Feasibility of ultrasound for assessing neonatal body composition in pregnancy diabetes trials — ASN Events

Feasibility of ultrasound for assessing neonatal body composition in pregnancy diabetes trials (#117)

Chris McKinlay 1 , Lisa C Mravicich 2 , Emily Gossen-Perez 2 , Minglan Li 3 , Elizabeth Lewis-Hills 4 , Karaponi Okesene-Gafa 2 , Rosemary Hall 5 , Rinki Murphy 6 , Heena Lakhdhir 7 , Stephanie Zhang 7 , Anna Serlachius 8 , Charlotte Oyston 2
  1. Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  3. Women's Health, Te Toka Tumai, Health New Zealand , Auckland, New Zealand
  4. Maternity Services, Waikato, Health New Zealand, Hamilton, New Zealand
  5. Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
  6. Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  7. Women's Health , Counties Manukau, Health New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
  8. Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland , New Zealand

Background: Neonatal body composition is an important outcome in diabetes in pregnancy trials. However, gold-standard three- or four-compartment models are not feasible in neonates, and current neonatal body composition techniques have limitations. We assessed the feasibility of using ultrasound to measure fat and muscle depth in a research context.

Methods: Neonates were recruited from a feasibility trial of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 diabetes in pregnancy (ACTRN12625000370404). Following brief training and support from an experienced sonographer, a research midwife used a portable ultrasound device (Vscan, GE Healthcare) to obtain triplicate measures of biceps, quadriceps and upper abdominal skin fat depth, and biceps and quadriceps muscle depth. Whole-body fat and fat-free mass index (FI, FFI, kg/m2) were determined from air displacement plethysmography. Correlations with customised birthweight z-score (cBWz, referenced to fetal growth curves and expected maternal constraint) and between measures were assessed.

Results: Of 22 ultrasound assessments attempted, 1 was unsuccessful, 1 had partial images and 20 (91%) were completed successfully.  Mean (SD) gestation was 36.9 (1.1) weeks and cBWz was 0.61 (1.82). Six (29%) infants were large for gestational age and 2 (10%) were small for gestational age. Mean intra-subject coefficient of variation for biceps, quadriceps and abdominal fat depth was 10%, 14% and 8%, and for biceps and quadriceps muscle depth was 6% and 7%. Quadriceps and abdominal skin fat depth were strongly correlated with cBWz (both r=0.69), but biceps skin fat depth was only moderately correlated with cBWZ (r=0.47). Abdominal skin fat depth was strongly correlated with FI (r=0.71), but biceps and quadriceps skin fat depth were only moderately correlated with FI (r=0.55 and 0.60). Biceps muscle depth was moderately correlated with cBWz (r=0.37) and FFI (r=0.36). Quadriceps muscle depth showed no association with cBWz or FFI. FI was strongly correlated with cBWZ (r=0.85), but FFI was only moderately correlated with cBWz (r=0.48).

Conclusions: Relatively precise ultrasound measures were obtained by a novice operator after brief training. Ultrasound measurement of abdominal skin fat depth is a potentially useful indicator of neonatal subcutaneous adipose mass. Assessing muscle mass in neonates remains challenging.