4.3 Article

Maternal Dietary Patterns during Pregnancy and Congenital Heart Defects: A Case-Control Study

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16162957

Keywords

dietary patterns; pregnancy; congenital heart defects; case-control; principal component factor analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81230016]
  2. Shaanxi Health and Family Planning Commission [Sxwsjswzfcght2016-013]
  3. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0907200, 2017YFC0907201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Limited studies investigating the relationships between dietary patterns and congenital heart defects (CHDs) are available. This study aimed to explore the associations between dietary patterns and CHDs risk in Shaanxi, China. We conducted a hospital-based case-control study and included a total of 474 cases and 948 controls. Pregnant women waiting for delivery in the hospital were interviewed to report their diets during pregnancy using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Dietary patterns were derived using principal component factor analysis. Mixed logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between dietary patterns and CHDs. Pregnant women in the highest tertile of the prudent pattern had a lower risk of CHDs compared to those in the lowest tertile (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.48-0.89). Pregnant women with high scores on the vegetarian pattern were at an increased risk of CHDs (medium vs. lowest tertile: OR = 1.50, 95%CI = 1.03-2.17; highest vs. lowest tertile: OR = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.13-2.15; p(trend) = 0.015). Pregnant women with high scores on the dairy and egg pattern were at a reduced risk of CHDs (medium vs. lowest tertile: OR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.49-0.90; highest vs. lowest tertile: OR = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.43-0.82; p(trend) = 0.001). Maternal diet during pregnancy is an important target for intervention, and it may influence the likelihood of developing CHDs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available