fetuses

Copyright © 2016, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Background

Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) refers to fetuses who fail to reach their normal weight. Fetuses with weight less than 2500 g are likely to be IUGR (1, 2). Small for gestational age (SGA) refers to fetuses that are smaller in weight than normal for the same gestational age. It is usually defined as weight or abdominal circumference less than 10th percentile for gestational age. Most SGA fetuses are not pathologically growth restricted, in fact, they are naturally small. Therefore, there is difference between fetuses that are growth restricted and fetuses that are naturally small but healthy (3-5). Of all fetuses less than 10th percentile growth, approximately 40% are at high risk of preventable prenatal death, 40% are healthy small, and 20% are naturally small due to chromosomal or environmental reasons (6). On average, one third of newborns with low weight at birth are reported to experience SGA. This includes 8% in developed countries and 6% - 30% in developing countries. In most cases, maternal health plays a key role. All SGA fetuses should be evaluated and clinically managed regarding FTT (failure to thrive), hypoglycemia, and other conditions, including DGE (delay gastric emptying), SLP (speech-language pathology) and so on (7, 8).

2. Objectives

Considering the importance of mentioned facts it is worthwhile to estimate the prevalence and risk factors of SGA, also to prevent this condition and improve the health of the fetus.

3. Patients and Methods

3.1. Study Design

The research was a retrospective study from January 2013 to January 2014. Healthy pregnant women aged between 21 and 41 years were evaluated in Fetal Health Care Clinic of Perinatology (n = 341). This study examined the prevalence and risk factors of SGA. The checklist comprised age, BMI, parity, pregnancy status (IVF or normal), pulsatility index (PI) of umbilical cord, weight and abdominal circumference (AC) with exclusion of multiple pregnancy and other medical conditions like diabetes and hypertension.

3.2. Statistical Analyses

The SPSS version 20 was used to conduct descriptive analysis, independent sample t test, and Chi-square test. Significance level was considered at less than 0.05.

4. Results

Of all pregnant women (n = 312) presented in our fetal health care clinic, 33 (10.6%) cases had SGA fetuses. Also, the statistically significant difference between groups was not regarding BMI. Of SGA fetus 10.7% had BMI<25 and 8.3% had BMI more than 25 with no significant difference between two groups. Overall, of 312 participants, 64 (20.5%) had BMI less than 25 Kg/m2 and 64 (20.5%) had BMI above 25 Kg/m2 and the remainder were missing. In SGA group 10.7% had BMI less than 25 Kg/m2 and and 8.3% had BMI above Kg/m2 and there was no significant relationship between BMI and SGA. The higher proportion of participants (88.1) was at range of 20 - 40 years for maternal age and in SGA group 19 (59%) were less than 30 years old and 13 (41%) were more than 30 years old. It shows that SGA is more in younger patients but there was no significant relationship between age and SGA (P = 0.178). The proportion of patients in SGA group with no parity 8 (24%), multipara 2 (6%) and the remainder were missing. It shows that SGA were more seen in nulipara but did not reveal any significant difference (P = 0.149) there was no significant difference between SGA group and non-SGA group regarding umbilical artery PI (P = 0.458). Of 33 SGA fetuses, 8 (24.2%) suffered from severe SGA. In sever SGA 2 (25%) had umbilical artery PI in range of 6-50 percentile and this figure in moderate SGA was (47%). In none of moderate or sever SGA umbilical artery PI was more than 95 percentile.

5. Discussion

In total, 312 pregnant women were recruited in our study. Of those, 33 (10.6%) cases had SGA fetuses (8 (24%) was severe), which is almost one-tenth of pregnancies. This finding is similar to the work of Vik et al. (9) with SGA prevalence of 10% in Norway. This rate is rarely higher in societies with lower socioeconomic status and also overcrowded societies (10).

However, as shown in Table 1, 15% of women with SGA fetuses had BMI above 25 kg/m2. Therefore, maternal BMI > 25 kg/m2 is not a risk factor for having SGA fetuses. Gemma et al. (11) have demonstrated that fetal weight disorders and at risk conditions such as SGA are associated with high BMI. In addition, high BMI can be a risk factor of more advanced genetic disorders in fetuses.

Table 1. Characteristics of SGA and non-SGA Groups
VariablesSGA PregnanciesNon-SGA PregnanciesP Value
Frequency of Mild SGA25 (8%)279 (89%)
Frequency of Severe SGA8 (2.6%)279 (89%)
BMI > 255 (8.3%)55 (91.7%)
BMI < 256 (10.7%)58 (89.3%)
Parity0.3
08 (9.5%)76 (90.5%)
Multipara2 (3.2%)61 (96.8%)
Pulsatility Index of Umbilical Artery1.01 ± 0.141.12 ± 0.1< 0.0001
PI; 6-50 centile1223
PI; 51-941539

In our study, gestational age did not differ significantly between women with and without SGA fetuses.

In the present study, although most cases of SGA were occurred in low parity pregnancies; there was no significant relationship between parity and SGA.

In conclusion, the prevalence of SGA was approximately one tenth of all pregnancies. SGA incidence was not significantly associated with maternal BMI > 25 kg/m2, and umblical artery PI.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Severi FM, Rizzo G, Bocchi C, D'Antona D, Verzuri MS, Arduini D. Intrauterine growth retardation and fetal cardiac function. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2000; 15(1) : 8 -19 [PubMed]

  • 2.

    Gardosi J, Mul T, Mongelli M, Fagan D. Analysis of birthweight and gestational age in antepartum stillbirths. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105(5) : 524 -30 [PubMed]

  • 3.

    Sibai BM, Caritis SN, Thom E, Klebanoff M, McNellis D, Rocco L, et al. Prevention of preeclampsia with low-dose aspirin in healthy, nulliparous pregnant women. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(17) : 1213 -8 [DOI][PubMed]

  • 4.

    Campbell S, Thoms A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1977; 84(3) : 165 -74 [PubMed]

  • 5.

    Madazli R. Prognostic factors for survival of growth-restricted fetuses with absent end-diastolic velocity in the umbilical artery. J Perinatol. 2002; 22(4) : 286 -90 [DOI][PubMed]

  • 6.

    Baschat AA, Weiner CP. Umbilical artery doppler screening for detection of the small fetus in need of antepartum surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182(1 Pt 1) : 154 -8 [PubMed]

  • 7.

    Kanaka-Gantenbein C, Mastorakos G, Chrousos GP. Endocrine-related causes and consequences of intrauterine growth retardation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003; 997 : 150 -7 [PubMed]

  • 8.

    Fong KW, Ohlsson A, Hannah ME, Grisaru S, Kingdom J, Cohen H, et al. Prediction of perinatal outcome in fetuses suspected to have intrauterine growth restriction: Doppler US study of fetal cerebral, renal, and umbilical arteries. Radiology. 1999; 213(3) : 681 -9 [DOI][PubMed]

  • 9.

    Vik T, Markestad T, Ahlsten G, Gebre-Medhin M, Jacobsen G, Hoffman HJ, et al. Body proportions and early neonatal morbidity in small-for-gestational-age infants of successive births. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1997; 165 : 76 -81 [PubMed]

  • 10.

    Vorvick LJ. Small for gestational age (SGA).

  • 11.

    Gemma C, Sookoian S, Alvarinas J, Garcia SI, Quintana L, Kanevsky D, et al. Maternal pregestational BMI is associated with methylation of the PPARGC1A promoter in newborns. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009; 17(5) : 1032 -9 [DOI][PubMed]

  • 12.

    Olivennes F, Fanchin R, Ledee N, Righini C, Kadoch IJ, Frydman R. Perinatal outcome and developmental studies on children born after IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2002; 8(2) : 117 -28 [PubMed]

  • 13.

    Benaglia L, Bermejo A, Somigliana E, Scarduelli C, Ragni G, Fedele L, et al. Pregnancy outcome in women with endometriomas achieving pregnancy through IVF. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(6) : 1663 -7 [DOI][PubMed]

  • COMMENTS

    LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: