Muniswaran Ganeshan1, Mohamad Adam Bujang2, Shahrul Aiman Soelar3, Shamala Devi Karalasingam4, Harris Suharjono1, Ravichandran Jeganathan5. 1. Sarawak General Hospital, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kuching, Sarawak Malaysia. 2. Clinical Research Centre, Sarawak General Hospital, Jalan Hospital, Ministry of Health Malaysia, 93586 Kuching, Sarawak Malaysia. 3. 3Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Alor Setar, Kedah Malaysia. 4. 4National Clinical Research Centre, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 5. 5Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor Malaysia.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare obstetric outcomes between overweight and class 1 obesity among pregnant women in their first pregnancy based on WHO's BMI cut-offs and the potential public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations specific for high-risk population such as Asians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort review of data obtained from the Malaysian National Obstetrics and Gynaecology Registry between the year 2010 and year 2012. All women in their first pregnancy with a booking BMI in their first trimester were included in this study. The association between BMI classifications as defined by the WHO cut-offs and the potential public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations towards adverse obstetric outcomes was compared. RESULTS: A total of 88,837 pregnant women were included in this study. We noted that the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes was significantly higher using the public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations even among the overweight group as the risk of stillbirths was (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0,1.4), shoulder dystocia (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2,2.9), foetal macrosomia (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6,2.0), caesarean section (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.8,2.0) and assisted conception (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6,2.1). CONCLUSION: A specifically lower BMI references based on the potential public health action points for BMI classifications were a more sensitive predictor of adverse obstetric outcomes, and we recommend the use of these references in pregnancy especially among Asian population.
AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare obstetric outcomes between overweight and class 1 obesity among pregnant women in their first pregnancy based on WHO's BMI cut-offs and the potential public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations specific for high-risk population such as Asians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort review of data obtained from the Malaysian National Obstetrics and Gynaecology Registry between the year 2010 and year 2012. All women in their first pregnancy with a booking BMI in their first trimester were included in this study. The association between BMI classifications as defined by the WHO cut-offs and the potential public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations towards adverse obstetric outcomes was compared. RESULTS: A total of 88,837 pregnant women were included in this study. We noted that the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes was significantly higher using the public health action points identified by WHO expert consultations even among the overweight group as the risk of stillbirths was (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0,1.4), shoulder dystocia (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2,2.9), foetal macrosomia (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6,2.0), caesarean section (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.8,2.0) and assisted conception (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6,2.1). CONCLUSION: A specifically lower BMI references based on the potential public health action points for BMI classifications were a more sensitive predictor of adverse obstetric outcomes, and we recommend the use of these references in pregnancy especially among Asian population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Asians; Body mass index (BMI); Clinical outcomes; Screening; WHO
Authors: Jodie M Dodd; Rosalie M Grivell; Anh-Minh Nguyen; Annabelle Chan; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Susan Y Chu; Shin Y Kim; Joseph Lau; Christopher H Schmid; Patricia M Dietz; William M Callaghan; Kathryn M Curtis Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joshua L Weiss; Fergal D Malone; Danielle Emig; Robert H Ball; David A Nyberg; Christine H Comstock; George Saade; Keith Eddleman; Suzanne M Carter; Sabrina D Craigo; Stephen R Carr; Mary E D'Alton Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sohinee Bhattacharya; Doris M Campbell; William A Liston; Siladitya Bhattacharya Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 3.295