Advertisement

European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 176, Issue 12, pp 1707–1712 | Cite as

Screening investigations in small-for-gestational-age near-term and term infants

  • Mohan B. Krishnamurthy
  • Abigail Popiel
  • Atul MalhotraEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The aims of this study are to examine how frequently near-term and term small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants were investigated in our clinical practice, whether being born less than the third centile for weight increased the yield of positive investigations, and whether there were additional characteristics in infants with positive investigations. This retrospective cohort study was compiled using a database of a large maternity network, using the search near term and term gestational age (greater than or equal to 35 weeks) over a span of 4 years. SGA babies were further filtered into less than the tenth centile and third centile. Out of a population of 30,461 infants in the study period, 3437 (11.3%) SGA infants were identified. Four hundred fifteen SGA infants (12.1%) underwent screening investigations, of which 49 infants (11.8%) yielded a positive investigation. 27.2% of karyotypes, 12.8% of cranial ultrasounds and 0.4% of urine CMV tests showed positive results in < 10th centile group. Being born less than the third centile for weight did not increase the yield of positive investigations. Most infants with positive investigations had an additional maternal or neonatal characteristic or risk factor present.

Conclusion: SGA babies without additional maternal or neonatal characteristics have a poor yield on neonatal screening investigations. Additional characteristics may be considered while deciding whether a SGA infant needs screening investigation.

What is Known:

Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants have an increased risk of short- and long-term complications.

Whilst the causes for SGA are multifactorial, there has been a tendency to undertake screening investigations like Toxoplasma, Others, Rubella, Cytomegalovirus, Herpes group of viruses (TORCH) screening and cranial ultrasounds in the neonatal period.

What is New:

Comprehensive study investigating the rates of screening in near-term and term SGA population.

The yield of screening tests for near-term and term SGA infants without additional antenatal and postnatal characteristics is low.

Keywords

IUGR Cranial ultrasound Karyotype Cytomegalovirus 

Abbreviations

AGA

Appropriate for gestational age

BMI

Body mass index

BOS

Birthing outcome summary

CMV

Cytomegalovirus

CTG

Cardiotocography

HIE

Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy

HSV

Herpes simplex virus

IUGR

Intrauterine growth restriction

IVH

Intraventricular haemorrhage

NICU

Neonatal intensive care unit

PCR

Polymerase chain reaction

SCN

Special care nursery

SGA

Small for gestational age

TORCH

Toxoplasma, others, rubella, cytomegalovirus, herpes virus

USG

Ultrasonograph

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Amanda Kendel, Monash Women’s Information Team Support Officer, for her help in retrieving data from the Birthing Outcome Summary (BOS) database.

Authors’ contributions

MBK collected data, carried out the analyses of the collected data, drafted the initial manuscript, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

AP collected data, provided constructive comments to the manuscript. She approved the final manuscript as submitted.

AM formulated the research question, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration or comparable ethical standards. The study qualified as a quality assurance project under the hospital human research ethics committee framework.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Battaglia FC (1970) Intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 106:1103–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battaglia F, Lubchenco L (1967) A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Paediatr 71:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black RE (2015) Global prevalence of small for gestational age births. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser 81:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chow SSW, Le Marsney R, Hossain S, Haslam R, Lui K (2013) Report of the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network, Sydney ANZNN 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobbins TA, Sullivan EA, Roberts CL, Simpson JM (2012) Australian national birthweight percentiles by sex and gestational age, 1998-2007. Med J Aust 197(5):291–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ewing AC, Ellington SR, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Barfield WD, Kourtis AP (2017) Full-term small-for-gestational-age newborns in the U.S.: characteristics, trends, and morbidity. Matern Child Health J 21:786–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R, Sanz-Cortes M, Arranz A, Illa M, Botet F, Costas-Moragas C, Gratacos E (2011) Neurobehavioral outcomes in preterm, growth-restricted infants with and without prenatal advanced signs of brain-sparing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:288–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler KB, Boppana SB (2006) Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and hearing deficit. J Clin Virol 35:226–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guellec I, Lapillonne A, Renolleau S, Charlaluk ML, Roze JC, Marret S, Vieux R, Monique K, Ancelet PY (2011) Neurologic outcomes at school age in very preterm infants born with severe or mild growth restriction. Paediatrics 127(4):e883–e891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hales CN, Barker DJ (2001) The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Br Med Bull 60:5–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henriksen T (2008) The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:134–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan NA, Kazzi SN (2000) Yield and costs of screening growth-retarded infants for torch infections. Am J Perinatol 17(3):131–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kok JH, den Ouden AL, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Brand R (1998) Outcome of very preterm small for gestational age infants: the first nine years of life. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105(2):162–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee A, Katz J, Blencowe H, Cousens S, Kozuki N, Vogel JP, Adair L, Baqui AH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE et al (2013) National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010. Lancet Glob Health 1(1):e26–e36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mendez-Figueroa H, Truong VT, Pedroza C, Chauhan SP (2017) Morbidity and mortality in small-for-gestational-age infants: a secondary analysis of nine MFMU network studies. Am J Perinatol 34:323–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robson SC, Martin WL, Morris RK (2013) The investigation and management of the small-for-gestational-age fetus. United Kingdom: Guidelines Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Report No 31:34Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roza SJ, Steegers EA, Verburg BO, Jaddoe VW, Moll HA, Hofman A, Verhulst FC, Tiemeier H (2008) What is spared by fetal brain-sparing? Fetal circulatory redistribution and behavioral problems in the general population. Am J Epidemiol 168:1145–1152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simonazzi G, Curti A, Murano P, Cervi F, Contoli M, Lazzarotto T, Capretti MG, Rizzo N, Guerra B (2014) Congenital cytomegalovirus infection and small for gestational age infants. Prenat Diagn 34(8):765–769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sims ME, Troy C, Walther FJ (1992) Are small for gestational age infants at higher risk for intracranial lesions? Am J Perinatol 9(3):152–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van den Broek AJ, Kok JH, Houtzager BA, Scherjon SA (2010) Behavioural problems at the age of eleven years in preterm-born children with or without fetal brain sparing: a prospective cohort study. Early Hum Dev 86:379–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van der Weiden S, de Jong EP, Te Pas AB, Middeldorp JM, Vossen AC, Rijken M, Walther FJ, Lopriore E (2011) Is routine TORCH screening and urine CMV culture warranted in small for gestational age neonates? Early Hum Dev 87(2):103–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wei D, Sardesai SR, Barton L (2014) The C in TORCH: a cost-effective alternative to screening small-for-gestational-age infants. Neonatology 106(1):24–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohan B. Krishnamurthy
    • 1
  • Abigail Popiel
    • 2
  • Atul Malhotra
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Monash NewbornMonash Children’s HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PaediatricsMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Monash NewbornMonash Children’s HospitalClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations