Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2020; 42(04): 188-193
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709692
Original Article
Fetal Medicine
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Frequency of Congenital Anomalies in the Brazilian Midwest and the Association with Maternal Risk Factors: Case-control Study

Frequência das anomalias congênitas no centro-oeste brasileiro e a associação com fatores de risco materno: estudo caso-controle
Carolina Leão de Moraes 
1   Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil
,
Natália Cruz e Melo 
2   Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Waldemar Naves do Amaral 
1   Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 March 2019

02 March 2020

Publication Date:
24 April 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the frequency of structural congenital anomalies (CAs) in the midwest of Brazil and its association with maternal risk factors.

Methods This was a prospective, observational, case-control study based on a hospital population. Pregnant women attended at a fetal medicine service in Brazil were analyzed in the period from October 2014 to February 2016.A total of 357 pregnant women were included, 223 of whom had fetuses with structural anomalies (group case), and 134 of whom had structurally normal fetuses (control group). The clinical history was made previous to prenatal consultation, and the diagnosis of the structural CA was performed through ultrasound.

Results A frequency of 64.27% (n = 223) of pregnant women with fetuses with structural anomalies was observed. The most frequent structural CAs were those of the central nervous system (30.94%), followed by anomalies of the genitourinary system (23.80%), and, finally, by multiple CAs (16.60%). The background of previous children with CAs (odds ratio [OR]: 3.85; p = 0.022), family history (OR: 6.03; p = < 0.001), and consanguinity between the progenitors (OR: 4.43; p = 0.034) influenced the occurrence of structural CA.

Conclusion The most frequent CAs are those of the central nervous system, followed by those of the genitourinary system, and then multiple anomalies. The maternal risk factors that may have influenced the occurrence of structural CA were previous children with CA, family history, and consanguinity among the parents.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a frequência de anomalias congênitas (ACs) estruturais no centro-oeste brasileiro e a associação com fatores de risco maternos.

Métodos Estudo prospectivo, observacional, caso-controle, baseado em uma população hospitalar. Foram analisadas gestantes atendidas em um serviço de medicina fetal no Brasil, no período de outubro de 2014 a fevereiro de 2016. Foram analisadas 357 gestantes, dentre as quais 223 tiveram fetos com ACs estruturais (grupo controle) e 134 tiveram fetos estruturalmente normais (grupo controle). A história clínica foi feita antes da consulta de pré-natal, e o diagnóstico da AC estrutural foi realizado por ultrassonografia.

Resultados Observou-se uma frequência de 64,27% (n = 223) de gestantes com fetos com ACs estruturais. As ACs estruturais mais frequentes foram as do sistema nervoso central (30,94%), seguidas das anomalias do sistema gênito-urinário (23,80%), e, por fim, das ACs múltiplas (16,60%). Antecedentes de crianças com AC (razão de probabiliade [RP]: 3,85; p = 0,022), antecedentes familiares (RP: 6,03; p = < 0,001), e consanguinidade entre os grupos progenitores (RP: 4,43; p = 0,034) influenciaram a ocorrência de AC estrutural.

Conclusão As ACs mais frequentes foram as do sistema nervoso central, as do sistema gênito-urinário, e as ACs múltiplas. Os fatores de risco maternos que podem ter influenciado a ocorrência de AC estrutural foram antecedentes de crianças com AC, história familiar, e a consanguinidade entre os pais.

Keywords

congenital anomalies - ultrasound - prenatal - prenatal diagnosis - risk factors

Palavras-chave

anomalias congênitas - ultrassom - pré-natal - diagnóstico pré-natal - fatores de risco

Contributions

Moraes C. L.: project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. Melo N. C.: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. Amaral W. N.: project development, manuscript writing, and critical review.


 

  • References

  • 1 Kyu HH, Pinho C, Wagner JA, Brown JC, Bertozzi-Villa A, Charlson FJ. , et al; Global Burden of Disease Pediatrics Collaboration. GBD 2013 Collaboration. Global and national burden of diseases and injuries among children and adolescents between 1990 and 2013: findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Study. JAMA Pediatr 2016; 170 (03) 267-287 . Doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Singh G, Sidhu K. Bad obstetric history: a prospective study. Med J Armed Forces India 2010; 66 (02) 117-120 . Doi: 10.1016/S0377-1237(10)80121-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sekhobo JP, Druschel CM. An evaluation of congenital malformations surveillance in New York State: an application of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. Public Health Rep 2001; 116 (04) 296-305 . Doi: 10.1093/phr/116.4.296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Penchaszadeh VB. Preventing congenital anomalies in developing countries. Community Genet 2002; 5 (01) 61-69 . Doi: 10.1159/000064632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bhide P, Gund P, Kar A. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in an Indian Maternal Cohort: healthcare, prevention, and surveillance implications. PLoS One 2016; 11 (11) e0166408 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, Perin J, Scott S, Lawn JE. , et al; Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group of WHO and UNICEF. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000. Lancet 2012; 379 (9832): 2151-2161 . Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60560-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Adeboye M, Abdulkadir MB, Adegboye OA, Saka AO, Oladele PD, Oladele DM. , et al. A prospective study of spectrum, risk factors and immediate outcome of congenital anomalies in Bida, North Central Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2016; 6 (06) 380-384 . Doi: 10.4103/amhsr.amhsr_108_13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Marwah S, Sharma S, Kaur H, Gupta M, Goraya SPS. Surveillance of congenital malformations and their possible risk factors in a teaching hospital in Punjab. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2014; 3 (01) 162-167 . Doi: 10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20140332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sunitha T, Prasoona KR, Kumari TM, Srinadh B, Deepika MLN, Aruna R, Jyothy A. Risk factors for congenital anomalies in high risk pregnant women: a large study from South India. Egypt J Med Hum Genet 2017; 18 (01) 79-85 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejmhg.2016.04.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Prashar N, Gupta S, Thakur R, Sharma P, Sharma G. A study of incidence of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital-based study. Int J Res Med Sci 2016; 4 (06) 2050-2053 . Doi: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20161758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Francine R, Pascale S, Aline H. Congenital anomalies: prevalence and risk factors. Univers J Public Health 2014; 2 (02) 58-63 . Doi: 10.13189/ujph.2014.020204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jain SR, Naik JD, Dhakne BR, Prabhu PM, Kamble SV, Mathurkar MP. Pattern of congenital malformations in newborn: a hospital-based study. Int J Res Med Sci 2016; 4 (02) 524-528 . Doi: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20160308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Egbe A, Uppu S, Lee S, Stroustrup A, Ho D, Srivastava S. Congenital malformations in the newborn population: a population study and analysis of the effect of sex and prematurity. Pediatr Neonatol 2015; 56 (01) 25-30 . Doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2014.03.010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mashhadi Abdolahi H, Kargar Maher MH, Afsharnia F, Dastgiri S. Prevalence of congenital anomalies: a community-based study in the northwest of iran. ISRN Pediatr 2014; 2014: 920940 . Doi: 10.1155/2014/920940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chen BY, Hwang BF, Guo YL. Epidemiology of congenital anomalies in a population-based birth registry in Taiwan, 2002. J Formos Med Assoc 2009; 108 (06) 460-468 . Doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60093-0
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hussain S, Asghar I, Sabir MU, Chattha MN, Tarar SH, Mushtaq R. Prevalence and pattern of congenital malformations among neonates in the neonatal unit of a teaching hospital. J Pak Med Assoc 2014; 64 (06) 629-634
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gul F, Jabin M, Khan AS. Frequency of congenital malformations and associated risk factors at Liaqat Memorial Hospital, Kohat. Khyber Med Univ J 2012; 4 (03) 119-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zhang YP, Liu XH, Gao SH, Wang JM, Gu YS, Zhang JY. , et al. Risk factors for preterm birth in five Maternal and Child Health hospitals in Beijing. PLoS One 2012; 7 (12) e52780 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ekanem B, Bassey IE, Mesembe OE, Eluwa MA, Ekong MB. Incidence of congenital malformation in 2 major hospitals in Rivers state of Nigeria from 1990 to 2003. East Mediterr Health J 2011; 17 (09) 701-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mashuda F, Zuechner A, Chalya PL, Kidenya BR, Manyama M. Pattern and factors associated with congenital anomalies among young infants admitted at Bugando medical centre, Mwanza, Tanzania. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 195 . Doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Li K, Wahlqvist ML, Li D. Nutrition, one-carbon metabolism and neural tube defects: a review. Nutrients 2016; 8 (11) 741 . Doi: 10.3390/nu8110741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Singh N, Kumble Bhat V, Tiwari A, Kodaganur SG, Tontanahal SJ, Sarda A. , et al. A homozygous mutation in TRIM36 causes autosomal recessive anencephaly in an Indian family. Hum Mol Genet 2017; 26 (06) 1104-1114 . Doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddx020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 El Koumi MA, Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital-based study. Pediatr Rep 2013; 5 (01) e5 . Doi: 10.4081/pr.2013.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, Rickard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE. , et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network. Updated National Birth Prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010; 88 (12) 1008-1016 . Doi: 10.1002/bdra.20735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Correia S, Machado A, Braz P, Rodrigues AP, Matias-Dias C. Absence of prenatal ultrasound surveillance: Data from the Portuguese congenital anomalies registry. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2016; 106 (06) 489-493 . Doi: 10.1002/bdra.23530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Øyen N, Poulsen G, Boyd HA, Wohlfahrt J, Jensen PKA, Melbye M. Recurrence of congenital heart defects in families. Circulation 2009; 120 (04) 295-301 . Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.857987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dias T, Sairam S, Kumarasiri S. Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal renal abnormalities. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28 (03) 403-415 . Doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.01.009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lie RT, Wilcox AJ, Skjaerven R. A population-based study of the risk of recurrence of birth defects. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (01) 1-4 . Doi: 10.1056/NEJM199407073310101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tayebi N, Yazdani K, Naghshin N. The prevalence of congenital malformations and its correlation with consanguineous marriages. Oman Med J 2010; 25 (01) 37-40 . Doi: 10.5001/omj.2010.9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hatibaruah A, Hussain SAM. A study on prevalence of birth defects and its association with risk factors in Fakhrudhin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital. J Evid Based Med Health 2015; 2 (30) 4336-4343 . Doi: 10.18410/jebmh/2015/614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Neira FC, Garay RC, Luzuriaga IT, Cañizares JN, Vega LP. Estudio descriptivo : malformaciones congénitas en recién nacidos del Servicio de Neonatología del Hospital “José Carrasco Arteaga”. 2012–2014. Rev Méd HJCA 2015; 7 (02) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gill SK, Broussard C, Devine O, Green RF, Rasmussen SA, Reefhuis J. ; National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Association between maternal age and birth defects of unknown etiology: United States, 1997-2007. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012; 94 (12) 1010-1018 . Doi: 10.1002/bdra.23049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fontoura FC, Cardoso MVLML. Association between congenital malformation and neonatal and maternal variables in neonatal units of a Northeast Brazilian city. Texto Contexto Enferm 2014; 23 (04) 907-914 . Doi: 10.1590/0104-07072014002320013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar