Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception

Objective. We aimed to develop a population-based nomogram based on 1st trimester ultrasound examination as an independent predictor of the remaining days of pregnancy. Methods. Fetal measurements were collected in singleton pregnancies undergoing first trimester examination. We prospectively collected actual date of delivery. Predictions of the median interval and key centiles from examination to delivery were computed using crown rump length (CRL), biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), and abdominal circumference (AC) measurements. Results. A total of 3738 examinations were included. We computed median and centiles for remaining days of pregnancies from the time of first trimester measurements. The prediction ability of CRL, HC, and BPD was not different but AC yielded worse results. About 90% of the births fell within 14 days of predicted day of delivery, with a median error of 6 days. Conclusion. We have developed a method to accurately predict date of delivery from the time of first trimester measurements. It allows monitoring fetal growth and pregnancies at term by considering the duration of pregnancy as a variable rather than a constant.

[1]  A. Gasparrini,et al.  OP07.07: Predictions of the median interval in days between first trimester ultrasound examination and delivery , 2007 .

[2]  H. Gjessing,et al.  A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population‐based approach , 2007, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[3]  M. Gardner,et al.  Late preterm gestation: physiology of labor and implications for delivery. , 2006, Clinics in perinatology.

[4]  K. Kalache,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. , 2004, Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine.

[5]  L. Valentin,et al.  Ultrasound dating at 12–14 or 15–20 weeks of gestation? A prospective cross‐validation of established dating formulae in a population of in‐vitro fertilized pregnancies randomized to early or late dating scan , 2004, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[6]  Keming Yu,et al.  Quantile regression: applications and current research areas , 2003 .

[7]  Sunil J Rao,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2003 .

[8]  D. Savitz,et al.  Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  P. Taipale,et al.  Predicting Delivery Date by Ultrasound and Last Menstrual Period in Early Gestation , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  P. Grøttum,et al.  Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown‐rump length and biparietal diameter , 2000, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[11]  L. Kornman,et al.  Is an ultrasound assessment of gestational age at the first antenatal visit of value? A randomised clinical trial , 1999, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  H. Thaler,et al.  How Accurate is Fetal Biometry in the Assessment of Fetal Age? , 1998, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  J. Gardosi Dating of pregnancy: time to forget the last menstrual period , 1997, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[14]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  First‐trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects , 1996, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[15]  J. Wisser,et al.  Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of greatest embryonic length in dated human embryos , 1994, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology , 1994, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[17]  S. Daya Accuracy of gestational age estimation by means of fetal crown-rump length measurement. , 1993, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  P. Ylöstalo,et al.  Ultrasound Screening and Perinatal Mortality: Controlled Trial of Systematic One-stage Screening in Pregnancy The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial , 1991 .

[19]  J. Haas,et al.  Classification schemes of small-for-gestational age and type of intrauterine growth retardation and its implications to early neonatal mortality. , 1990, Early human development.

[20]  O. Heinonen,et al.  Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy , 1990, The Lancet.

[21]  Stefan Sperlich,et al.  Generalized Additive Models , 2014 .

[22]  J. Fleming,et al.  A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS , 1975, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[23]  H. Robinson Sonar measurement of fetal crown-rump length as means of assessing maturity in first trimester of pregnancy. , 1974, British medical journal.

[24]  D. Cabrol,et al.  Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an every-day practice. , 2000, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[25]  L. Holm Prolonged pregnancy. , 1967, Advances in veterinary science.