Xun Liao

Prepregnancy Weight, Gestational Weight Gain, and Risk of Growth Affected Neonates

BACKGROUND In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published revised gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines with changes notable for altered body mass index (BMI) categorization as per World Health Organization criteria and a stated range of recommended gain (11-20 pounds) for obese women. The goal of this study was to evaluate associations between maternal BMI-specific GWG adherence in the context of these new guidelines and risk of small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) neonates. METHODS Subjects were a retrospective cohort of 11,203 live birth singletons delivered at 22-44 weeks at a Massachusetts tertiary care center between April 2006 and March 2010. Primary exposure was GWG adherence (inadequate, appropriate, or excessive) based on BMI-specific recommendations. SGA and LGA were defined as <10th and ≥90th percentiles of U.S. population growth curves, respectively. The association between GWG adherence and SGA and LGA was examined in polytomous logistic regression models that estimated adjusted odds ratios (AOR) stratified by prepregnancy weight status, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS Before pregnancy, 3.8% of women were underweight, 50.9% were normal weight, 24.6% were overweight, and 20.6% were obese. Seventeen percent had inadequate GWG, and 57.2% had excessive GWG. Neonates were 9.6% SGA and 8.7% LGA. Inadequate GWG was associated with increased odds of SGA (AOR 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-4.78 for underweight and AOR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42-2.24 for normal weight women) and decreased odds of LGA (AOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.47-0.73 for normal weight and AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.90 for obese women). Excessive GWG was associated with decreased odds of SGA (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.73 for normal weight and AOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.89 for overweight women) and increased odds of LGA (AOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.38-2.24 for normal weight, AOR 2.99, 95% CI 1.92-4.65 for overweight, and AOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.10-2.19 for obese women). CONCLUSIONS Efforts to optimize GWG are essential to reducing the proportion of SGA and LGA neonates, regardless of prepregnancy BMI.

Efforts needed to provide institute of medicine-recommended guidelines for gestational weight gain

OBJECTIVE: To estimate body mass index (BMI)-specific gestational weight gain recommendations and frequency of weight and gestational weight gain discussions and documentation. METHODS: Medical record review of 477 randomly selected patients who met inclusion criteria and who received care in faculty and resident clinics at a central Massachusetts tertiary care center. Patients started prenatal care at or before 14 weeks of gestation and delivered between April 2007 and March 2008. RESULTS: Our patients were mean (±standard deviation) 27.8 (±6.3) years, 69.8% multiparous, 45.3% white, 10.5% black, and 15.9% Hispanic. Mean gestational age at initial visit was 9.6 (±2.1) weeks and mean prenatal visits attended were 12.6 (±2.7). Using prenatal chart data alone, BMI was not calculable for 41.2% of patients due to missing height (27.7%), prepregnancy weight (27.9%), or both (14.5%). In the total sample, documentation was missing with regard to BMI (95.4%), gestational weight gain (85.3%), gestational weight gain goals (90.1%), and discussion of weight (88.9%). Supplemental data were obtained to calculate prepregnancy BMI for 469 patients. Per 1990 (BMI at least 26.1) and 2009 (BMI at least 25.0) guidelines, 42% and 49% of patients were overweight or obese, respectively, before pregnancy. Analysis of actual gestational weight gain by BMI revealed that 76% of overweight and 65% of obese patients gained excessively. CONCLUSION: Prenatal care providers should include recording height and weight to calculate BMI and to provide BMI-specific gestational weight gain guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Racial and ethnic differences in primary, unscheduled cesarean deliveries among low-risk primiparous women at an academic medical center: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundCesarean sections are the most common surgical procedure for women in the United States. Of the over 4 million births a year, one in three are now delivered in this manner and the risk adjusted prevalence rates appear to vary by race and ethnicity. However, data from individual studies provides limited or contradictory information on race and ethnicity as an independent predictor of delivery mode, precluding accurate generalizations. This study sought to assess the extent to which primary, unscheduled cesarean deliveries and their indications vary by race/ethnicity in one academic medical center.MethodsA retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study was conducted of 4,483 nulliparous women with term, singleton, and vertex presentation deliveries at a major academic medical center between 2006–2011. Cases with medical conditions, risk factors, or pregnancy complications that can contribute to increased cesarean risk or contraindicate vaginal birth were excluded. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in delivery mode and caesarean indications among racial and ethnic groups.ResultsThe overall rate of cesarean delivery in our cohort was 16.7%. Compared to White women, Black and Asian women had higher rates of cesarean delivery than spontaneous vaginal delivery, (adjusted odds ratio {AOR}: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.91, and AOR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.17, respectively). Black women were also more likely, compared to White women, to undergo cesarean for fetal distress and indications diagnosed in the first stage as compared to the second stage of labor.ConclusionsRacial and ethnic differences in delivery mode and indications for cesareans exist among low-risk nulliparas at our institution. These differences may be best explained by examining the variation in clinical decisions that indicate fetal distress and failure to progress at the hospital-level.

Gestational weight gain within recommended ranges in consecutive pregnancies: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE to examine whether, among parous women, adherence to gestational weight gain (GWG) recommendations in the most recent previous pregnancy is associated with adherence to GWG recommendations in the current pregnancy. DESIGN retrospective cohort study. SETTING review of labour and delivery records from a Massachusetts tertiary-care centre. PARTICIPANTS 1,325 women who delivered two consecutive singletons from April 2006 to March 2010. MEASUREMENTS pre-pregnancy weight status and adherence to GWG recommendations were categorised using 1990 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines. Analyses were stratified by weight status before the second pregnancy. FINDINGS 56% and 46% of women gained more than 1990 IOM recommendations during the first and second of consecutive pregnancies; 57% gained within the same adherence category in both pregnancies. Excessive GWG during the first pregnancy was strongly associated with excessive gain during the second pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=5.4 [95% CI: 1.7-16.4] for underweight, 3.7 [95% CI: 2.4-5.5] for normal weight, 3.0 [95% CI: 1.2-7.6] for overweight, and 5.3 [95% CI: 2.4-11.7] for obese women). Inadequate gain in the first of consecutive pregnancies was strongly associated with subsequent inadequate GWG for underweight women (AOR=13.7; 95% CI: 3.9-48.0), normal weight women (AOR=2.9; 95% CI: 1.7-5.1), and obese women (AOR=3.6; 95% CI: 1.4-9.3). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses using IOM 2009 guidelines. KEY CONCLUSIONS adherence to GWG recommendations in consecutive pregnancies is highly concordant. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE consideration of GWG during previous pregnancies may facilitate discussions about GWG during prenatal care.

Cigarette smoking and gestational diabetes mellitus in Hispanic woman

AIMS Hispanic women are at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as compared to non-Hispanic white women. While smoking has been associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, studies of smoking and GDM are sparse and conflicting. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between cigarette smoking and GDM in Hispanic women. METHODS We conducted a pooled analysis of two Hispanic datasets based in Massachusetts: the UMass Medical Health Care dataset and the Proyecto Buena Salud dataset. A total of 3029 Hispanic prenatal care patients with singleton gestations were included. Cigarette smoking prior to and during pregnancy was collected via self-report. Diagnosis of GDM was abstracted from medical records and confirmed by study obstetricians. RESULTS One-fifth of participants (20.4%) reported smoking prior to pregnancy, and 11.0% reported smoking in pregnancy. A total of 143 women (4.7%) were diagnosed with GDM. We did not observe an association between pre-pregnancy cigarette smoking and odds of GDM (multivariable OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.47, 1.25). In contrast, smoking during pregnancy was associated with a 54% reduction in odds of GDM (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.22, 0.95). However, this association was no longer statistically significant after adjustment for age, parity, and study site (OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.23, 1.00). CONCLUSIONS In this population of Hispanic pregnant women, we did not observe statistically significant associations between pre-pregnancy smoking and odds of GDM. A reduction in odds of GDM among those who smoked during pregnancy was no longer apparent after adjustment for important diabetes risk factors.