An interventional study of Ultrasound examination and Magnetic resonance examination in Fetal Macrosomia, sponsored by Brugmann University Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-08-06.
Sponsored by Brugmann University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
Macrosomia and growth restriction are important causes of perinatal morbidity, at or near to term. However, clear identification of 'at risk' foetuses is difficult and clinical estimates of fetal weight are poor. Historically, ultrasound has been used as a second line in such cases but the accuracy of this imaging modality in the mid- to late third trimester is also limited.
Estimated fetal weight (EFW) is an important part of the clinical assessment and is used to guide obstetric interventions, when a fetus is small or large for dates. It frequently is the single most important component guiding interventions, such as induction of labour or Caesarean section.
Due to the imprecision of ultrasound-derived EFW, particularly in cases of suspected macrosomia in the 3rd trimester, the investigators believe that these estimates should not be used to make important obstetric decisions regarding mode and timing of delivery and that a more accurate method of assessment could produce better outcomes by restricting interventions to those foetuses at greatest risk. Some publications have already demonstrated that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging derived-EFW close to delivery, is more accurate than ultrasound
The goal of the present study is thus to compare the performance of magentic resonance imaging derived-EFW, versus ultrasound derived-EFW at 36 weeks of gestation, regarding the prediction of neonatal macrosomia.
Macrosomia and growth restriction are important causes of perinatal morbidity, at or near to term. However, clear identification of 'at risk' foetuses is difficult and clinical estimates of fetal weight are poor. Historically, ultrasound has been used as a second line in such cases but the accuracy of this imaging modality in the mid- to late third trimester is also limited.
Estimated fetal weight (EFW) is an important part of the clinical assessment and is used to guide obstetric interventions, when a fetus is small or large for dates. When a diagnosis of intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR) is made, the decision-making process is complex, particularly at very early gestations and involves multiple different factors, including maternal status, cardiotocography, liquor volume and dopplers. However, a large body of research is now available to assist with the management of both early and late-onset intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) but there is a paucity of evidence to guide clinical practice, once macrosomia has been diagnosed, therefore the EFW is frequently the single most important component guiding interventions, such as induction of labour or Caesarean section.
Fetal macrosomia is associated with a higher incidence of perinatal morbidity, including shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury in the fetus and anal sphincter tears, uterine atony and haemorrhage in the mother. A recent multicentre randomised controlled trial appears to confirm the advantages of a policy of induction of labour for suspected macrosomia, demonstrating a clear reduction in the rates of shoulder dystocia and composite perinatal morbidity. However, some earlier but lower quality, observational studies have questioned the benefit of EFW made by ultrasonography in the last trimester, for suspected macrosomia, demonstrating that this practice can increase the risk of caesarean and instrumental delivery, without reducing perinatal morbidity.
Despite this conflicting data and a lack of evidence to support routine third trimester ultrasound, the absence of specific guidance, coupled with concerns regarding perinatal outcomes,mean that obstetricians will increasingly request an ultrasound at around 34-36 weeks gestation to identify foetuses above the 90th or below the 10th centiles. This practice will inevitably lead to increased and potentially harmful interventions based on relatively inaccurate data.
Due to the imprecision of ultrasound-derived EFW, particularly in cases of suspected macrosomia in the 3rd trimester, the investigators believe that these estimates should not be used to make important obstetric decisions regarding mode and timing of delivery and that a more accurate method of assessment could produce better outcomes by restricting interventions to those foetuses at greatest risk. Some publications have already demonstrated that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging derived-EFW close to delivery, is more accurate than ultrasound, with a mean percentage error superior to that of ultrasound and a recent meta-analyses has confirmed this promising accuracy.
The goal of the present study is thus to compare the performance of magentic resonance imaging derived-EFW, versus ultrasound derived-EFW at 36 weeks of gestation, regarding the prediction of neonatal macrosomia.
32 studies on the registry are indexed under Fetal Macrosomia; 6 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 2,413 is above the median of 222 across 13 interventional studies indexed under Fetal Macrosomia.
Browse Fetal Macrosomia studies →Brugmann University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 117 studies on the registry; 17 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Contraindication
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
During routine third trimester ultrasound scan between 30 weeks and 35 weeks +6 days of gestational age, all women with an apparently normal, live singleton pregnancy, planning to deliver at the investigator's hospital maternity, will be invited to participate in the study. An Ultrasound scan to estimate the fetal weigth will be carried out during the 36th week of gestation.
Other: Ultrasound examination
During routine third trimester ultrasound scan between 30 weeks and 35 weeks +6 days of gestational age, all women with an apparently normal, live singleton pregnancy, planning to deliver at the investigator's hospital maternity, will be invited to participate in the study. A Magnetic Resonance examination to estimate the fetal weigth will be carried out during the 36th week of gestation.
Other: Magnetic resonance examination
Prenatal Ultrasound examinations will be carried out using transabdominal sonography only by experienced consultants in MFM. Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight will be obtained between 36.0-36.6 weeks of gestation, according to Hadlock et al. Operators performing the Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight will be blinded to the results of Magnetic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weight. The participants, general practitioners, obstetricians and midwifes of the patients will be aware of the results of Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight which will be used for clinical management. For the primary outcome measure, macrosomia during Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight will be defined as ≥ P95 based on Yudkin et al. For secondary outcome measures, it will be redefined as ≥ P90 or ≥ P99 based on Yudkin.
MRI will be performed the same day as the Ultrasound examination, using a clinical 1.5T whole-body unit. Operators performing Fetal Body Volume measurements will be blinded from Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight results. Magnetic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weight will be calculated using the equation 0,12+1,031\*Fetal Body Volume = MR imaging weight (g) developed by Baker. General practitioners, obstetricians and midwifes of the patients will be blinded to the results of the Magnetic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weight. For the primary outcome measure, macrosomia will be defined as ≥ P95 based on Yudkin et al. For secondary outcome measures, it will be defined as ≥ P90 or ≥ P99.
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P95)
AUROC for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P95 for gestational age; normal ranges of Yudkin et al.) with MR (4 mm ST (slice thickness)/ 20 mm gap) versus US using the Hadlock equation.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P90)
AUROC for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P90 for gestational age) with magnetic resonnance (4 mm slice thickness/20 mm gap) versus ultrasound.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P99)
AUROC for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P99 for gestational age) with Magnetic Resonance (4 mm slice thickness/ 20 mm gap) versus Ultrasound.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P97)
AUROC for prediction of macrosomia (≥ P97 for gestational age) with Magnetic Resonance (4 mm slice thickness/ 20 mm gap) versus Ultrasound.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of macrosomia (Abdominal Circumference)
AUROC for prediction of macrosomia with Abdominal Circumference ≥ P90 for gestational age. Measured in cm with Ultrasound
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) for prediction of 'Small for gestational age' (SGA)
Measured with Magnetic Resonnace (4 mm slice thickness)/ 20 mm gap) versus ultrasound.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Comparative prediction rate for significant shoulder dystocia
Ability of Magnetic Resonnace-Estimated Fetal Weight (+/- pelvimetric measurements) vs. Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weigth in predicting significant shoulder dystocia. Significant shoulder dystocia is defined clinically as difficulty with delivery of the shoulders that was not resolved by the McRoberts' manoeuvre (flexion of the maternal thighs), usually combined with suprapubic pressure. Manoeuvres whose use suggested significant shoulder dystocia were those involving rotation of the fetus to displace the anterior shoulder impacted behind the maternal pubic bone (Woods, Rubin, or Jacquemier manoeuvres). The definition also included births with an interval of 60 s or more between delivery of the head and the body.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Comparative prediction rate for maternal morbidity
Ability of Magnetic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weigth (+/- pelvimetric measurements) vs. Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weigth in predicting maternal morbidity, defined as caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery (vacuum or forceps), postpartum haemorrhage (1000 mL or more), blood transfusion, and anal sphincter tear.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Comparative prediction rate for neonatal morbidity
Ability of Magentic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weigth (+/- pelvimetric measurements) vs. Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weigth in predicting neonatal morbidity, defined as arterial cord blood pH less than 7.10, Apgar score at 5 min less than 7, and admission to the neonatal intensive-care unit.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Comparative prediction rate for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia
Ability of Magentic Resonance-Estimated Fetal Weigth (+/- pelvimetric measurements) vs. Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weigth in predicting neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia, defined as a maximum value exceeding 350 mmol/L of blood bilirubin.
Time frame: Between 36 weeks and 36 weeks + 6 days of gestation
Ran from Mar 2016 to primary completion in Mar 2020, 48 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Brugmann University Hospital →