Obesity and Mode of Delivery in Primigravid and Multigravid Women

ABSTRACT

Our objective was to study the effects of maternal body mass index (BMI) on the mode of delivery for primigravid and multigravid women. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the University College Hospital Galway, Ireland, of 5162 women delivered from 2001 to 2003. BMI at the first antenatal appointment was calculated. Comparisons were made between each of the five BMI categories separately for primigravid and multigravid women in relation to gestation at delivery, age, mode of delivery, and birthweight. There were 5162 deliveries during the time period of the study; 2006 were primigravid and 3156 were multigravid women. Overall, 2.6% of women were underweight, 49.2% were normal weight, 22.8% were overweight, 19.8% were obese, and 5.6% were morbidly obese. In comparison with women of normal weight, for overweight and obese women, there was a progressive reduction in vaginal delivery rate with increasing BMI. For morbidly obese primigravida, this reduction was by 33.5% (from 83.1% to 55.3%, χ² = 39.84, p < 0.001), and for multigravida was by 23.6% (from 86% to 65.7%, χ² = 53.05, p < 0.001). Obesity conferred a two- to threefold increased risk of delivery by emergency caesarean section for both primigravid (obese, relative risk [RR] 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 2.73; morbidly obese, RR 2.30, CI 1.61 to 3.37) and multigravid women (obese, RR 1.97, CI 1.45 to 2.67; morbidly obese, RR 2.44, CI 1.61 to 3.69). We concluded that increasing maternal BMI exerts a progressive adverse effect on vaginal delivery rates for both primigravid and multigravid women. Obese primigravida should be counseled antenatally about the 30% risk of emergency caesarean section.

Obesity - mode of delivery - primigravida - multigravida

REFERENCES

• 1 Castro L C, Avina R L. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcomes.  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  14 601-606
• 2 Hall L M, Neubert G. Obesity and pregnancy.  Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005;  60 253-260
• 3 Andreasen K R, Andersen M L, Schantz A L. Obesity and pregnancy.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;  83 1022-1029
• 4 Weiss J L, Malone F D, Emig D et al.. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate-a population-based screening study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  190 1091-1097
• 5 Usha Kiran T S, Hemmadi S, Bethal J, Evans J. Outcome of pregnancy in a woman with an increased body mass index.  BJOG. 2005;  112 768-772
• 6 Sebire N J, Jolly M, Harris J P, Wadsworth J et al.. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London.  Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;  25 1175-1182
• 7 Kabiru W, Raynor B. Obstetric outcomes associated with increase in BMI category during pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 928-932
• 8 Patel R R, Murphy D J. Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice.  BMJ. 2004;  328 1302-1305
• 9 Guise J M, Hashima J, Osterweil P. Evidence-based vaginal birth after caesarean section.  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;  19(1) 117-130
• 10 McCarthy S N, Gibney M J, Flynn A, Livingstone M. Overweight, obesity and physical activity levels in Irish adults: evidence from the North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey.  Proc Nutr Soc. 2002;  61 3-7
• 11 Wolfe H M, Zador I E, Gross T L, Martier S S, Sokol R J. The clinical utility of maternal body mass index in pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;  164 1306-1310
• 12 Institute of Medicine .Nutrition during Pregnancy. Part I, Weight Gain; Part II, Nutrient Supplements. Washington, DC; National Academy Press 1990
• 13 Gardner M, Gardner S, Winter P. Confidence Interval Analysis: Microcomputer Program Manual. London; BMJ 1989
• 14 Ehrenberg H M, Dierker L, Milluzzi C, Mercer B. Low maternal weight, failure to thrive in pregnancy, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  189(6) 1726-1730
• 15 Durnwald C P, Ehrenberg H M, Mercer B M. The impact of maternal obesity and weight gain on vaginal birth after caesarean section success.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 954-957