4.6 Article

Is the fetoplacental ratio a differential marker of fetal growth restriction in small for gestational age infants?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 331-341

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-015-9993-9

关键词

Placenta; Fetal growth retardation; Birth weight; Siblings; Epidemiology; Regression analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Higher placental weight relative to birthweight has been described as an adaptive mechanism to fetal hypoxia in small for gestational age (SGA) infants. However, placental weight alone may not be a good marker reflecting intrauterine growth restriction. We hypothesized that fetoplacental ratio (FPR)-the ratio between birthweight and placental weight-may serve as a good marker of SGA after adjustment for surrogates of fetal hypoxemia (maternal iron deficiency anemia, smoking and choriodecidual necrosis). We conducted a within-sibling analysis using data from the US National Collaborative Perinatal Project (1959-1966) of 1,803 women who delivered their first two (or more) consecutive infants at term (n = 3,494). We used variance-component fixed-effect linear regression models to explore the effect of observed time-varying factors on placental weight and conditional logistic regression to estimate the effects of the tertiles of FPRs (1st small, 2nd normal and 3rd large) on the odds of SGA infants. We found placental weights to be 15 g [95 % confidence interval (CI) 8, 23] higher and -7 g (95 % CI -13, -2) lower among women that had anemia and choriodecidual necrosis, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, newborns with a small FPR (1st-tertile a parts per thousand currency sign7) had twofold higher odds of being SGA (OR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2, 3.5) than their siblings with a large FPR (3nd-tertile a parts per thousand yen9). A small FPR was associated with higher odds of SGA, suggesting that small FPR may serve as an indicator suggestive of adverse intrauterine environment. This observation may help to distinguish pathological from constitutional SGA.

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

4.6
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