macrosomia Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Articles

    Comparison of Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Parturients With and Without a Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2019;41(11):647-653

    Summary

    Original Articles

    Comparison of Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Parturients With and Without a Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2019;41(11):647-653

    DOI 10.1055/s-0039-1696947

    Views8

    Abstract

    Objective

    The present study aims to compare the maternal and fetal outcomes of parturients with and without a gestational diabetes diagnosis.

    Methods

    A case-control study including parturients with (cases) and without (control) a gestational diabetes diagnosis, who delivered at a teaching hospital in Southern Brazil, between May and August 2018. Primary and secondary data were used. Bivariate analysis and a backward conditionalmultivariate logistic regression were used to make comparisons between cases and controls, which were expressed by odds ratio (OR), with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) and a statistical significance level of 5%.

    Results

    The cases (n=47) weremore likely to be 35 years old or older compared with the controls (n=93) (p<0.001). The cases had 2.56 times greater chance of being overweight (p=0.014), and a 2.57 times greater chance of having a positive family history of diabetes mellitus (p=0.01). There was no significant difference regarding weight gain, presence of a previous history of gestational diabetes, height, or delivery route. The mean weight at birth was significantly higher in the infants of mothers diagnosed with diabetes (p=0.01). There was a 4.7 times greater chance of macrosomia (p<0.001) and a 5.4 times greater chance of neonatal hypoglycemia (p=0.01) in the infants of mothers with gestational diabetes.

    Conclusion

    Therefore, maternal age, family history of type 2 diabetes, obesity and pregestational overweightness are important associated factors for a higher chance of developing gestational diabetes.

    See more
  • Original Article

    Trends in the Prevalence of Live Macrosomic Newborns According to Gestational Age Strata, in Brazil, 2001-2010, and 2012-2014

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2017;39(8):376-383

    Summary

    Original Article

    Trends in the Prevalence of Live Macrosomic Newborns According to Gestational Age Strata, in Brazil, 2001-2010, and 2012-2014

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2017;39(8):376-383

    DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1604266

    Views10

    Abstract

    Purpose

    To describe the trends in the prevalence of macrosomia (birth weight ± 4,000 g) according to gestational age in Brazil in the periods of 2001-2010 and 2012-2014.

    Methods

    Ecological study with data from the Brazilian Live Birth Information System (SINASC, in the Portuguese acronym) regarding singleton live newborns born from 22 gestational weeks. The trends in Brazil as a whole and in each of its five regions were analyzed according to preterm (22-36 gestational weeks) and term (37-42 gestational weeks) strata. Annual Percent Changes (APCs) based on the Prais-Winsten method and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to verify statistically significant changes in 2001-2010.

    Results

    In Brazil, the prevalence of macrosomic births was of 5.3% (2001-2010) and 5.1% (2012-2014). The rates were systematically higher in the North and Northeast Regions both in the preterm and in term strata. In the preterm stratum, the North Region presented the highest variation in the prevalence of macrosomia (+137.5%) when comparing 2001 (0.8%) to 2010 (1.9%). In the term stratum, downward trends were observed in Brazil as a whole and in every region. The trends for 2012-2014 were more heterogeneous, with the prevalence systematically higher than that observed for 2001-2010. The APC in the preterm stratum (2001-2010) showed a statistically significant trend change in the North (APC: 15.4%; 95%CI: 0.6-32.3) and South (APC: 13.5%; 95%CI: 4.8-22.9) regions. In the term stratum, the change occurred only in the North region (APC:-1.5%; 95%CI: -2.5--0.5).

    Conclusion

    The prevalence of macrosomic births in Brazil was higher than 5.0%. Macrosomia has potentially negative health implications for both children and adults, and deserves close attention in the public health agenda in Brazil, as well as further support for investigation and intervention.

    See more
    Trends in the Prevalence of Live Macrosomic Newborns According to Gestational Age Strata, in Brazil, 2001-2010, and 2012-2014

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE