CClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT06283277Updated Feb 28, 2024

Fetal Clavicular Measurement to Predict Fetal Macrosomia

An observational study in Macrosomia, Fetal, Large for Gestational Age and Shoulder Dystocia, sponsored by Assiut University. Not yet recruiting. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 45 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-02-28.

Sponsored by Assiut University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
240
Ages
18 Years to 45 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Macrosomia is associated with increased risks for both the mother and the baby, including complications during delivery, injuries, and even death. The accurate diagnosis of macrosomia is often difficult before birth. There are a number of factors that can increase the risk of macrosomia, such as maternal obesity, diabetes, and excessive weight gain during pregnancy. There are also a number of different techniques that can be used to try to predict macrosomia, but none of them are perfect.

The aim of this study is to evaluate sensitivity of measuring fetal clavicle length in third trimester compared with biacromial diameter and Hadlock formula IV for prediction of fetal macrosomia.

Read the detailed description

Two terms are applied for fetal overgrowth, Large for gestational age (LGA) meaning fetal birth weight (BW) more than 90th percentile for specific gestational age while macrosomia is an absolute value regardless of gestational age which historically defined as 4000-4500 gm. Those two groups have increased risks for neonatal and maternal complications compared to general population and increase sharply when BW >4500gm, the risks of macrosomia are continuum without threshold defining safe and risky outcome, some authors classify macrosomia into 3 grades, grade 1 (4000gm-4499gm), grade 2(4500-4999), grade 3 (≥5000gm).

Despite its implications, the accurate diagnosis is after birth and its prenatal prediction is poor although published formulas for estimating fetal weight shows correlation with BW, however the variability of the estimate is up to 20% with most of formulas, meta-analysis of 29 studies showed sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 92% in predicting BW ≥ 4000gm accuracy of ultrasound decreases with increasing BW, BW>4500 accurate prediction is only 33-44 % of cases. Given the poor predictability of macrosomia, variety of other techniques and formulas are investigated, neither repeated US examination nor growth curves improves predictability, Youssef's formula measuring biacromial diameter (distance by between both acromial processes which joins clavicles at acromioclavicular joints) and macrosomic specific formula seems to be predictive. In study evaluating clavicle length for shoulder dystocia, it found that measuring clavicle was significant for macrosomia however the limitation is small sample size and its comparison with other fetal biometrics may be needed.

02

Conditions studied

  • Macrosomia, Fetal
  • Large for Gestational Age
  • Shoulder Dystocia

Keywords

  • macrosomia
  • Hadlock
  • clavicle
  • large for gestational age
  • LGA
  • clavicle measurement
  • Youssef's formula
  • biacromial diameter
  • estimated fetal weight.
  • EFW
  • ultrasound
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 45 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

pregnant women with gestational age between 37 weeks and 42 weeks

Inclusion criteria

  • Singleton pregnancy.
  • Gestational age between 37-42 weeks.
  • Accepting to be included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Congenital fetal malformation affecting birth weight or affecting clavicle.
04

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
240 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Singleton pregnant women at gestational age between 37-42 weeks

    estimated fetal weight measured by ultrasound using Hadlock IV formula and Youssef's formula compared with the sensitivity of fetal clavicular measurement.

    Device: Obstetric Ultrasound

Interventions

  • DeviceObstetric Ultrasound

    Measuring fetal clavicular length and estimated fetal weight using Hadlock IV formula and Youssef's formula.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Third trimester clavicle length measurement

    Sensitivity of third trimester clavicle length measurement in comparison with biacromial diameter and Hadlock IV formula in predicting fetal macrosomia

    Time frame: 37-42 weeks of gestation

Secondary outcomes

  1. Establish the relationship between third-trimester clavicle length and shoulder dystocia

    establishing if clavicle length is predictive of shoulder dystocia or not.

    Time frame: Immediately after delivery - postprocedure

  2. Mode of delivery

    either vaginal delivery or Cesarean section

    Time frame: At the day of delivery

  3. Gestational age at the time of delivery.

    gestational age and its relation to birth weight

    Time frame: At the day of delivery

  4. Neonatal Apgar score.

    neonatal health evaluation

    Time frame: postpartum with 1 and 5 minutes

  5. Neonatal bi-acromial diameter

    measuring actual neonatal biacromial diameter after delivery and its comparision with ultrasound measured biacromial diameter.

    Time frame: postpartum within 1 to 5 minutes

  6. Neonatal birth weight

    neonatal nurse measuring actual neonatal birth weght in grams using digital scale.

    Time frame: postpartum within 1 to 5 minutes

  7. Neonatal need for NICU

    need for neonatal ICU

    Time frame: postpartum within 1 minutes to 5 minutes

  8. Neonatal actual clavicle length

    measuring actual neonatal clavicle length and its comparison with third trimester ultrasound clavicular measurements.

    Time frame: postpartum within 1 minutes to 5 minutes

06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

References and documents

Publications

  • Barth WH, Jackson R. ACOG PRACTICE BULLETIN Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. American collage of obstetricians and gynocologists [Internet]. 2020 Jan;135:18-35. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal
  • Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Aug;179(2):476-80. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(98)70382-5. PubMed 9731856 ↗
  • Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;188(5):1372-8. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.302. PubMed 12748514 ↗
  • Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):517.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.005. PubMed 18455528 ↗
  • Doty MS, Chen HY, Sibai BM, Chauhan SP. Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity Associated With Early Term Delivery of Large-for-Gestational-Age But Nonmacrosomic Neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1160-1166. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003285. PubMed 31135729 ↗
  • Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology. 1984 Aug;152(2):497-501. doi: 10.1148/radiology.152.2.6739822. PubMed 6739822 ↗
  • Malin GL, Bugg GJ, Takwoingi Y, Thornton JG, Jones NW. Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):77-88. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13517. Epub 2015 Jul 29. PubMed 26224221 ↗
  • Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE. Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):57-65. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000296656.81143.e6. PubMed 18165393 ↗
  • Zafman KB, Bergh E, Fox NS. Accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight in suspected macrosomia: the likelihood of overestimating and underestimating the true birthweight. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Mar;33(6):967-972. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1511697. Epub 2018 Sep 3. PubMed 30099910 ↗
  • Sandmire HF. Whither ultrasonic prediction of fetal macrosomia? Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Nov;82(5):860-2. PubMed 8414339 ↗
  • Aviram A, Yogev Y, Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Danon D, Hadar E, Gabbay-Benziv R. Different formulas, different thresholds and different performance-the prediction of macrosomia by ultrasound. J Perinatol. 2017 Dec;37(12):1285-1291. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.134. Epub 2017 Sep 14. PubMed 28906497 ↗
  • Zhang J, Kim S, Grewal J, Albert PS. Predicting large fetuses at birth: do multiple ultrasound examinations and longitudinal statistical modelling improve prediction? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012 May;26(3):199-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01261.x. Epub 2012 Feb 10. PubMed 22471679 ↗
  • Costantine MM, Mele L, Landon MB, Spong CY, Ramin SM, Casey B, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Thorp JM Jr, Sciscione A, Catalano P, Caritis SN, Sorokin Y, Peaceman AM, Tolosa JE, Anderson GD; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, Bethesda, Maryland. Customized versus population approach for evaluation of fetal overgrowth. Am J Perinatol. 2013 Aug;30(7):565-72. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1329188. Epub 2012 Nov 12. PubMed 23147078 ↗
  • Youssef AEA, Amin AF, Khalaf M, Khalaf MS, Ali MK, Abbas AM. Fetal biacromial diameter as a new ultrasound measure for prediction of macrosomia in term pregnancy: a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Aug;32(16):2674-2679. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1445714. Epub 2018 Mar 7. PubMed 29478363 ↗
  • Porter B, Neely C, Szychowski J, Owen J. Ultrasonographic Fetal Weight Estimation: Should Macrosomia-Specific Formulas Be Utilized? Am J Perinatol. 2015 Aug;32(10):968-72. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1545664. Epub 2015 Mar 2. PubMed 25730134 ↗
  • Terzi E. A new approach to predicting shoulder dystocia: fetal clavicle measurement. Turk J Med Sci. 2021 Aug 30;51(4):1932-1939. doi: 10.3906/sag-2011-145. PubMed 33843172 ↗
  • Yarkoni S, Schmidt W, Jeanty P, Reece EA, Hobbins JC. Clavicular measurement: a new biometric parameter for fetal evaluation. J Ultrasound Med. 1985 Sep;4(9):467-70. doi: 10.7863/jum.1985.4.9.467. PubMed 3903198 ↗
  • Sherer DM, Sokolovski M, Dalloul M, Khoury-Collado F, Osho JA, Lamarque MD, Abulafia O. Fetal clavicle length throughout gestation: a nomogram. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Mar;27(3):306-10. doi: 10.1002/uog.2706. PubMed 16450360 ↗
  • Shmueli A, Salman L, Hadar E, Aviram A, Bardin R, Ashwal E, Gabbay-Benziv R. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by maternal diabetes: finding the best formula. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jan;299(1):97-103. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4934-y. Epub 2018 Oct 16. PubMed 30327863 ↗
08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06283277
Lead sponsor
Assiut University
Responsible party
Khaled Mustafa Attyia (principal investigator, Assiut University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 28, 2024
Start date
May 1, 2024 (estimated)
Primary completion
Apr 30, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 30, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Feb 28, 2024

Study contacts

Khaled M Attyia
Contact
khaled.hussien@med.aun.edu.eg
+201005503250
Alaa ElDin Abdelhamid Yusef Hasan
study director · Emeritus Professor of obstetrics and gynecology
Ahmed Mohamed Abbas Sobh
study director · Assistant Professor of obstetrics and gynecology
Mohamed Mahmoud Abdallah Mahmoud
study director · Lecturer of obstetrics and gynecology

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Feb 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion