Abstract
Background:
Birth-weight is an important determinant of perinatal outcome with low birth-weight being a particular risk factor for adverse consequences.
Aim:
To investigate the impact of neonatal sex, mode of birth and gestational age at birth according to birth-weight centile on serious adverse neonatal outcomes in singleton term pregnancies.
Materials and methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton term births at the Mater Mother’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Serious adverse neonatal outcome was defined as a composite of severe acidosis at birth (pH ≤7.0 and/or lactate ≥6 mmol/L and/or base excess ≤−12 mmol/L), Apgar <3 at 5 min, neonatal intensive-care unit admission and antepartum or neonatal death. The main exposure variable was birth-weight centile.
Results:
Of the 69,210 babies in our study, the overall proportion of serious adverse neonatal outcomes was 9.1% (6327/69,210). Overall, neonates in the <3rd birth-weight centile category had the highest adjusted odds ratio (OR) for serious adverse neonatal outcomes [OR 3.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.06–4.07], whilst those in the ≥97th centile group also had elevated odds (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.30–1.75). Regardless of birth modality, smaller babies in the <3rd centile group had the highest adjusted OR and predicted probability for serious adverse neonatal outcomes. When stratified by sex, male babies consistently demonstrated a higher predicted probability of serious adverse neonatal outcomes across all birth-weight centiles. The adjusted odds, when stratified by gestational age at birth, were the highest from 37+0 to 38+6 weeks in the <3rd centile group (OR 5.97, 95% CI 4.60–7.75).
Conclusions:
Low and high birth-weights are risk factors for serious adverse neonatal outcomes. The adjusted OR appears to be greatest for babies in the <3rd birth-weight centile group, although an elevated risk was also found in babies within the ≥97th centile category.
Acknowledgements
Mater Research Institute Honours scholarship and Mater Foundation for research support.
Author’s statement
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.
References
[1] Prior T, Paramasivam G, Bennett P, Kumar S. Are fetuses that fail to achieve their growth potential at increased risk of intrapartum compromise? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:460–4.10.1002/uog.14758Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[2] Smeeton NC, Rona RJ, Dobson P, Cochrane R, Wolfe C. Assessing the determinants of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths using routinely collected data in an inner city area. BMC Med. 2004;2:27.10.1186/1741-7015-2-27Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[3] Francis JH, Permezel M, Davey MA. Perinatal mortality by birthweight centile. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54:354–9.10.1111/ajo.12205Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[4] Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:258–64.10.1002/uog.1806Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[5] Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, Pasupathy D, Smith GC. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386:2089–97.10.1097/OGX.0000000000000305Search in Google Scholar
[6] Hirst JE, Villar J, Victora CG, Papageorghiou AT, Finkton D, Barros FC, et al. The antepartum stillbirth syndrome: risk factors and pregnancy conditions identified from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14463.10.1111/1471-0528.14463Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[7] Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The association between birthweight 4000g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:1–4.10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.035Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] Dowdall D, Flatley C, Kumar S. Birth-weight centiles and intrapartum compromise. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;20:1–7.Search in Google Scholar
[9] Cole TJ, Hey E, Richmond S. The PREM score: a graphical tool for predicting survival in very preterm births. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95:F14–19.10.1136/adc.2009.164533Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[10] Dobbins TA, Sullivan EA, Roberts CL, Simpson JM. Australian national birthweight percentiles by sex and gestational age, 1998–2007. Med J Aust. 2012;197:291–4.10.5694/mja11.11331Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Weissmann-Brenner A, Simchen MJ, Zilberberg E, Kalter A, Weisz B, Achiron R, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of macrosomic pregnancies. Med Sci Monit. 2012;18:77–81.10.12659/MSM.883340Search in Google Scholar
[12] Grace L, Greer RM, Kumar S. Perinatal consequences of a category 1 caesarean section at term. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007248. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007248.10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007248Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[13] Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, O’Rourke P. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49:504–9.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01052.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Stevenson DK, Verter J, Fanaroff AA, Oh W, Ehrenkranz RA, Shankaran S, et al. Sex differences in outcomes of very low birthweight infants: the newborn male disadvantage. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2000;83:182–5.10.1136/fn.83.3.F182Search in Google Scholar
[15] Clifton V. Review: sex and the human placenta: mediating differential strategies of fetal growth and survival. Placenta 2010;31:33–9.10.1016/j.placenta.2009.11.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[16] Flatley C, Greer RM, Kumar S. The magnitude of change in the fetal cerebroplacental ratio in the third trimester and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50:514–9.10.1002/uog.17371Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Khalil AA, Morales-Rosello J, Morlando M, Hannan H, Bhide A, Papageorghiou A, et al. Is fetal cerebroplacental ratio an independent predictor of intrapartum fetal compromise and neonatal unit admission? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:1–10.10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Benton SJ, McCowan LM, Heazell AE, Grynspan D, Hutcheon JA, Senger C, et al. Placental growth factor as a marker of fetal growth restriction caused by placental dysfunction. Placenta. 2016;42:1–8.10.1016/j.placenta.2016.03.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Bligh LN, Greer RM, Kumar S. The relationship between maternal placental growth factor levels and intrapartum fetal compromise. Placenta. 2016;48:63–7.10.1016/j.placenta.2016.10.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Badawi N, Kurinczuk JJ, Keogh JM, Alessandri LM, O’Sullivan F, Burton PR, et al. Antepartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: The Western Australian case-control study. Br Med J. 1998;317:1549–53.10.1136/bmj.317.7172.1549Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
