Pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction (FGR) carry higher risks of fetal demise and adverse neonatal outcomes, and distinguishing true growth restriction from constitutionally small but healthy fetuses remains difficult. The authors evaluated whether a simple metric—percentile-based fetal growth velocity, defined as the change in estimated fetal weight (EFW) percentile per week—predicts a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by FGR or resulting in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates. The rationale is that change in percentile normalizes growth trajectories for gestational age and could improve clinical risk stratification.
This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant patients aged 18–45 who delivered within a single healthcare system between August 2017 and December 2022. Inclusion required at least two ultrasound examinations after 16 weeks' gestation to allow calculation of change in EFW percentile over time. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation, documented genetic or anatomic fetal abnormalities, and having fewer than two qualifying ultrasounds. A total of 300 patients met inclusion criteria.
The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes; the source text reports composite outcome rates across baseline EFW percentile strata and by growth velocity categories (decelerated, neutral, or increased), but does not list the specific components of the composite in the abstract. Reported neonatal endpoints in the cohort include intrauterine fetal demise, NICU admission and length of stay, need for respiratory support, and neonatal death.
Of the 300 included patients, most deliveries (n=199) occurred at the tertiary care center within the health system. There were three intrauterine fetal demises at a mean gestational age of 35 weeks and 3 days. Seventy-four neonates required NICU admission, with a mean NICU length of stay of 8.5 days; 29 neonates required respiratory support. The study reports no neonatal deaths in the cohort.
Baseline EFW percentile was strongly associated with the probability of the composite adverse outcome. Fetuses whose initial EFW was below the 3rd percentile (n=33) had a reported composite outcome probability of 50% (95% CI 44.8–55.2). By contrast, fetuses with initial EFW above the 50th percentile had a much lower probability of the composite outcome, reported as 5% (95% CI 3.7–6.6). These findings indicate substantially higher event rates for the most severely growth-restricted group when assessed by a baseline percentile.
The authors further examined growth velocity within baseline percentile subgroups and report that decelerated growth velocity was associated with higher composite outcome rates even when baseline EFW percentiles were not in the most severe category. Specifically, in the 3–10th percentile subgroup and the 10–50th percentile subgroup, fetuses with decelerated growth had composite outcome rates of 56.2% and 44.1%, respectively, which were higher than rates among fetuses with neutral or increased growth velocity. These results support the utility of serial change in percentile as an indicator of emergent risk beyond a single cross-sectional EFW percentile.
In this cohort, change in EFW percentile per week—a percentile-based fetal growth velocity—correlated with adverse neonatal outcomes independent of initial EFW. The study authors emphasize that the metric is simple to calculate, normalizes for gestational age, and facilitates clinical interpretation during routine surveillance. Decelerated growth identified fetuses at highest risk for adverse outcomes, suggesting that growth velocity could be a useful adjunct to existing surveillance strategies. The abstract does not provide details on predictive test performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC) or the exact components of the composite outcome.
The study received ethical approval from the Mayo Clinic institutional review board. Author disclosures include several declared advisory roles and grant support for two authors; the remaining authors reported no conflicts. The authors state that all study data are available upon reasonable request. The report is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; the authors explicitly note that findings should not yet guide clinical practice.