ABSTRACT
Background and objective Growth charts are important in monitoring the growth of neonates. The growth of Indian fetuses is understood to be different from the Western population due to multiple factors. In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of the application of various growth charts in evaluating the birth weights of liveborn neonates at a tertiary teaching hospital. Methodology A total of 729 liveborn neonates between 24 to 42 weeks of gestation delivered at the study institute during the study period were included. Birth weights were plotted on three growth charts - Fenton 2013, INTERGROWTH-21st (IG-21), and Kandraju et al. chart - and classified as small for gestational age (SGA), or appropriate for gestational age (AGA), or large for gestational age (LGA) according to the respective centiles and sex. The incidences of SGA and LGA were calculated with respect to various charts and compared. Statistical analysis was done using the McNemar Chi-square test for paired categorical variables. Cohen's kappa (K) was used to analyze the concordance between the growth charts. A p-value <0.005 was considered statistically significant. Results Among 668 term neonates, the number of neonates classified as SGA was 313 (46.86%), 236 (35.33%), and 219 (32.78%) according to Fenton 2013, IG-21, and Kandraju et al. chart respectively. The difference in incidences of SGA between Fenton 2013 and IG-21 for term neonates was significant (p=0.0001). The difference between incidences of SGA among term neonates according to Fenton 2013 and Kandraju et al. and IG-21 vs. Kandraju et al. was significant (p=0.0001). Among 61 preterm neonates, the number of neonates classified as SGA was 15, 11, and five according to Fenton 2013, IG-21, and Kandraju et al. respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the three charts. Among 729 neonates, the number of neonates classified as LGA was 10 (1.37%), 22 (3.02%), and 32 (4.39%) according to Fenton 2013, IG-21, and Kandraju, et al. respectively. The difference in incidences of LGA between Fenton 2013 and IG-21 was significant (p=0.0015). The difference in incidences of LGA between Fenton 2013 and Kandraju et al. was significant (p=0.0001). The difference in incidences of LGA between IG-21 and Kandraju et al. was also significant (p=0.0044). Conclusion Fenton 2013, IG-21, and Kandraju et al. growth charts vary significantly in detecting the incidence of SGA and LGA among term neonates. Among term neonates, IG-21 and Kandraju et al. growth charts are comparable in terms of the estimation of SGA. The Fenton 2013 growth chart showed a higher incidence of SGA among term neonates. The incidence of LGA was highest according to Kandraju et al. growth chart and least according to Fenton 2013. Among preterm neonates, the incidence of SGA as per birth weight was comparable across the three growth charts.
ABSTRACT
Study question: Does embryo vitrification affect children's health including growth, up to 2 years of age when compared to fresh embryo transfer? Summary answer: While embryo vitrification had an impact on birth parameters, no differences in growth or health outcomes were found up to 2 years of age. What is known already: Vitrification has become the preferred cryopreservation method for embryos. Frozen embryo transfer has been repeatedly associated with altered health outcomes when compared with fresh transfer including a decreased risk for small-for gestational age (SGA) and an increased risk for large-for-gestational-age (LGA) and macrosomia. Not only there is uncertainty which factors are responsible for the observed differences, also the heterogeneity among studies limits overall conclusions. Notwithstanding the observed differences at birth, little is known about growth and health of children born after embryo vitrification beyond birth while aberrant growth trajectories have been linked to cardiometabolic morbidity later in life. Study design, size, duration: This single-center cohort study compared anthropometry and health outcomes in singletons conceived after cleavage-stage or blastocyst-stage embryo vitrification with results after fresh embryo transfer between 2014 and 2018. Pregnancies after PGT, IVM, oocyte vitrification or oocyte/embryo donation were excluded. Eligible singletons living in Belgium and randomly selected for continued follow- up were invited for examination in our center at 2 months (infancy) and 2 years of age (early childhood). Participants/materials, setting, methods: Birth characteristics were available for 1237 and 2063 children born after embryo vitrification and fresh embryo transfer, respectively. Follow-up data were available for 582 and 757 children at 2 months and for 233 and 296 children at 2 years. Growth parameters were adjusted for neonatal, treatment and maternal characteristics. Subgroup analysis according to cycle regimen (HRT versus NC) and strategy (freeze-all versus previous fresh cycle) was performed. In addition, outcomes restricted to blastocysts are presented. Main results and the role of chance: Mothers giving birth to a child conceived after embryo vitrification presented more often with pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders than controls (P<0.001). Birthweight, height and head circumference SDS of children born after embryo vitrification were higher than for children born after fresh embryo transfer (all P<0.001) even after adjustment for neonatal, treatment and maternal characteristics. Embryo vitrification was also associated with a decreased risk of SGA (AOR 0.48;0.00, 0.44) and an increased risk of macrosomia and LGA (AOR 3.59;1.12, 11.59)(all P<0.05). Restricting the sample to blastocysts (n=1795), we found a higher birthweight SDS and increased risks of LGA, macrosomia and pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders after vitrification (all P<0.05). At infancy, weight and height SDS were larger for children born after embryo vitrification, but not after adjustment for co-variates. At childhood, no differences in anthropometrics were found between the groups. Weight and height gain from birth to infancy and from infancy to early childhood were comparable between the groups. Until 2 years, comparable rates of severe developmental problems, hospital admissions, surgical interventions and of chronic medication intake were found between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that growth parameters at all ages were not affected by cycle regimen or cycle strategy. Limitations, reasons for caution: Participation rate at 2 years was lower than expected in both groups, probably due to cancellation/postponement of the visit related to the corona pandemic. Furthermore, although cycle strategy was not found to affect growth parameters, the sample size of the subgroup analysis remains rather small to draw firm conclusions. Wider implications of the findings: When adjusted for co-variates including birthweight, the observed differences in anthropometrics at birth in hildren born after embryo vitrification attenuated by 2 years of age. This suggests that outcomes in early childhood are determined by size at birth.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus is one of the most frequent pregnancy complications with a global prevalence of 13.4% in 2021. Pregnant women with COVID-19 and gestational diabetes mellitus are 3.3 times more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit than women without gestational diabetes mellitus. Data on the association of gestational diabetes mellitus with maternal and neonatal pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether gestational diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for adverse maternal and fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The COVID-19-Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study is a registry-based multicentric prospective observational study from Germany and Linz, Austria. Pregnant women with clinically confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled between April 3, 2020, and August 24, 2021, at any stage of pregnancy. Obstetricians and neonatologists of 115 hospitals actively provided data to the COVID-19-Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study. For collecting data, a cloud-based electronic data platform was developed. Women and neonates were observed until hospital discharge. Information on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medical history, COVID-19-associated symptoms and treatments, pregnancy, and birth outcomes were entered by the local sites. Information on the periconceptional body mass index was collected. A primary combined maternal endpoint was defined as (1) admission to an intensive care unit (including maternal mortality), (2) viral pneumonia, and/or (3) oxygen supplementation. A primary combined fetal and neonatal endpoint was defined as (1) stillbirth at ≥24 0/7 weeks of gestation, (2) neonatal death ≤7 days after delivery, and/or (3) transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the modulating effect of gestational diabetes mellitus on the defined endpoints. RESULTS: Of the 1490 women with COVID-19 (mean age, 31.0±5.2 years; 40.7% nulliparous), 140 (9.4%) were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus; of these, 42.9% were treated with insulin. Overall, gestational diabetes mellitus was not associated with an adverse maternal outcome (odds ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.57). However, in women who were overweight or obese, gestational diabetes mellitus was independently associated with the primary maternal outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-5.07). Women who were overweight or obese with gestational diabetes mellitus requiring insulin treatment were found to have an increased risk of a severe course of COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio, 3.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-6.73). Adverse maternal outcomes were more common when COVID-19 was diagnosed with or shortly after gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis than COVID-19 diagnosis before gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis (19.6% vs 5.6%; P<.05). Maternal gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal preconception body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 increased the risk of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.18). Furthermore, overweight and obesity (irrespective of gestational diabetes mellitus status) were influential factors for the maternal (adjusted odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.75) and neonatal (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.48) primary endpoints compared with underweight or normal weight. CONCLUSION: Gestational diabetes mellitus, combined with periconceptional overweight or obesity, was independently associated with a severe maternal course of COVID-19, especially when the mother required insulin and COVID-19 was diagnosed with or after gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis. These combined factors exhibited a moderate effect on neonatal outcomes. Women with gestational diabetes mellitus and a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 were a particularly vulnerable group in the case of COVID-19.