4.3 Article

Pregnancy in sickle cell-haemoglobin C (SC) disease. A retrospective study of birth size and maternal weight gain

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.002

关键词

Weight gain; Haemoglobin SC disease; Birth weight

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A620_1016, MC_UU_12011/3, MC_U147574242] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_UP_A620_1016, MC_UU_12011/3] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [U1475000003, MC_UU_12011/3, MC_UP_A620_1016] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess pregnancy and fetal outcomes in Jamaican subjects with sickle cell-haemoglobin C (SC) disease. Study design: A retrospective chart review over 21 years (1992-2012) of all pregnancies in SC disease and a comparison group matched by gender and date of delivery in mothers with a normal haemoglobin (AA) phenotype at the University Hospital of the West Indies, Jamaica. There were 118 pregnancies in 81 patients with SC disease and 110 pregnancies in 110 in the normal comparison group. Corrections were made for repeat pregnancies from the same mother. Outcome measures included maternal weight at 20, 25, 30, 35 and 38 weeks gestation, maternal pregnancy complications, birth weight, head circumference and crown heel length and were used to analyse possible predictors of birth weight. Results: First antenatal visits occurred later in women with SC disease, who also had lower haemoglobin level and lower systolic blood pressure. The prevalence of pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, ante-partum or postpartum haemorrhage did not differ between genotypes. Maternal weight gain was significantly lower in SC disease and there was a significantly lower birth weight, head circumference, and gestational age. Conclusions: Pregnancy in SC disease is generally benign but mothers had lower weight gain and lower birth weight babies, the difference persisting after correction for gestational age. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据