pregnancy trimester, second Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , , Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(9):540-546
, , , , , The aim of the present study was to compare the obstetric history and both two- and tri-dimensional ultrasound parameters according to different cervical lengths.
The present cross-sectional study analyzed 248 midtrimester pregnant women according to cervical length and compared the data with the obstetric history and 2D/3D ultrasound parameters. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to cervical length: The Short Cervix group for cervical lengths ≥ 15mm and< 25mm(n= 68), the Very Short Cervix group for cervical lengths< 15mm (n = 18) and the Control group, composed of 162 pregnant women with uterine cervical lengths ≥ 25mm.
When analyzing the obstetric history of only non-nulliparous patients, a significant association between the presence of a short cervix in the current pregnancy and at least one previous preterm birth was reported (p = 0.021). Cervical length and volume were positively correlated (Pearson coefficient = 0.587, p < 0.0001). The flow index (FI) parameter of cervical vascularization was significantly different between the Control and Very Short Cervix groups. However, after linear regression, in the presence of volume information, we found no association between the groups and FI. Uterine artery Doppler was also not related to cervical shortening.
The present study showed a significant association between the presence of a short cervix in the current pregnancy and at least one previous preterm birth. None of the vascularization indexes correlate with cervical length as an independent parameter. Uterine artery Doppler findings do not correlate with cervical length.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(9):540-546
, , , , , The aim of the present study was to compare the obstetric history and both two- and tri-dimensional ultrasound parameters according to different cervical lengths.
The present cross-sectional study analyzed 248 midtrimester pregnant women according to cervical length and compared the data with the obstetric history and 2D/3D ultrasound parameters. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to cervical length: The Short Cervix group for cervical lengths ≥ 15mm and< 25mm(n= 68), the Very Short Cervix group for cervical lengths< 15mm (n = 18) and the Control group, composed of 162 pregnant women with uterine cervical lengths ≥ 25mm.
When analyzing the obstetric history of only non-nulliparous patients, a significant association between the presence of a short cervix in the current pregnancy and at least one previous preterm birth was reported (p = 0.021). Cervical length and volume were positively correlated (Pearson coefficient = 0.587, p < 0.0001). The flow index (FI) parameter of cervical vascularization was significantly different between the Control and Very Short Cervix groups. However, after linear regression, in the presence of volume information, we found no association between the groups and FI. Uterine artery Doppler was also not related to cervical shortening.
The present study showed a significant association between the presence of a short cervix in the current pregnancy and at least one previous preterm birth. None of the vascularization indexes correlate with cervical length as an independent parameter. Uterine artery Doppler findings do not correlate with cervical length.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2015;37(8):359-365
DOI 10.1590/SO100-720320150005415
To compare sleep quality of overweight versus normal weight women in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
A cross-sectional study involving 223 women with 14 or more weeks of pregnancy, 105 of them overweight (pre-pregnancy body mass index - BMI - ≥25.0 kg/m2) and 118 of normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), attending the prenatal care clinic. The Brazilian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI-BR) questionnaire was used to evaluate sleep quality. The Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to compare differences between groups and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Most of the participants (67.7%) were poor sleepers (total score >5); this proportion was significantly higher among overweight (80/105) versus normal weight (67/118) women (76.2 versus 56.8%, p=0,004). During the second trimester, this difference did not reach statistical significance (72.5 versus 53.7%, respectively, p=0.06) but mean total PSQI-BR scores were significantly higher among overweight participants (7.0±3.8 versus 5.5±3.2, p=0.02). In the 2nd trimester, overweight women also had higher scores for sleep latency (1.4±1.0 versus 1.0±0.9, p=0.02) and subjective sleep quality (1.3±0.8 versus 0.8±0.8, p=0.02). In the third trimester, the proportion of women with poor sleep quality was significantly higher in the overweight group, but did not reach statistical significance (79.6 versus 60.8%, p=0.06). During this period, total mean scores were similar for women with and without excess weight (9.4±4.2 versus 8.3±4.6, p=0.2). However, overweight women had higher mean scores for sleep disturbance (2.3±0.7 versus 2.0±0.8, p=0.04).
Overweight women had a poorer sleep quality than normal weight women in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2015;37(8):359-365
DOI 10.1590/SO100-720320150005415
To compare sleep quality of overweight versus normal weight women in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
A cross-sectional study involving 223 women with 14 or more weeks of pregnancy, 105 of them overweight (pre-pregnancy body mass index - BMI - ≥25.0 kg/m2) and 118 of normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), attending the prenatal care clinic. The Brazilian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI-BR) questionnaire was used to evaluate sleep quality. The Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to compare differences between groups and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Most of the participants (67.7%) were poor sleepers (total score >5); this proportion was significantly higher among overweight (80/105) versus normal weight (67/118) women (76.2 versus 56.8%, p=0,004). During the second trimester, this difference did not reach statistical significance (72.5 versus 53.7%, respectively, p=0.06) but mean total PSQI-BR scores were significantly higher among overweight participants (7.0±3.8 versus 5.5±3.2, p=0.02). In the 2nd trimester, overweight women also had higher scores for sleep latency (1.4±1.0 versus 1.0±0.9, p=0.02) and subjective sleep quality (1.3±0.8 versus 0.8±0.8, p=0.02). In the third trimester, the proportion of women with poor sleep quality was significantly higher in the overweight group, but did not reach statistical significance (79.6 versus 60.8%, p=0.06). During this period, total mean scores were similar for women with and without excess weight (9.4±4.2 versus 8.3±4.6, p=0.2). However, overweight women had higher mean scores for sleep disturbance (2.3±0.7 versus 2.0±0.8, p=0.04).
Overweight women had a poorer sleep quality than normal weight women in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
