Relationship among placenta previa, fetal growth restriction, and preterm delivery: A population based study

被引:77
作者
Ananth, CV
Demissie, K
Smulian, JC
Vintzileos, AM
机构
[1] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Sect Epidemiol & Biostat, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[2] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Dept Environm & Community Med, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[3] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Div Maternal Fetal Med, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01413-2
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To examine the independent contributions of prematurity and fetal growth restriction to low birth weight among women with placenta previa. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective cohort study of singleton live births in New Jersey (1989-93) was performed. Mother-infant pairs (n = 544,734) were identified from linked birth certificate and maternal and infant hospital discharge summary data. Women diagnosed with previa were included only if they were delivered by cesarean. Fetal growth, defined as gestational age-specific observed-to-expected mean birth weight, and preterm delivery (before 37 completed weeks) were examined in relation to previa. Severe and moderate categories of fetal smallness and large for gestational age were defined as observed-to-expected birth weight ratios below 0.75, 0.75-0.85, and over 1.15, respectively, all of which were compared with appropriately grown Infants (observed-to-expected birth weight ratio 0.86-1.15). RESULTS: Placenta previa was recorded in 5.0 per 1000 pregnancies (n = 2744). After controlling for maternal age, education, parity, smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use, adequacy of prenatal care, maternal race, as well as obstetric complications, previa was associated with severe (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.25, 1.50) and moderate fetal smallness (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17, 1.32) births. Preterm delivery was also more common among women with previa. Adjusted OR of delivery between 20-23 weeks was 1.81 (95% CI 1.24, 2.63), and 2.90 (95% Cl 2.46,3.42) for delivery between 24-27 weeks. OR for delivery by each week between 28 and 36 weeks ranged between 2.7 and 4.0. Approximately 12% of preterm delivery and 3.7% of growth restriction were attributable to placenta previa. CONCLUSION: The association between low birth weight and placenta previa is chiefly due to preterm. delivery and to a lesser extent with fetal growth restriction. The risk of fetal smallness is increased slightly among women with previa, but this association may be of little clinical significance. (C) 2001 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
引用
收藏
页码:299 / 306
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   The association of placenta previa with history of cesarean delivery and abortion: A metaanalysis [J].
Ananth, CV ;
Smulian, JC ;
Vintzileos, AM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 177 (05) :1071-1078
[2]   Regression models for ordinal responses: A review of methods and applications [J].
Ananth, CV ;
Kleinbaum, DG .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 26 (06) :1323-1333
[3]  
Ananth CV, 1996, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V144, P881, DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009022
[4]  
Balcazar Hector, 1993, Ethnicity and Disease, V3, P169
[5]  
BARR HS, 1988, J REPROD MED, V33, P741
[6]   CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH PLACENTA PREVIA AND RESULTS OF EXPECTANT MANAGEMENT [J].
BRENNER, WE ;
EDELMAN, DA ;
HENDRICKS, CH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1978, 132 (02) :180-191
[7]   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ULTRASOUND LOCATION OF PLACENTAL SITE IN EARLY-PREGNANCY [J].
CHAPMAN, MG ;
FURNESS, ET ;
JONES, WR ;
SHEAT, JH .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1979, 86 (11) :846-848
[8]  
COMEAU J, 1983, OBSTET GYNECOL, V61, P577
[9]  
Demissie K, 1999, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V149, P824
[10]   SEQUENTIAL AND AVERAGE ATTRIBUTABLE FRACTIONS AS AIDS IN THE SELECTION OF PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES [J].
EIDE, GE ;
GEFELLER, O .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 48 (05) :645-655