OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between maternal body mass index (BMI) and antenatal ultrasound detection of congenital anomalies. DESIGN: Population-based register study. SETTING: North of England (UK). POPULATION: All pregnancies (n = 3096) associated with a congenital anomaly notified to the Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey (NorCAS) during 2006-2009. Cases with chromosomal and teratogenic anomalies (n = 611) or without information on antenatal scanning (n = 4) were excluded. METHODS: Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for antenatal detection according to maternal BMI categories were estimated using logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For all anomalies combined, cases were defined as 'detected' if any congenital anomaly was suspected antenatally. Organ system-specific anomalies were defined as detected if an anomaly of the correct system was suspected. RESULTS: Antenatal detection of any anomaly occurred in 1146 of 2483 (46.2%) cases with normal karyotype. The odds of detection were significantly decreased in obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) women compared with women of recommended BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2); aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99; P = 0.046). Cardiovascular system anomalies were suspected antenatally in 109 of 945 (11.5%) cases. The odds of detecting a cardiovascular anomaly were significantly greater in underweight women (BMI < 18.5 kg/m(2)) than in women of recommended BMI (aOR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.13-7.70; P = 0.027). There was no association between BMI and detection in any other organ system or between BMI and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal ultrasound detection of a congenital anomaly is decreased in obese pregnant women. This has implications for the scanning and counselling of obese women.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between maternal body mass index (BMI) and antenatal ultrasound detection of congenital anomalies. DESIGN: Population-based register study. SETTING: North of England (UK). POPULATION: All pregnancies (n = 3096) associated with a congenital anomaly notified to the Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey (NorCAS) during 2006-2009. Cases with chromosomal and teratogenic anomalies (n = 611) or without information on antenatal scanning (n = 4) were excluded. METHODS: Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for antenatal detection according to maternal BMI categories were estimated using logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For all anomalies combined, cases were defined as 'detected' if any congenital anomaly was suspected antenatally. Organ system-specific anomalies were defined as detected if an anomaly of the correct system was suspected. RESULTS: Antenatal detection of any anomaly occurred in 1146 of 2483 (46.2%) cases with normal karyotype. The odds of detection were significantly decreased in obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) women compared with women of recommended BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2); aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99; P = 0.046). Cardiovascular system anomalies were suspected antenatally in 109 of 945 (11.5%) cases. The odds of detecting a cardiovascular anomaly were significantly greater in underweight women (BMI < 18.5 kg/m(2)) than in women of recommended BMI (aOR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.13-7.70; P = 0.027). There was no association between BMI and detection in any other organ system or between BMI and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal ultrasound detection of a congenital anomaly is decreased in obese pregnant women. This has implications for the scanning and counselling of obesewomen.
Authors: Yair J Blumenfeld; Valerija Momirova; Dwight J Rouse; Steve N Caritis; Anthony Sciscione; Alan M Peaceman; Uma M Reddy; Michael W Varner; Fergal D Malone; Jay D Iams; Brian M Mercer; John M Thorp; Yoram Sorokin; Marshall W Carpenter; Julie Lo; Susan M Ramin; Margaret Harper Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Lisa M Bodnar; Sarah J Pugh; Timothy L Lash; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Katherine P Himes; Sara M Parisi; Barbara Abrams Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Lisa M Bodnar; W Tony Parks; Kiran Perkins; Sarah J Pugh; Robert W Platt; Maisa Feghali; Karen Florio; Omar Young; Sarah Bernstein; Hyagriv N Simhan Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Dominique Heinke; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Paige L Williams; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Marlene Anderka; Sarah C Fisher; Tania A Desrosiers; Gary M Shaw; Paul A Romitti; Mark A Canfield; Mahsa M Yazdy Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 3.103