Outcome-based comparison of SMFM and ISUOG definitions of fetal growth restriction

J T Roeckner1, K Pressman1, L Odibo1

  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA.

Insights

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) definition of fetal growth restriction (FGR) better identifies small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, while the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) definition offers higher specificity. Both FGR definitions poorly predict adverse neonatal outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Neonatal Outcomes
  • Diagnostic Accuracy

Background:

  • International guidelines for fetal growth restriction (FGR) from SMFM and ISUOG use different definitions.
  • Comparing these definitions is crucial for accurate prediction of neonatal outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of SMFM and ISUOG FGR definitions in predicting neonatal small-for-gestational age (SGA) and composite adverse neonatal outcome (ANO).

Main Methods:

  • Secondary analysis of a prospective study involving 1054 pregnancies.
  • Applied SMFM (EFW/AC < 10th percentile) and ISUOG (stricter criteria including Doppler/growth) FGR definitions.
  • Assessed prediction of SGA (birth weight < 10th percentile) and ANO (e.g., IVH, RDS, neonatal death).

Main Results:

  • SMFM identified more FGR cases (13.0%) than ISUOG (5.2%).
  • SMFM showed higher sensitivity for SGA (54.7% vs 28.8%), while ISUOG had higher specificity (98.4% vs 93.3%) and PPV (72.7% vs 55.5%).
  • Both definitions demonstrated poor performance in predicting composite ANO.

Conclusions:

  • SMFM definition improves SGA detection but reduces specificity.
  • ISUOG definition offers better specificity and PPV for SGA prediction.
  • Neither FGR definition reliably predicts adverse neonatal outcomes.
Abstract