Antenatal risk score for prediction of shoulder dystocia with focus on fetal ultrasound data.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder dystocia is one of the most threatening complications during delivery, and although it is difficult to predict, individual risk should be considered when counseling for mode of delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score for shoulder dystocia based on fetal ultrasound and maternal data from 15,000 deliveries. STUDY DESIGN: Data were retrospectively obtained of deliveries in 3 tertiary centers between 2014 and 2017 for the derivation cohort and between 2018 and 2020 for the validation cohort. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, vaginal delivery in cephalic presentation at ≥37+0 weeks' gestation, and fetal biometry data available within 2 weeks of delivery. Independent predictors were determined by multivariate regression analysis in the derivation cohort, and a score was developed on the basis of the effect of the predictors. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 7396 deliveries with a 0.91% rate of shoulder dystocia, and the validation cohort of 7965 deliveries with a 1.0% rate of shoulder dystocia. Among all women, 13.8% had diabetes mellitus, and 12.1% were obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). Independent risk factors in the derivation cohort were: estimated fetal weight ≥4250 g (odds ratio, 4.27; P=.002), abdominal-head-circumference ≥2.5 cm (odds ratio, 3.96; P<.001), and diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 2.18; P=.009). On the basis of the strength of effect, a risk score was developed: estimated fetal weight ≥4250 g=2, abdominal-head-circumference ≥2.5 cm=2, and diabetes mellitus=1. The risk score predicted shoulder dystocia with moderate discriminatory ability (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.69; P<.001; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.71; P<.001) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit; P=.466; P=.167) for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. With 1 score point, 16 shoulder dystocia cases occurred in 1764 deliveries, with 0.6% shoulder dystocia incidence and a number needed to treat with cesarean delivery to avoid 1 case of shoulder dystocia of 172 (2 points: 38/1809, 2.1%, 48; 3 points: 18/336, 5.4%, 19; 4 points: 10/96, 10.5%, 10; and 5 points: 5/20, 25%, 4); 40.8% of the shoulder dystocia cases occurred without risk factors. CONCLUSION: The presented risk score for shoulder dystocia may act as a supplemental tool for the clinical decision-making regarding mode of delivery. According to our score model, in pregnancies with a score ≤2, meaning having solely estimated fetal weight ≥4250 g, or abdominal-head-circumference ≥2.5, or diabetes mellitus, cesarean delivery for prevention of shoulder dystocia should not be recommended because of the high number needed to treat to avoid 1 case of shoulder dystocia. Conversely, in patients with a score of ≥4 with or without diabetes mellitus, cesarean delivery may be considered. However, in 40% of the shoulder dystocia cases, no risk factors had been present.

Percent error of ultrasound examination to estimate fetal weight at term in different categories of birth weight with focus on maternal diabetes and obesity.

BACKGROUND: Sonography based estimate of fetal weight is a considerable issue for delivery planning. The study evaluated the influence of diabetes, obesity, excess weight gain, fetal and neonatal anthropometrics on accuracy of estimated fetal weight with respect to the extent of the percent error of estimated fetal weight to birth weight for different categories. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective analysis from 11,049 term deliveries and fetal ultrasound biometry performed within 14 days to delivery. Estimated fetal weight was calculated by Hadlock IV. Percent error from birth weight was determined for categories in 250 g increments between 2500 g and 4500 g. Estimated fetal weight accuracy was categorized as accurate ≤ 10% of birth weight, under- and overestimated by > ± 10% - ± 20% and > 20%. RESULTS: Diabetes was diagnosed in 12.5%, obesity in 12.6% and weight gain exceeding IOM recommendation in 49.1% of the women. The percentage of accurate estimated fetal weight was not significantly different in the presence of maternal diabetes (70.0% vs. 71.8%, p = 0.17), obesity (69.6% vs. 71.9%, p = 0.08) or excess weight gain (71.2% vs. 72%, p = 0.352) but of preexisting diabetes (61.1% vs. 71.7%; p = 0.007) that was associated with the highest macrosomia rate (26.9%). Mean percent error of estimated fetal weight from birth weight was 2.39% ± 9.13%. The extent of percent error varied with birth weight with the lowest numbers for 3000 g-3249 g and increasing with the extent of birth weight variation: 5% ± 11% overestimation in the lowest and 12% ± 8% underestimation in the highest ranges. CONCLUSION: Diabetes, obesity and excess weight gain are not necessarily confounders of estimated fetal weight accuracy. Percent error of estimated fetal weight is closely related to birth weight with clinically relevant over- and underestimation at both extremes. This work provides detailed data regarding the extent of percent error for different birth weight categories and may therefore improve delivery planning.

Antenatal risk prediction of shoulder dystocia: influence of diabetes and obesity: a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To estimate the risk of shoulder dystocia (SD) in pregnancies with/without maternal diabetes or obesity; to identify antenatal maternal and fetal ultrasound-derived risk factors and calculate their contributions. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 13,428 deliveries in three tertiary hospitals (2014-2017) with fetal ultrasound data ≤ 14 days prior to delivery (n = 7396). INCLUSION CRITERIA: singleton pregnancies in women ≥ 18 years old; vertex presentation; vaginal delivery at ≥ 37 weeks of gestation. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) and birth weight (BW) were categorized by steps of 250 g. To evaluate risk factors, a model was performed using ultrasound data with SD as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Diabetes was present in 9.3%; BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 in 10.4% and excessive weight gain in 39.8%. The total SD rate was 0.9%, with diabetes 2.0% and with obesity 1.9%. These increased with BW 4250-4499 g compared to 4000-4249 g in women with diabetes (12.1% vs 1.9%, P = 0.010) and without (6.1% vs 1.6%, P < 0.001) and at the same BW threshold for women with obesity (9.6% vs 0.6%, P = 0.002) or without (6.4% vs 1.8%, P < 0.001). Rates increased similarly for EFW at 4250 g and for AC-HC at 2.5 cm. Independent risk factors for SD were EFW ≥ 4250 g (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.5-9.4), AC-HC ≥ 2.5 cm (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.5) and diabetes (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.0). HC/AC ratio, obesity, excessive weight gain and labor induction were not significant. CONCLUSION: Independent of diabetes, which remains a risk factor for SD, a significant increase may be expected if the EFW is ≥ 4250 g and AC-HC is ≥ 2.5 cm.