| Literature DB >> 36233473 |
Dorota Wołyńczyk-Gmaj1, Aleksandra Majewska1, Aleksandra Bramorska2, Anna Różańska-Walędziak3, Simon Ziemka1, Aneta Brzezicka2, Bartłomiej Gmaj1, Krzysztof Czajkowski4, Marcin Wojnar1.
Abstract
During late pregnancy, sleep deterioration is regularly observed. In concert with these observations, in previous studies by other researchers, a slight objective cognitive decline in pregnant women has been found. Sleep is essential for memory consolidation. The hypothesis of the study was that cognitive impairment could be related to sleep deterioration during pregnancy. The study included 19 pregnant women in their third trimester of pregnancy (28-40 weeks, median 33 weeks (IQR 32-37)) recruited at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical University of Warsaw, and 20 non-pregnant women as controls. The assessment was performed using the vocabulary subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), D2 Test of Attention, OSPAN task (Operational Span Task) to assess cognitive performance, actigraphy to examine sleep parameters, and a set of self-report instruments: Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Ford Insomnia Response to Stress (FIRST), Regenstein Hyperarousal Scale (HS), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Although there were no differences between the groups in WAIS (p = 0.18), pregnant women had worse scores in working memory capacity (overall number of remembered letters: p = 0.012, WM span index: p = 0.004) and a significantly lower score in attention (p = 0.03). Pregnant women also had lower sleep efficiency (p = 0.001), more awakenings from sleep (p = 0.001), longer average awakenings (p < 0.0001), longer wake after sleep onset (WASO, p < 0.0001), and longer total time in bed (p < 0.0001). In psychological assessment, pregnant women had only a higher FIRST score (p = 0.02). Using mediation analysis, we found that frequent awakening might be the major factor contributing to deterioration in working memory performance, explaining almost 40% of the total effect. In conclusion, sleep fragmentation in the third trimester of pregnancy may impair working memory consolidation. Pregnant women often complain about poor daily performance as well as non-restorative sleep. In this study, we showed that there is a relationship between lower sleep quality in pregnancy and worse cognitive functioning. We can expect a cognitive decline in women with sleep disturbances in pregnancy. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the treatment of sleep disorders in pregnancy.Entities:
Keywords: actigraphy; attention; awakenings; pregnancy; working memory
Year: 2022 PMID: 36233473 PMCID: PMC9573284 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Cognitive performance of pregnant women and non-pregnant controls.
| Group | Control | Pregnant |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSPAN task | Arithmetic | 89.75 ± 5.5 | 89.81 ± 8.2 | 0.03 * |
| Overall number of remembered letters | 54.25 ± 13.9 | 42.62 ± 14.3 | 2.65 * | |
| OSPAN score (WM span index) | 35.8 ± 18.8 | 19.62 ± 14.6 | 3.08 ** | |
| D2 test | PT | 533.55 ± 54.1 | 493.52 ± 76.4 | 1.94 * |
| Acc (%) | 99.93 | 99.94 | 0.66 | |
| CT | 192.2 ± 44.6 | 176.67 ± 38.4 | 1.19 | |
| Wechsler (Vocabulary) | 43.75 ± 10.15 | 38.62 ± 13.4 | 1.38 | |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01—statistical significance differences. The values shown are means, Student’s t-test was used.
Actigraphy parameters of pregnant women and non-pregnant controls.
| Group | Controls | Pregnant |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sleep Efficiency | 0.92 ± 0.002 | 0.87 ± 0.003 | 4.57 *** |
| TTB | 427.17 ± 41.6 | 477.11 ± 45.7 | 3.69 *** |
| TST | 392.07 ± 40.3 | 418.71 ± 47.7 | 2 |
| WASO | 33.84 ± 11.3 | 57.33 ± 13.6 | 5.95 *** |
| Number of awakenings | 12.66 ± 3.7 | 15.78 ± 3.7 | 2.6 *** |
| Avgerage awakenings (time, s) | 2.36 ± 1.3 | 3.74 ± 0.9 | 2.52 *** |
*** p < 0.001—statistical significance differences. The values shown are means, Student’s t-test was used.
Psychosocial characteristics of the study population of pregnant women and non-pregnant controls.
| Group | Controls | Pregnant |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| AIS | 4.75 ± 4.75 | 6.58 ± 3.2 | 1.65 |
| HS | 35.50 ± 7.4 | 35.32 ± 8.0 | 0.81 |
| FIRST | 19.95 ± 5.6 | 24.11 ± 4.8 | 2.49 * |
| EPWORTH | 7.75 ± 4.15 | 9.05 ± 4.6 | 0.93 |
| BDI | 5.25 ± 6.1 | 7.32 ± 5.15 | 1.14 |
AIS—Athens Insomnia Scale, HS—Regenstein Hyperarousal Scale, FIRST—Ford Insomnia Response to Stress, ESS—Epworth Sleepiness Scale, BDI—Beck Depression Inventory. * p < 0.05—statistical significance differences. The values shown are means, Student’s t-test was used.
Figure 1The impact of pregnancy on the OSPAN task is mediated by the average number of awakenings—the relationship between being pregnant or not, initially very strong, after introducing into the regression model of the intermediate variable in the form of the average number of awakenings is no longer statistically significant. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01—statistical significance differences.