Chiara Mandò1, Stefania Calabrese2, Martina Ilaria Mazzocco2, Chiara Novielli2, Gaia Maria Anelli2, Patrizio Antonazzo2, Irene Cetin2. 1. Department of Mother and Child, Hospital L. Sacco, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, and Center for Fetal Research Giorgio Pardi, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy. Electronic address: chiara.mando@unimi.it. 2. Department of Mother and Child, Hospital L. Sacco, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, and Center for Fetal Research Giorgio Pardi, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Placental biometry at birth has been shown to predict chronic disease in later life. We hypothesized that maternal overweight/obesity, a state of low-grade inflammation and risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcome, could negatively influence placental development and that differences would be sex-specific. METHODS: 696 women (537 normal-weight, NW; 112 overweight, OW; 47 obese, OB) with singleton uncomplicated pregnancies were prospectively enrolled at term delivery. Gestational age, maternal (age, height, pre-pregnancy BMI, gestational weight gain -GWG, hemoglobin, hematocrit and glycemia), fetal (weight, length, ponderal index, cranial circumference) and placental (weight, diameters) data were collected. Placental area, thickness and efficiency (fetal/placental weight ratio, F/P) were calculated. RESULTS: GWG was within standard recommendations in OB, while OW exceeded it. Placental weight was significantly higher in OW versus NW, but not in OB, leading to significantly higher placental thickness and lower F/P in this group. In the total population, a significant interaction effect between maternal BMI and fetal sex on placental weight and efficiency was found. Indeed, differences in placental parameters were present only in female offspring. DISCUSSION: In our population of OW and OB uncomplicated pregnancies only OW women, presenting GWG over standard recommendations, had thicker and less efficient placentas. We also reported different placental adaptation depending on fetal sex, with significant changes only in female fetuses. This may be part of a female-specific strategy aiming to ensure survival if another adverse event occurs. Customized counseling according to maternal BMI and fetal sex should be evaluated in clinical care.
INTRODUCTION: Placental biometry at birth has been shown to predict chronic disease in later life. We hypothesized that maternal overweight/obesity, a state of low-grade inflammation and risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcome, could negatively influence placental development and that differences would be sex-specific. METHODS: 696 women (537 normal-weight, NW; 112 overweight, OW; 47 obese, OB) with singleton uncomplicated pregnancies were prospectively enrolled at term delivery. Gestational age, maternal (age, height, pre-pregnancy BMI, gestational weight gain -GWG, hemoglobin, hematocrit and glycemia), fetal (weight, length, ponderal index, cranial circumference) and placental (weight, diameters) data were collected. Placental area, thickness and efficiency (fetal/placental weight ratio, F/P) were calculated. RESULTS: GWG was within standard recommendations in OB, while OW exceeded it. Placental weight was significantly higher in OW versus NW, but not in OB, leading to significantly higher placental thickness and lower F/P in this group. In the total population, a significant interaction effect between maternal BMI and fetal sex on placental weight and efficiency was found. Indeed, differences in placental parameters were present only in female offspring. DISCUSSION: In our population of OW and OB uncomplicated pregnancies only OW women, presenting GWG over standard recommendations, had thicker and less efficient placentas. We also reported different placental adaptation depending on fetal sex, with significant changes only in female fetuses. This may be part of a female-specific strategy aiming to ensure survival if another adverse event occurs. Customized counseling according to maternal BMI and fetal sex should be evaluated in clinical care.
Authors: Amy R Nichols; Andrew G Rundle; Pam Factor-Litvak; Beverly J Insel; Lori Hoepner; Virginia Rauh; Frederica Perera; Elizabeth M Widen Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Amy C Kelly; Fredrick J Rosario; Jeannie Chan; Laura A Cox; Theresa L Powell; Thomas Jansson Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 5.900
Authors: Matthew Bucher; Kim Ramil C Montaniel; Leslie Myatt; Susan Weintraub; Hagai Tavori; Alina Maloyan Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Franca Marangoni; Irene Cetin; Elvira Verduci; Giuseppe Canzone; Marcello Giovannini; Paolo Scollo; Giovanni Corsello; Andrea Poli Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Nihal A Salem; Amanda H Mahnke; Alan B Wells; Alexander M Tseng; Lyubov Yevtushok; Natalya Zymak-Zakutnya; Wladimir Wertlecki; Christina D Chambers; Rajesh C Miranda Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 5.027