AIM: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of Tibetan and Han Chinese women delivering vaginally at high altitude (3650 meters) in Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. METHOD: Comparative analysis of data from a prospective observational study of Tibetan (n = 938) and Han Chinese (n = 146) women delivering at three hospitals between January 2004 and May 2005. RESULTS: Han Chinese women had higher rates of pre-eclampsia/gestational hypertension than Tibetan women, (10.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in rates of postpartum hemorrhage between Tibetan and Han women (12.8% vs 17.1%, P = 0.15). Han newborns weighed significantly less than Tibetan newborns (P < 0.01), and were twice as likely to be small for gestational age, (24.5% vs 11.6%, P < 0.01). Tibetan newborns were less likely to have poor neonatal outcomes than Han newborns (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In high altitude deliveries in Tibet, adverse outcomes were significantly more common among Han Chinese.
AIM: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of Tibetan and Han Chinese women delivering vaginally at high altitude (3650 meters) in Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. METHOD: Comparative analysis of data from a prospective observational study of Tibetan (n = 938) and Han Chinese (n = 146) women delivering at three hospitals between January 2004 and May 2005. RESULTS: Han Chinese women had higher rates of pre-eclampsia/gestational hypertension than Tibetan women, (10.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in rates of postpartum hemorrhage between Tibetan and Han women (12.8% vs 17.1%, P = 0.15). Han newborns weighed significantly less than Tibetan newborns (P < 0.01), and were twice as likely to be small for gestational age, (24.5% vs 11.6%, P < 0.01). Tibetan newborns were less likely to have poor neonatal outcomes than Han newborns (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In high altitude deliveries in Tibet, adverse outcomes were significantly more common among Han Chinese.
Authors: Richard J Derman; Bhalchandra S Kodkany; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Stacie E Geller; Vijaya A Naik; M B Bellad; Shobhana S Patted; Ashlesha Patel; Stanley A Edlavitch; Tyler Hartwell; Hrishikesh Chakraborty; Nancy Moss Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Zamudio; T Droma; K Y Norkyel; G Acharya; J A Zamudio; S N Niermeyer; L G Moore Journal: Am J Phys Anthropol Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 2.868
Authors: Charles A Ducsay; Ravi Goyal; William J Pearce; Sean Wilson; Xiang-Qun Hu; Lubo Zhang Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 37.312