To scan or not to scan-an investigation into the clinical validity of serial growth scans in women with BMI 35-40
Author(s): Hills S.; Cox A.; Martindale E.
Source: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Mar 2017; vol. 124 ; p. 104
Publication Date: Mar 2017
Publication Type(s): Conference Abstract
Abstract:Introduction Obesity in pregnancy presents an ever increasing challenge to those working in maternity services. The prevalence has risen from 10% in the early 1990's to almost 20% in the 2000's. One of the risks of maternal obesity is abnormal foetal growth as either macrosomia or intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR). Serial growth scans are generally used to monitor foetal growth in those with risk factors. However, in the obese population, this can be technically difficult, and can be of debatable clinical value. Within East Lancashire Hospitals Trust, local guidelines do not currently specify performing scans on women above a certain BMI. As a result, there is variation in the requesting of serial growth scans in women with a BMI of 35-40. In the current financial climate, it is imperative that resources are targeted appropriately. Therefore, the aim of this project was to investigate the clinical usefulness and accuracy of serial growth scans in those with BMI between 35 and 40 in order to potentially reduce unnecessary burden on scanning services in the department. Methods Women with a BMI of 35-40 and no other risk factors for IUGR were compared based on whether they received growth scans or not. This was then compared with the birthweight centile of the baby to examine whether growth scans could accurately predict a birthweight (within a 15% margin of error) and also whether a normal symphysio-fundal height (SFH) picture predicted a normal birthweight centile.
The following databases were searched:
EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL,
to find ELHT staff publications
Archives - past 2 years
Your Specialty or Professional Group