Kara A Michels1, Digna R Velez Edwards2, Donna D Baird3, David A Savitz4, Katherine E Hartmann1. 1. Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 2. Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: digna.r.velez.edwards@vanderbilt.edu. 3. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if women with leiomyomata detected using uniform ultrasound methods are at increased risk of cesarean birth, without regard to indication. METHODS: Women were enrolled in Right from the Start (2000-2010), a prospective pregnancy cohort. Leiomyomata were counted, categorized, and measured during first trimester ultrasounds. Women provided information about demographics and reproductive history during first trimester interviews. Route of delivery was extracted from medical records or vital records, if the former were unavailable. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of cesarean birth by leiomyoma presence and characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2635 women, the prevalences of leiomyomata and cesarean birth were 11.2% and 29.8%, respectively. Women with leiomyomata, compared with those without, had a 27% increase in cesarean risk (RR, 1.27; CI, 1.17-1.37). The association was weaker following adjustment for maternal body mass index and age (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 1.11; CI, 1.02-1.20). The adjusted risk was elevated for women with a single leiomyoma 3 cm or more in diameter (ARR, 1.22; CI, 1.14-1.32) and women with the largest total leiomyoma volumes (ARR, 1.59; CI, 1.44-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Women with leiomyomata were at increased risk for cesarean birth particularly, those with larger tumor volumes.
PURPOSE: To determine if women with leiomyomata detected using uniform ultrasound methods are at increased risk of cesarean birth, without regard to indication. METHODS:Women were enrolled in Right from the Start (2000-2010), a prospective pregnancy cohort. Leiomyomata were counted, categorized, and measured during first trimester ultrasounds. Women provided information about demographics and reproductive history during first trimester interviews. Route of delivery was extracted from medical records or vital records, if the former were unavailable. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of cesarean birth by leiomyoma presence and characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2635 women, the prevalences of leiomyomata and cesarean birth were 11.2% and 29.8%, respectively. Women with leiomyomata, compared with those without, had a 27% increase in cesarean risk (RR, 1.27; CI, 1.17-1.37). The association was weaker following adjustment for maternal body mass index and age (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 1.11; CI, 1.02-1.20). The adjusted risk was elevated for women with a single leiomyoma 3 cm or more in diameter (ARR, 1.22; CI, 1.14-1.32) and women with the largest total leiomyoma volumes (ARR, 1.59; CI, 1.44-1.76). CONCLUSIONS:Women with leiomyomata were at increased risk for cesarean birth particularly, those with larger tumor volumes.
Authors: A De Vivo; A Mancuso; A Giacobbe; L Maggio Savasta; R De Dominici; N Dugo; C Dugo; A Vaiarelli Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Joanne H E Promislow; Christina M Makarushka; Jessica R Gorman; Penelope P Howards; David A Savitz; Katherine E Hartmann Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Donna D Baird; Stacy A Patchel; Tina M Saldana; David M Umbach; Tracy Cooper; Ganesa Wegienka; Quaker E Harmon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Alexandra C Sundermann; Tiara D Aldridge; Katherine E Hartmann; Sarah H Jones; Eric S Torstenson; Digna R Velez Edwards Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Kara A Michels; Katherine E Hartmann; Kristin R Archer; Fei Ye; Digna R Velez Edwards Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Valery A Danilack; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Elizabeth W Triche; David D Dore; Janet H Muri; Maureen G Phipps; David A Savitz Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Leslie V Farland; Judy E Stern; Chia-Ling Liu; Howard J Cabral; Charles C Coddington; Hafsatou Diop; Dmitry Dukhovny; Sunah Hwang; Stacey A Missmer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 10.693