High Parity and Fetal Morbidity Outcomes
ABSTRACT We investigated the association between high parity and fetal morbidity outcomes.
We analyzed 22,463,141 singleton deliveries at 20 weeks or more of gestation in the United States from 1989 through 2000. Adjusted odds ratios generated from logistic regression models were used to approximate relative risk for neonatal morbidity in women with 1-4 (moderate parity or type I; referent group), 5-9 (high parity or type II), 10-14 (very high parity or type III) and 15 or more (extremely high parity or type IV) prior live births. Main outcome measures included low and very low birth weight, preterm and very preterm birth, and small and large for gestational age delivery.
The overall crude rates for low birth weight, very low birth weight, preterm birth, very preterm birth, and small and large for gestational age were 55, 11, 97, 19, 83, and 129 per 1,000 live births, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for low birth weight, very low birth weight, preterm, and very preterm delivery increased consistently and in a dose-effect fashion with ascending parity (P for trend < .001). In the case of large for gestational age delivery, the adjusted odds ratio showed an inverted-U pattern, being highest among women in the type III parity cluster. The findings with respect to small for gestational age were inconclusive.
High parity is a risk factor for adverse fetal outcomes. However, the impact of heightened parity is more manifest as shortened gestation rather than physical size restriction. These findings could prove beneficial for counseling women of high parity.
- SourceAvailable from: Christine M. Demont‐Heinrich
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The maternal characteristics that were examined included the following: age, race/ethnicity, education attainment, smoking during pregnancy, prenatal care, high parity for age, adequate weight gain, and marital status (as a proxy for socioeconomic status). These maternal characteristics were selected because they have been previously associated with birth weight in the literature (Alexander & Korenbrot, 1995; Aliyu et al., 2005; Goldenberg & Culhane, 2007; Kleinman & Kessel, 1987; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004). With regards to weight gain, Colorado birth certificates did not contain data on maternal height prior to 2007; therefore, calculating body mass index (BMI) and corresponding adequate pregnancy weight gains were not possible. "
ABSTRACT: Objective To determine the risk factors associated with having a very low birth weight (VLBW) infant as a follow-up to the first phase of a Perinatal Periods of Risk approach.Design and SampleRetrospective cohort analysis of birth certificates. Population-based sample of 53,427 birth certificates for the city under study during the years 1999–2006.MeasuresThe relationship of selected maternal characteristics as predictors of VLBW using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe maternal characteristics associated with VLBW were as follows: no prenatal care (OR = 4.04), inadequate weight gain (OR = 3.97), Black, non-Hispanic race (OR = 1.50), less than 20 years old (OR = 1.42) and more than 35 years old (OR = 1.43). After analyzing age and race/ethnicity together, Black non-Hispanic women less than 20 years of age (OR = 2.70) or over 35 years of age (OR = 2.45) still had an increased odds for having a VLBW infant whereas Black non-Hispanic women between the ages of 20 and 35 did not.Conclusions The findings of this study suggest educating women on the importance of preconception care, prenatal care, and adequate pregnancy weight gain to reduce the odds of having a VLBW infant.Public Health Nursing 05/2014; 31(3). DOI:10.1111/phn.12062 · 0.83 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "These factors together or independently may predispose the mother to anemia, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, malpresentation, abruptio placentae, placenta previa, post-partum hemorrhage due the uterine atony, and uterine rupture [17-19]. Poor perinatal outcomes include low birth weight, prematurity and perinatal mortality [20-23]. GM has also been associated with previous loss of pregnancy such as intrauterine fetal death and perinatal death . "
ABSTRACT: The association of grand multiparity and poor pregnancy outcome has not been consistent for decades. Classifying grand multiparous women as a high-risk group without clear evidence of a consistent association with adverse outcomes can lead to socioeconomic burdens to the mother, family and health systems. We compared the maternal and perinatal complications among grand multiparous and other multiparous women in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. A cross-sectional study was undertaken at Muhimbili National Hospital (MNH). A standard questionnaire enquired the following variables: demographic characteristics, antenatal profile and detected obstetric risk factors as well as maternal and neonatal risk factors. Predictors of adverse outcomes in relation to grand multiparous women were assessed at p = 0.05. Grand multiparas had twice the likelihood of malpresentation and a threefold higher prevalence of meconium-stained liquor and placenta previa compared with lower-parity women even when adjusted for age. Neonates delivered by grand multiparous women (12.1%) were at three-time greater risk of a low Apgar score compared with lower-parity women (5.4%) (odds ratio (OR), 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-5.0). Grand multiparity and low birth weight were independently associated with a low Apgar score (OR, 2.4; 95%, CI 1.4-4.2 for GM; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.3-7.8) for low birth weight. Grand multiparity remains a risk in pregnancy and is associated with an increased prevalence of maternal and neonatal complications (malpresentation, meconium-stained liquor, placenta previa and a low Apgar score) compared with other multiparous women who delivered at Muhimbili National Hospital.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 12/2013; 13(1):241. DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-13-241 · 2.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "A total of 1,227 matched case-control pairs were obtained. The matching scheme was proposed because the relationship between gravidity 4þ and oral clefts could be due to a maternal or paternal age effect, both closely related to gravidity (Aliyu et al., 2005). "
ABSTRACT: Background : There is disagreement about the association between cleft lip with or without cleft palate and multigravidity, which could be explained by differences of adjusting for maternal age, Amerindian ancestry, and socioeconomic status. Objective : The aim was to evaluate gravidity 4+ (more than four gestations) as a risk factor for cleft lip with or without cleft palate in South America. Design : We used a matched (1:1) case-control study with structural equation modeling for related causes. Data were obtained from 1,371,575 consecutive newborn infants weighing ≥500 g who were born in the hospitals of the Estudio Colaborativo Latinoamericano de Malformaciones Congénitas (ECLAMC) network between 1982 and 1999. There were a total of 1,271 cases with cleft lip with or without cleft palate (excluding midline and atypical cleft lip with or without cleft palate). A total of 1,227 case-control pairs were obtained, matched by maternal age, newborn gender, and year and place of birth. Potential confounders and intermediary variables were analyzed with structural equation modeling. Results : The crude risk of gravidity 4+ was 1.41 and the 95% confidence interval was 1.14 to 1.61. When applying structural equation modeling, the effect of multigravidity on the risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate was 1.22 and the 95% confidence interval was 0.91 to 1.39. Conclusions : Multigravid mothers (more than four gestations) showed no greater risk of bearing children who had cleft lip with or without cleft palate than mothers with two or three births. Therefore, the often observed and reported association between multigravidity and oral clefts likely reflects the effect of other risk factors related to low socioeconomic status in South American populations.The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 04/2013; 50(5). DOI:10.1597/11-320 · 1.20 Impact Factor