Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Sonographic Umbilical Cord Parameters in Third Trimester of Pregnancy with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus as Predictors of Macrosomia

Divya Pandey, Suvrata Garg, Rekha Bharti, Pratima Mittal, Jyotsna Suri

Keywords : Adverse perinatal outcome, Body mass index, Shoulder dystocia prediction, Third trimester, Third trimester scan, Ultrasonography, Umbilical cord

Citation Information : Pandey D, Garg S, Bharti R, Mittal P, Suri J. Sonographic Umbilical Cord Parameters in Third Trimester of Pregnancy with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus as Predictors of Macrosomia. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2022; 14 (3):265-270.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2006

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with various complications. Macrosomia is one such complication. Aim: To predict fetal macrosomia by sonographic measurements of umbilical cord thickness (CT) and cross-sectional area (CSA) in GDM in third-trimester. Method: This prospective-cohort-observational study on 40 antenatal women with GDM (group I) over a period of 12 months at a tertiary teaching institute against 40 antenatal women without GDM or any medical co-morbidity (group II). Cord parameters [CT (cm) and CSA (cm2)] were assessed sonographically after 36 weeks. Pregnancy outcomes were noted. CT/CSA value more than 90th centile taken as cut-off value was considered as large cord. The predictive accuracy of the cut-off of cord parameters to predict macrosomia was calculated. Results: The mean age and BMI of women under study were 27.9 ± 2.84 years and 26.05 ± 1.32 kg/m2. The cut-off of large cords was 2.8 cm and 3.56 cm2 for CT and CSA, respectively. Large cords were found in 70% of the study group. Sonographically detected umbilical-cord parameters were significantly larger in macrosomic fetuses as compared to nonmacrosomic fetuses macrosomia was found in 17.5% cases of study group. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of cord parameters to predict macrosomia were 57.1, 96.9, 80, and 91.4% for CT and 65.7, 63.6, 46.2, and 87.5% for CSA, respectively. Conclusion: Sonographically detected umbilical CT and CSA are good predictors of fetal macrosomia with high negative predictive value. Clinical significance: Cord is an easily accessible and assessable organ requiring minimal expertise for sonographic assessment compared to other available parameters. Thus, it can be used as an easy option to predict macrosomia along with other predictors.


PDF Share
  1. Tahmasebi M, Alighanbari R. Evaluation of umbilical cord thickness, cross-sectional area and coiling index as predictors of pregnancy outcome. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2011;21(3):195–198. DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.85367.
  2. Afroze KH, Prabha SL, Chandrakala V, et al. Sonographic estimation of umbilical cord cross-section area and its reference value in normal pregnancy. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(8):AC04–AC06. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/30251.10415.
  3. Sharony R, Eran K, Biron-Shental T, et al. Morphometric characteristics of the umbilical cord and vessels in fetal growth restriction and pre-eclampsia. Early Hum Dev 2016;92:57–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2015.11.006.
  4. Jakó M, Surányi A, Kaizer L, et al. Maternal hematological parameters and placental and umbilical cord histopathology in intrauterine growth restriction. Med Princ Pract 2019;28(2):101–108. DOI: 10.1159/000497240.
  5. Salomon L, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, et al. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester foetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:116–126. DOI: 10.1002/uog.8831.
  6. Kamana KC, Shakya S, Zhang H. Gestational diabetes mellitus and macrosomia;a literature review. Ann Nutr Metabol 2015;66(2):14–20. DOI: 10.1159/00037/1628.
  7. Araujo Junior E, Peixoto AB, Zamarian AC, et al. Macrosomia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017;38:83–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.08.003.
  8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 173: foetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128(5):e195–e209. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001767.
  9. Ghezzi F, Raio L, Cromi A, et al. Large cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of foetal macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(6):861–866. DOI: 10.1002/uog.5183.
  10. Ferber A. Maternal complications of fetal macrosomia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43(2):335–339. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200006000-00011.
  11. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. Estimation of foetal weight with the use of head, body and femur measurements. A prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151(3):333–337. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4.
  12. Bethune M, Bell R. Evaluation of the measurement of the foetal fat layer, interventricular septum and abdominal circumference percentile in the prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22(6):586–590. DOI: 10.1002/uog.885.
  13. NHM. Diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus: technical and operational guidelines. 2018. Available from: https//nhm.gov.in/New_Updates_2018/NHM_Components/RMNCH_MH_Guidelines/Gestational-Diabetes-Mellitus.pdf [last accessed June 9, 2021].
  14. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131(2):e49–e64. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002501.
  15. Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. N Engl J Med 2008;358(19):1991–2002. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943.
  16. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Macrosomia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 216. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(1):e18–e35. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003606.
  17. Barbieri C, Cecatti J, Surita F, et al. Area of Wharton's jelly as an estimate of the thickness of the umbilical cord and its relationship with estimated foetal weight. Reprod Health 2011;8:32. DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-8-32.
  18. Togni FA, Araujo Junior E, Vasques FA, et al. The cross-sectional area of umbilical cord components in normal pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007;96:156–161. DOI: 10.1016/IJGO.2006.10.003.
  19. Weissman A, Jakobi P. Sonographic measurements of the umbilical cord in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. J Ultrasound Med 1997;16(10):691–694. DOI: 10.7863/jum.1997.16.10.691.
  20. Jain N, Singh A. Estimation of sonographic umbilical cord area and its correlation with birth weight in gestational diabetes mellitus. Annals of applied Bio-Sciences 2016;3(2):A-122–A-127. Corpus ID: 62800307.
  21. Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, et al. Cesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance. Pathophysiology or practice style? Journal of the American Medical Association 1996;275(15):1165–1170. PMID: 8609683.
  22. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Large cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of foetal macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(6):861–866. DOI: 10.1002/uog.5183.
  23. Janani N, Vimala D, Gayathri N. Prospective study on sonographic measurement of umbilical cord thickness, foetal fat layer, interventricular septal thickness as predictors of macrosomia in foetus of womenwith gestational diabetes mellitus. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2018;7:1997–2001. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20181945.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.