4.6 Article

The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 105, 期 6, 页码 1410-1418

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000163256.83313.36

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the rates of pregnancy complications, preterm. birth, small for gestational age, perinatal mortality, and serious neonatal morbidity are higher among mothers aged 35-39 years or 40 years or older, compared with mothers 20-24 years. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of all women in Nova Scotia, Canada, who delivered a singleton fetus between 1988 and 2002 (N = 157,445). Family income of women who delivered between 1988 and 1995 was obtained through a confidential linkage with tax records (n = 76,300). The primary outcome was perinatal death (exduding congenital anomalies) or serious neonatal morbidity. Analysis was based on logistic models. RESULTS: Older women were more likely to be married, affluent, weigh 70 kg or more, attend prenatal classes, and have a bad obstetric history but less likely to be nulliparous and to smoke. They were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, placental abruption, or placenta previa. Preterm birth and small-for-gestational age rates were also higher; compared with women aged 20-24 years, adjusted rate ratios for preterm birth among women aged 35-39 years and 40 years or older were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.82; P < .001). and 1.80 (95% CI 1.37-2.36; P < .001), respectively. Adjusted rate ratios for perinatal mortality/morbidity were 1.46 (95% CI 1.11-1.92; P = .007) among women 35-39 years and 1.95 (95% CI 1.13-3.35; P = .02) among women 40 years or older. Perinatal mortality rates were low at all ages, especially in recent years. CONCLUSION: Older maternal age is associated with relatively higher risks of perinatal mortality/morbidity, although the absolute rate of such outcomes is low. (c) 2005 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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