Literature DB >> 30992520

The relationship between maternal body mass index and pregnancy outcomes in twin compared with singleton pregnancies.

Maya Ram1,2, Howard Berger3, Hayley Lipworth4, Michael Geary5, Sarah D McDonald6, Beth Murray-Davis7, Catherine Riddell8, Haroon Hasan8, Jon Barrett4, Nir Melamed4.   

Abstract

OBJECIVE: Women with twins have an a priori increased risk for many of the complications associated with maternal obesity. Thus, the impact of maternal obesity in twins may differ from that reported in singletons. In addition, given the increased metabolic demands in twin pregnancies, the impact of maternal underweight may be greater in twin compared with singleton gestations. Our objective was to test the hypothesis that the relationship between maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and adverse pregnancy outcomes differ between twin and singleton gestations.
METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based study of all women who had a singleton or twin hospital birth in Ontario, Canada, between April 2012 and March 2016. Data were obtained from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario. The relationship between maternal BMI category and pregnancy complications was assessed separately in twin and singleton gestations. The primary outcome was a composite variable that included any of the following complications: preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or preterm birth before 320/7 weeks. Relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for adverse outcomes for each BMI category as defined by WHO (using normal weight category as reference) were generated using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for maternal age, nulliparity, smoking, previous preterm birth, and fetal sex.
RESULTS: A total of 487,870 women with singleton (n = 480,010) and twin (n = 7860) pregnancies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of the composite primary outcome, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and cesarean delivery increased with high maternal BMI in both singleton and twin gestations, but these associations were weaker in twin compared with singleton gestations (association of BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m2 with primary outcome: aRR = 3.10, 95%-CI 2.96-3.24 in singletons compared with aRR = 1.74, 95%-CI 1.37-2.20 in twins). In singleton pregnancies the risk of preterm birth at < 320/7 weeks increased with maternal BMI, mainly due to an increased risk of provider-initiated preterm birth. In twin gestations, however, underweight (but not overweight or obesity) was associated with the greatest risk of preterm birth at < 32 weeks (aRR 1.67, 95%-CI 1.17-2.37), mainly due to an increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth (aRR 2.10, 95%-CI 1.44-3.08).
CONCLUSION: In healthy women with twin pregnancies, underweight is associated with the greatest risk for preterm birth, while the association of maternal obesity with adverse pregnancy outcomes is weaker than that observed in singletons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30992520     DOI: 10.1038/s41366-019-0362-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)        ISSN: 0307-0565            Impact factor:   5.095


  69 in total

1.  The effect of the increasing prevalence of maternal obesity on perinatal morbidity.

Authors:  G C Lu; D J Rouse; M DuBard; S Cliver; D Kimberlin; J C Hauth
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population.

Authors:  Leonie K Callaway; Johannes B Prins; Allan M Chang; H David McIntyre
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2006-01-16       Impact factor: 7.738

3.  BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults.

Authors:  Heather M Orpana; Jean-Marie Berthelot; Mark S Kaplan; David H Feeny; Bentson McFarland; Nancy A Ross
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 5.002

Review 4.  Pregnancy risks associated with obesity.

Authors:  John F Mission; Nicole E Marshall; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.844

5.  The obese pregnancy.

Authors:  A H Aamir
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 0.781

Review 6.  Global obesity: trends, risk factors and policy implications.

Authors:  Vasanti S Malik; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 43.330

Review 7.  Obesity in pregnancy.

Authors:  Gregory A L Davies; Cynthia Maxwell; Lynne McLeod
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2010-02

8.  Pre-pregnancy body mass index and pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  D A Doherty; E F Magann; J Francis; J C Morrison; J P Newnham
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.561

9.  Maternal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by obesity.

Authors:  Heather E Robinson; Colleen M O'Connell; K S Joseph; N Lynne McLeod
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Trends in pre-pregnancy obesity in nine states, 1993-2003.

Authors:  Shin Y Kim; Patricia M Dietz; Lucinda England; Brian Morrow; William M Callaghan
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.002

View more
  8 in total

1.  Challenges for better care based on the course of maternal body mass index, weight gain and multiple outcome in twin pregnancies: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Hessen/Germany within 15 years.

Authors:  Julia Schubert; Nina Timmesfeld; Kathrin Noever; Birgit Arabin
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 2.344

2.  Association of maternal pre-pregnancy low or increased body mass index with adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Jie Tang; Xinhong Zhu; Yanbing Chen; Dongming Huang; Henning Tiemeier; Ruoling Chen; Wei Bao; Qingguo Zhao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Perinatal Outcomes and Risk Factors for Preterm Birth in Twin Pregnancies in a Chinese Population: A Multi-center Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Sijian Li; Jinsong Gao; Juntao Liu; Jing Hu; Xiaoxu Chen; Jing He; Yabing Tang; Xinghui Liu; Yinli Cao
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-04-21

Review 4.  Predictors of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Pregnant Women Living with Obesity: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Romina Fakhraei; Kathryn Denize; Alexandre Simon; Ayni Sharif; Julia Zhu-Pawlowsky; Alysha L J Dingwall-Harvey; Brian Hutton; Misty Pratt; Becky Skidmore; Nadera Ahmadzai; Nicola Heslehurst; Louise Hayes; Angela C Flynn; Maria P Velez; Graeme Smith; Andrea Lanes; Natalie Rybak; Mark Walker; Laura Gaudet
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Association between pregravid liver enzyme levels and gestational diabetes in twin pregnancies: a secondary analysis of national cohort study.

Authors:  Jae-Young Park; Woo Jeng Kim; Yoo Hyun Chung; Bongseong Kim; Yonggyu Park; In Yang Park; Hyun Sun Ko
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Association of parental prepregnancy BMI with neonatal outcomes and birth defect in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ruixue Chen; Lifen Chen; Yifeng Liu; Feixia Wang; Siwen Wang; Yun Huang; Kai-Lun Hu; Yuzhi Fan; Ruoyan Liu; Runjv Zhang; Dan Zhang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Risk Factors for Maternal Body Mass Index and Gestational Weight Gain in Twin Pregnancies.

Authors:  Julia Schubert; Nina Timmesfeld; Kathrin Noever; Susann Behnam; Angela Vinturache; Birgit Arabin
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.754

8.  Association Between Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index and Miscarriage in an Assisted Reproductive Technology Population: A 10-Year Cohort Study.

Authors:  Pengfei Qu; Mingxin Yan; Doudou Zhao; Dongyang Wang; Shaonong Dang; Wenhao Shi; Juanzi Shi; Chunli Zhang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 5.555

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.