Management of Suspected Fetal Macrosomia
Am Fam Physician. 2001 Jan 15;63(2):302-307.
Fetal macrosomia, arbitrarily defined as a birth weight of more than 4,000 g (8 lb, 13 oz) complicates more than 10 percent of all pregnancies in the United States. It is associated with increased risks of cesarean section and trauma to the birth canal and the fetus. Fetal macrosomia is difficult to predict, and clinical and ultrasonographic estimates of fetal weight are prone to error. Elective cesarean section for suspected macrosomia results in a high number of unnecessary procedures, and early induction of labor to limit fetal growth may result in a substantial increase in the cesarean section rate because of failed inductions. Pregnancies complicated by fetal macrosomia are best managed expectantly. When labor fails to progress as expected, the possibility of fetopelvic disproportion should be considered within the context of the best estimate of the fetal weight.
Maternity care professionals frequently encounter pregnant patients in whom fetal macrosomia is suspected. Recognizing the special risks of these pregnancies, clinicians have attempted to find accurate ways of predicting fetal weight and have sought interventions, including elective cesarean section1,2 and induction of labor3 to optimize the maternal and fetal outcomes. This article will review the accuracy of various methods of prediction of macrosomia and the efficacy of proposed interventions to prevent macrosomia-related complications in normal pregnancies and in those complicated by diabetes, previous cesarean section and a previous pregnancy complicated by shoulder dystocia.
Prediction of Fetal Macrosomia
The term “macrosomic fetus” is misleading because birth weight is never known with certainty until after delivery. The most commonly proposed criteria for macrosomia is a birth weight greater than either 4,000 g (8 lb, 13 oz)4 or 4,500 g (9 lb, 15 oz).5 In 1990, this represented 10.9 and 1.8 percent of infants born in the United States in 1990, respectively.6 The most clinically useful definition of macrosomia is a weight below which “macrosomic” complications, such as shoulder dystocia, do not occur. Unfortunately, case series indicate that one half of all cases of shoulder dystocia occur at birth weights of less than the most commonly used cut-off—4,000 g.7 Furthermore, almost one half of all cases of permanent brachial plexus injuries occur in infants weighing less than 4,500 g.8
Strategies to Predict Macrosomia
The three major strategies used to predict macrosomia are clinical risk factors, clinician estimation by Leopold's maneuvers and ultrasonography. Each method has substantial limitations.
A number of risk factors for fetal macrosomia have been recognized (Table 1).9–13 The strongest risk factor is maternal diabetes, which results in a twofold increase in the incidence of macrosomia.9 Many of the risk factors (e.g., prolonged gestation, obesity and multiparity) are highly prevalent among parturients, limiting their utility. Even when two or more of these risk factors are present, the risk of macrosomia is only 32 percent.9 Furthermore, 34 percent of macrosomic infants are born to mothers without any risk factors, and 38 percent of pregnant women have at least one risk factor.9
TABLE 1 Risk Factors for Fetal Macrosomia
Risk Factors for Fetal Macrosomia
Excessive weight gain
Maternal impaired glucose intolerance
Previous macrosomic infant
Need for labor augmentation
Prolonged second stage
CLINICIAN ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT
The volume of amniotic fluid, the size and configuration of the uterus and maternal body habitus complicate estimation of the size of the fetus by palpation through the abdominal wall.13 Several studies have documented mean errors of about 300 g (11.6 oz).13,14
Ultrasonography has been proposed as a more accurate method of estimation of fetal weight.15 Unfortunately, the typical mean error ranges from 300 to 550 g (11.6 to 19.4 oz).13,14,16 A study comparing fetal weight estimates of clinicians, multiparous patients and ultrasonography found that ultrasound was the least accurate of the three methods.13 Limitations in the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound have been observed in other studies.15 Despite these limitations, clinicians continue to incorrectly believe that ultrasound is an accurate way of predicting macrosomia.17
Consequences of Fetal Macrosomia
The delivery of a macrosomic infant has potentially serious consequences for the infant and the mother. The most feared result of macrosomia is shoulder dystocia, and up to one fourth of infants with shoulder dystocia experience brachial plexus or facial nerve injuries, or fractures of the humerus or clavicle.18 Brachial plexus injuries, such as Erb-Duchenne palsy, are ordinarily attributed to delivery complicated by shoulder dystocia; however, approximately one third of these injuries are not associated with a clinical diagnosis of shoulder dystocia.19 The most feared complication secondary to shoulder dystocia is asphyxia, which is rare.20,21
MATERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF FETAL MACROSOMIA
The mother is at increased risk for cesarean section, which occurs more commonly in pregnancies complicated by macrosomia. Vaginal delivery of a macrosomic infant increases the risk of third- or fourth-degree lacerations fivefold.20
Interventions for Suspected Macrosomia
Management strategies for suspected fetal macrosomia include elective cesarean section and early induction of labor.
ELECTIVE CESAREAN SECTION
Elective cesarean section for suspected macrosomia has been proposed as a way to spare the parturient an unproductive labor and to prevent birth trauma.2 Unfortunately, the difficulties in predicting macrosomia17 and the favorable outcome for most women who undergo a trial of labor21 imply that a large number of unnecessary cesarean sections would have to be performed to prevent a single bad outcome in the pregnancy complicated by suspected fetal macrosomia.22 A recent decision analysis estimated that to prevent one case of permanent brachial plexus injury, 3,700 women with an estimated fetal weight of 4,500 g would need to have an elective cesarean section for suspected macrosomia at a cost of $8.7 million per case prevented.22 Thus, elective cesarean section for suspected macrosomia alone is difficult to support.
EARLY INDUCTION OF LABOR
Given that the fetus continues to gain about 230 g (8.1 oz) per week after the 37th week,23 elective induction of labor before or near term has been suggested to prevent macrosomia and its complications.9 However, observational studies24–27 suggest that induction actually increases the cesarean section rate without favorably altering perinatal outcomes.
One study27 compared the outcomes of patients in whom macrosomia was suspected before delivery to those in whom it was not. The authors found that the risk of cesarean section was substantially higher (52 versus 30 percent) in pregnancies in which macrosomia was suspected, even after controlling for birth weight and other confounding variables. More importantly, the difference in the cesarean section rate was attributable to a greater proportion of failed inductions for macrosomia in the group in which it was suspected. Another observational study28 compared the outcomes of infants with suspected macrosomia who were managed with induction versus expectantly. Again, the rate of cesarean section was substantially higher (57 versus 31 percent) in the group that underwent elective induction. In addition to these studies, a recent metaanalysis3 concluded that induction did not decrease the rate of cesarean section, instrumental delivery or perinatal morbidity.
Management of Suspected Fetal Macrosomia
What clinicians really want to predict is not macrosomia, per se, but the serious complications that physicians mistakenly associate as occurring only with macrosomia, such as brachial plexus injury or shoulder dystocia. Such complications, however, are not determined by birth weight alone, but by a complex and poorly understood relationship between fetal and maternal anatomy and other factors. Moreover, the vast majority of macrosomic infants who are delivered vaginally do very well, even if they experience shoulder dystocia.17 The weight estimate of the suspected macrosomic fetus should be recognized as uncertain. The patient's obstetric history, her progress during labor, the adequacy of her pelvis and other evidence suggestive of fetopelvic disproportion should be used in determining an intervention, such as cesarean section.
Fetal Macrosomia in Special Populations
VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN SECTION
Vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) was once recommended to be avoided in women whose fetuses were estimated to weigh more than 4,000 g. However, a study30 in 1989 compared the sequelae of VBAC of macrosomic and nonmacrosomic infants and noted no higher risk of uterine rupture in the women delivering infants in the macrosomic group. The 1999 VBAC Technical Bulletin31 of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that there is “tendency to expand the list of obstetric circumstances under which VBAC may be appropriate,” and “suspected macrosomia,” though admittedly controversial, is on that list.
MOTHERS WITH DIABETES
Most studies now address diabetic and non-diabetic fetal macrosomia separately22 because infants of mothers with diabetes are at a greater risk of shoulder dystocia than infants of mothers who do not have diabetes. This is probably because of the disproportionate growth of the fetal chest and shoulders compared with the fetal head.32 Various authors have made different recommendations for treatment strategies, ranging from expectant management, to elective induction before the due date,34 to elective cesarean section for estimated fetal weights greater than 4,000 g,34 4,250 g (9 lb, 6 oz),1 or 4,500 g.34
If elective cesarean section for suspected fetal macrosomia is contemplated, the decision analysis discussed previously determined that for an estimated weight of 4,500 g, 443 cesarean deliveries at an estimated cost of $930,000 would be required to prevent one permanent brachial plexus injury.21 Presumably, elective induction for suspected macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes has the same increased risk of cesarean delivery as it does in pregnancies with no diabetes. In addition, the higher risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in infants of mothers with diabetes should be considered.
PREVIOUS SHOULDER DYSTOCIA
Two observational studies have examined the risk of recurrence of shoulder dystocia in subsequent deliveries. One study20 of 93 patients showed a recurrence rate of 1.25 percent. Another study of 747 patients showed a recurrence rate of 13.8 percent with a single permanent birth injury.35 These studies, when interpreted in the context of the uncertainty of the effectiveness of interventions for suspected macrosomia, suggest that for most women with a history of shoulder dystocia, expectant management usually is the most appropriate option.
Prevention of Macrosomia
With the exception of optimal blood glucose management in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, little is known about the prevention of macrosomia. The association between maternal weight, weight gain during pregnancy and macrosomia has led to a proposal that the optimization of maternal weight before pregnancy and limitation of weight gain during pregnancy would be useful strategies.36 The impact of maternal weight restrictions or outcomes is unclear.
Macrosomia remains a common complication of pregnancy; its prediction is imperfect, and there are no reliable interventions to improve outcome in uncomplicated pregnancies. Elective cesarean section is seldom a suitable alternative, and elective induction of labor appears to increase rather than decrease the cesarean section rate. Uncertainty surrounds the management of suspected fetal macrosomia in pregnant patients with diabetes concerning elective cesarean section or elective induction versus expectant management. For almost all macrosomic pregnancies including diabetic mothers, previous deliveries with shoulder dystocia, or women considering VBACs, expectant management with vigilance for evidence of fetopelvic disproportion will have optimal results.
1. Langer O, Berkus MD, Huff RW, Samueloff A. Shoulder dystocia: should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by cesarean section?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:831–7.
2. Parks DG, Ziel HK. Macrosomia. A proposed indication for primary cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52:407–9.
3. Irion O, Boulvain M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000.
4. Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD. Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:507–13.
5. Berard J, Dufour P, Vinatier D, Subtil D, Vander-stichele S, Monnier JC, et al. Fetal macrosomia: risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases >4500 g. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;77:51–9.
6. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1990, vol I, natality. Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1994.
7. Acker DB, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia in the average-weight infant. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:614–8.
8. Ouzounian JG, Korst LM, Phelan JP. Permanent Erb's palsy: a lack of a relationship with obstetrical risk factors. Am J Perinatol. 1998;15:221–3.
9. Boyd ME, Usher RH, McLean FH. Fetal macrosomia: prediction, risks, proposed management. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61:715–22.
10. Sermer M, Naylor CD, Gare DJ, Kenshole AB, Ritchie JW, Farine D, et al. Impact of increasing carbohydrate intolerance on maternal-fetal outcomes in 3637 women without gestational diabetes. The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:146–56.
11. Golditch IM, Kirkman K. The large fetus. Management and outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52:26–30.
12. Lazer S, Biale Y, Mazor M, Lewenthal H, Insler V. Complications associated with the macrosomic fetus. J Reprod Med. 1986;31:501–5.
13. Chauhan SP, Lutton PM, Bailey KJ, Guerrieri JP, Morrison JC. Intrapartum clinical, sonographic, and parous patients' estimates of newborn birth weight. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:956–8.
14. Watson WJ, Soisson AP, Harlass FE. Estimated weight of the term fetus. Accuracy of ultrasound vs. clinical examination. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:369–71.
15. Miller JM, Brown HL, Khawli OF, Pastorek JG 2d, Gabert HA. Ultrasonographic identification of the macrosomic fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;159:1110–4.
16. McLaren RA, Puckett JL, Chauhan SP. Estimators of birth weight in pregnant women requiring insulin: a comparison of seven sonographic models. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:565–9.
17. Hall MH. Guessing the weight of the baby. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:734–6.
18. Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Goodwin TM. Obstetric maneuvers for shoulder dystocia and associated fetal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1126–30.
19. Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Miller DA, Kwok L, Goodwin TM. Spontaneous vaginal delivery: a risk factor for Erb's palsy?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:423–7.
20. Baskett TF, Allen AC. Perinatal implications of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:14–7.
21. Lipscomb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:558–64.
22. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA. 1996;276:1480–6.
23. Ott WJ. The diagnosis of altered fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1988;15:237–63.
24. Friesen CD, Miller AM, Rayburn WF. Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus. Am J Perinatol. 1995;12:63–6.
25. Delpapa EH, Mueller-Heubach E. Pregnancy outcome following ultrasound diagnosis of macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:340–3.
26. Levine AB, Lockwood CJ, Brown B, Lapinski R, Berkowitz RL. Sonographic diagnosis of the large for gestational age fetus at term: does it make a difference?. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:55–8.
27. Weeks JW, Pitman T, Spinnato JA 2d. Fetal macrosomia: does antenatal prediction affect delivery route and birth outcome?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1215–9.
28. Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:492–6.
29. Johnstone FD, Prescott RJ, Steel JM, Mao JH, Chambers S, Muir N. Clinical and ultrasound prediction of macrosomia in diabetic pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:747–54.
30. Flamm BL, Goings JR. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is suspected fetal macrosomia a contraindication?. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:694–7.
31. ACOG practice bulletin. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. No. 2, October 1998. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;64:201–8.
32. Modanlou HD, Komatsu G, Dorchester W, Free-man RK, Bosu SK. Large-for-gestational-age neonates: anthropometric reasons for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;60:417–23.
33. Coustan DR. Delivery: timing, mode and management. In: Reece EA, Coustan DR, eds. Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, 2d ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1995:353–60.
34. Hod M, Bar J, Peled Y, Fried S, Katz I, Itzhak M, et al. Antepartum management protocol. Timing and mode of delivery in gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(suppl 2):B113–7.
35. Lewis DF, Raymond RC, Perkins MB, Brooks GG, Heymann AR. Recurrence rate of shoulder dystocia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1369–71.
36. Cogswell ME, Serdula MK, Hungerford DW, Yip R. Gestational weight gain among average-weight and overweight women—what is excessive?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:705–12.
Members of various medical faculties develop articles for “Practical Therapeutics.” This article is one in a series coordinated by the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. Guest editor of the series is Bar-bara S. Apgar, M.D., M.S., who is also an associate editor ofAFP.
Copyright © 2001 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions