| Literature DB >> 29261122 |
Jingjing Liang1, Zheqing Zhang2, Wenhan Yang3, Meixia Dai4, Lizi Lin5, Yajun Chen6, Jun Ma7, Jin Jing8.
Abstract
Previous research on the association between cesarean section (CS) and childhood obesity has yielded inconsistent findings. This study assessed the secular trend of CS and explored the relationship between CS and the risks of overweight and obesity in Chinese children and adolescents. Data came from a national multicenter school-based study conducted in seven provinces of China in 2013. Covariate data including weight, height and delivery mode were extracted. Poisson regression was applied to determine the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risks of overweight and obesity associated with the delivery mode. A total of 18,780 (41.2%) subjects were born by CS between 1997 and 2006. The rate of CS increased from 27.2% in 1997 to 54.1% in 2006. After adjusting for major confounders, the RRs (95% CI) of overweight and obesity among subjects born by CS were 1.21 (1.15 to 1.27) and 1.51 (1.42 to 1.61), respectively. Similar results were observed in different subgroups stratified by sex, age, and region. In summary, the CS rate increased sharply in China between 1997 and 2006. CS was associated with increased risks of overweight and obesity in offspring after accounting for major confounding factors.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; cesarean section; child; obesity; overweight
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29261122 PMCID: PMC5751025 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14121609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of children and adolescents by different delivery mode.
| Characteristics | Mean (SD)/ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | Cesarean Delivery ( | Vaginal Delivery ( | ||
| Sex | <0.001 | |||
| Boys | 23,096(50.6) | 9881(52.6) | 13,215(49.3) | |
| Girls | 22,512(49.4) | 8899(47.4) | 13,613(50.7) | |
| Age (year) | 10.9(2.9) | 10.2(2.7) | 11.4(2.9) | <0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 146.9(15.6) | 144.3(15.5) | 148.7(15.5) | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 41.7(15.0) | 40.3(15.3) | 42.6(14.8) | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 18.7(3.8) | 18.7(4.0) | 18.7(3.7) | 0.527 |
| BMI-Zscore | 0.24(1.29) | 0.41(1.34) | 0.12(1.24) | <0.001 |
| Year of birth | <0.001 | |||
| 1997–2001 | 30,361(66.6) | 14,341(76.4) | 16,020(59.7) | |
| 2002–2006 | 15,247(33.4) | 4439(23.6) | 10,808(40.3) | |
| Overweight | 7481(16.4) | 3468(18.5) | 4013(15.0) | <0.001 |
| Obesity | 4831(10.6) | 2620(14.0) | 2211(8.2) | <0.001 |
| Region | <0.001 | |||
| Urban | 28,396(62.3) | 13,031(69.4) | 15,365(57.3) | |
| Rural | 17,212(37.7) | 5749(30.6) | 11,463(42.7) | |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 39.6(1.3) | 39.4(1.4) | 39.7(1.2) | <0.001 |
| <37 | 1175(2.5) | 624(3.3) | 551(2.1) | |
| 37–42 | 41,983(92.1) | 17,156(91.4) | 24,827(92.5) | |
| ≥42 | 995(2.2) | 420(2.2) | 575(2.1) | |
| Missing | 1455(3.2) | 580(3.1) | 875(3.3) | |
| Birth weight (grams) | 3322.4(503.6) | 3352.9(510.0) | 3300.7(497.8) | <0.001 |
| <2500 | 1459(3.2) | 850(3.2) | 609(3.2) | |
| 2500–4000 | 37,335(81.9) | 22,084(82.3) | 15,251(81.2) | |
| ≥4000 | 4308(9.4) | 2255(8.4) | 2053(10.9) | |
| Missing | 2506(5.5) | 1639(6.1) | 867(4.6) | |
| Breast feeding (months) | 8.4(6.0) | 7.7(6.0) | 8.9(6.0) | <0.001 |
| <6 | 12,074(26.5) | 5969(31.8) | 6105(22.8) | |
| ≥6 | 27,099(59.4) | 10,496(55.9) | 16,603(61.9) | |
| Missing | 6435(14.1) | 2315(12.3) | 4120(15.3) | |
| Parental characteristics | ||||
| Maternal age at birth (year) | 26.0(4.3) | 26.5(4.3) | 25.6(4.3) | <0.001 |
| Mather’s BMI (kg/m2) | 22.2(3.1) | 22.4(3.1) | 22.1(3.0) | <0.001 |
| Father’s BMI (kg/m2) | 24.2(3.3) | 24.3(3.3) | 24.0(3.3) | <0.001 |
| Maternal education (years) | <0.001 | |||
| ≤6 | 4409(9.7) | 984(5.2) | 3425(12.8) | |
| 7–12 | 28,434(62.3) | 10,883(58.0) | 17,551(65.4) | |
| ≥13 | 11,563(25.4) | 6551(34.9) | 5012(18.7) | |
| Missing | 1202(2.6) | 362(1.9) | 840(3.1) | |
| Paternal education (years) | <0.001 | |||
| ≤6 | 3208(7.0) | 784(4.2) | 2424(9.0) | |
| 7–12 | 28,628(62.8) | 10,722(57.1) | 17,906(66.7) | |
| ≥13 | 12,651(27.7) | 6939(37.0) | 5712(21.3) | |
| Missing | 1121(2.5) | 335(1.8) | 786(2.9) | |
Figure 1Region-specific distribution of the participants, cesarean section rate and the prevalence of overweight or obesity in China.
Figure 2Secular trend in the rate of cesarean section during 1997–2006 in China.
Crude and multivariable adjusted risk ratios for overweight/obesity in offspring associated with cesarean vs. vaginal delivery.
| Group | Overweight (RR (95% CI)) | Obesity (RR (95% CI)) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | Adjusted | Crude | Adjusted | |||||||
| Total | 1.31 (1.26, 1.37) | <0.001 | 1.21 (1.15, 1.27) | <0.001 | --- | 1.76 (1.66, 1.86) | <0.001 | 1.51 (1.42, 1.61) | <0.001 | --- |
| Stratified analysis by sex | ||||||||||
| Boys | 1.23 (1.16, 1.31) | <0.001 | 1.13 (1.06, 1.21) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 1.64 (1.53, 1.75) | <0.001 | 1.45 (1.34, 1.56) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Girls | 1.40 (1.31, 1.50) | <0.001 | 1.32 (1.22, 1.42) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 1.86 (1.66, 2.08) | <0.001 | 1.71 (1.51, 1.93) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Stratified analysis by age | ||||||||||
| Children | 1.21 (1.14, 1.27) | <0.001 | 1.18 (1.12, 1.26) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 1.55 (1.45, 1.65) | <0.001 | 1.49 (1.39, 1.60) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Adolescents | 1.42 (1.30, 1.55) | <0.001 | 1.29 (1.16, 1.43) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 1.86 (1.64, 2.10) | <0.001 | 1.57 (1.36, 1.80) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Stratified analysis by region | ||||||||||
| Urban | 1.37 (1.29, 1.45) | <0.001 | 1.24 (1.16, 1.32) | <0.001 | 0.001 | 1.94 (1.80, 2.09) | <0.001 | 1.58 (1.46, 1.72) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Rural | 1.23 (1.14, 1.33) | <0.001 | 1.15 (1.06, 1.25) | <0.001 | 0.002 | 1.53 (1.39, 1.68) | <0.001 | 1.39 (1.26, 1.54) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
p Values refer to Wald’s test. pa: p value for interaction between stratified variables and delivery mode. Analyses were adjusted for birth weight, gestational age, maternal age at childbirth, maternal education level, paternal education level, region, sex, and year of birth. The sex-subgroup analysis was adjusted for all covariates except for sex; the area-subgroup analysis was adjusted for all covariates except for area.