SpringerLink
Log in

Construction de l’indicateur « petit poids pour âge gestationnel » dans deux régions belges

Construction of the indicator “small-for-gestational-age” in two Belgian regions

  • Mise au Point / Update
  • Published:
Revue de médecine périnatale

Résumé

L’objectif est de développer des courbes de croissance ajustées sur des facteurs maternels et fœtaux dans deux régions belges (Wallonie et Bruxelles) afin de créer un indicateur « petit poids pour âge gestationnel » (PAG). Trois indicateurs PAG ont été créés sur la base de modèles de croissance in utero, développés par Gardosi: non ajusté (modèle 1), tenant compte du sexe (modèle 2) et ajusté sur les facteurs maternels (taille et poids de la mère, parité) et fœtaux (modèle 3). Parmi les naissances, la proportion d’enfants avec un petit poids pour leur âge gestationnel (AG) est de 8,1 % avec le modèle 1, 7,9 % avec le modèle 2 et 6,8 % avec le modèle 3. Le modèle 3 reclasse 2,6 % des naissances. L’indicateur PAG, prenant en considération les facteurs maternels et fœtaux, est une première en Belgique. La proportion d’enfants avec un petit poids pour leur AG diminue lorsque les facteurs maternels et fœtaux sont pris en compte.

Abstract

The objective of this study is to develop newborn growth charts by adjusting for maternal and fetal factors in order to develop the indicator “small-for-gestational-age” (SGA). The study, which is conducted in two Belgian regions (Wallonia and Brussels), is the first of its kind in Belgium. The indicator SGA was developed according to three growth models based on Gardosi’s proposition: an unadjusted model (model 1), a model adjusted for fetal sex (model 2), and a model adjusted for maternal and fetal factors (model 3). The proportion of SGAwas 8.1% in model 1, 7.9%in model 2 and 6.8% in model 3 respectively. 2.6% of births have been misclassified in model 3. This is the first study in Belgium that takes into account maternal and fetal factors for develo** the indicator SGA. The proportion of children SGA decreased when taking into account maternal and fetal factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Références

  1. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ (1999) Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 340:1234–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kramer MS (1987) Determinants of low birth: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 65: 663–737

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO (1967) A pratical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediat 71:159–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ego A (2013) Définitions: petit poids pour l’âge gestationnel et retard de croissance intra-utérin. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 42:872–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Power C (1994) National trends in birth weight: implication for future adult disease. BMJ 308:1270–1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. de Onis M, Garza C, Onyango AW, Martorell R (2006) WHO child growth standards. Acta Paediatr Suppl 450:1–101

    Google Scholar 

  7. Villar J, Altman DG, Purwar M, et al (2013) The objectives, design and implementation of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG 120:9–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ego A, Blondel B, Zeitlin J (2006) Birthweight curves: a review of the litterature. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 35:749–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hemming K, Hutton JL, Glinianaia SV, et al (2006) Differences between European birthweight standards: impact on classification of “small-for-gestational-age”. Dev Med Child Neurol 48:906–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A (1995) An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6:168–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCowan L, Stewart AW, Francis A, Gardosi J (2004) A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 44:428–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mongelli M, Figueras F, Francis A, Gardosi J (2007) A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 47:128–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ego A, Subtil D, Grange G, et al (2006) Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1042–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, Stewart AW, McCowan LM (2012) Maternal and pathological pregnancy characteristics in customised birthweight centiles and identification of at risk smallfor- gestational-age infants: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 119:848–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Unterscheider J, Geary MP, Daly S, et al (2013) The customized fetal growth potential: a standard for Ireland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 166:14–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. González González NL, González Dávila E, Cabrera F, et al (2014) Customized weight curves for Spanish fetuses and newborns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27:1495–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ego A, Zeitlin J, Goffinet F (2011) Utilisation des courbes individualisées de croissance foetale: intérêt pour la pratique et la recherche. Mise à jour en gynécologie obstétrique. Éd Masson

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ego A, Prunet C, Lebreton E, et al (2016) Courbes de croissance in utero ajustées et non ajustées adaptées à la population française. I- Méthodes de construction. J Gyn Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 45:155–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, et al (2008) Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? BJOG 115:1397–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Massoud M, Duyme M, Fontanges M, Combourieu D (2015) Collège francais d’échographie foetale (CFEF). Courbe d’estimation de poids foetal 2014 par le Collège francais d’échographie foetale (CFEF). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 45:80–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fenton TR, Kim JH (2013) A systematic review and metaanalysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr 20:13–59

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cole TJ (1990) The LMS method for constructing normalized growth standards. Eur J Clin Nutr 44:45–60

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J (1991) In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 181:129–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. OMS (2015) Qu’est-ce qu’un bébé prématuré ? [consulté le 15 janvier 2016]. Disponible sur: http://www.who.int/features/ qa/preterm_babies/fr/

    Google Scholar 

  25. Murray E, Fernandes M, Fazel M, et al (2015) Differential effect of intrauterine growth restriction on childhood neurodevelopment: a systematic review. BJOG 122:1062–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Delorme P, Goffinet F, Ancel PY, et al (2016) Cause of preterm birth as a prognostic factor for mortality. Obstet Gynecol 127:40–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Charkaluk ML, Marchand-Martin L, Ego A, et al (2012) The influence of fetal growth reference standards on assessment of cognitive and academic outcomes of very preterm children. J Pediatr 161:1053–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ego A, Prunet C, Blondel B, et al (2016) Courbes de croissance in utero ajustées et non ajustées adaptées à la population française. II–Comparaison à des courbes existantes et apport de l’ajustement. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 45:165–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Drooger JC, Troe JW, Borsboom GJ, et al (2005) Ethnic differences in prenatal growth and the association with maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:115–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, et al (2016) INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:509.e1–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’épidémiologie périnatale (CEpiP), campus Érasme, route de Lennik, 808, BP 597, B-1070, Bruxelles, Belgique

    C. Leroy, V. Van Leeuw, W. H. Zhang & Y. Englert

  2. Laboratoire de recherche en reproduction humaine, faculté de médecine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), route de Lennik, 808, BP 597, B-1070, Bruxelles, Belgique

    W. H. Zhang & Y. Englert

Authors
  1. C. Leroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Van Leeuw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. H. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. Englert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Leroy.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leroy, C., Van Leeuw, V., Zhang, W.H. et al. Construction de l’indicateur « petit poids pour âge gestationnel » dans deux régions belges. Rev. med. perinat. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12611-017-0407-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12611-017-0407-y

Mots clés

Keywords

Search

Navigation