3.8 Article

Isolated atrioventricular canal defects: Birth outcomes and risk factors: A population-based hungarian case-control study, 1980-1996

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23124

关键词

atrioventricular canal defect; female excess; preterm birth; maternal conduction disorders; cardiac dysrhythmias; folic acid

资金

  1. Hungarian Grant Office of Scientific Committee of Health Ministry
  2. Versys Clinics, Human Reproduction Institute, Budapest, Hungary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND The role of possible environmental factors in the origin of congenital heart defects is unclear in the vast majority of patients. The objective of this study was to describe the birth outcomes and risk factors in isolated atrioventricular canal defect (AVCD) cases. METHODS Medically recorded birth outcomes, maternal age, parity, acute and chronic maternal diseases with related drug treatments and folic acid/multivitamin supplementation were evaluated in isolated AVCD cases. The diagnosis of AVCD was based on the autopsy report or surgical description in the population-based Hungarian CaseControl Surveillance of Congenital Abnormalities, between 1980 and 1996. RESULTS The birth outcomes and exposures of 77 isolated AVCD cases were compared with 38,151 controls without defect. Mean gestational age at delivery (38.6 week) and birth weight (2992 g), rate of preterm birth (20.8%) and low birthweight (23.4%) of cases with a female excess (59.7%) differed significantly from the controls. Mothers of cases had higher parity, higher prevalence of conduction disorders/cardiac dysrhythmias and chronic hypertension. The high doses of folic acid in early pregnancy associated with a reduced rate of AVCD. CONCLUSIONS Conduction disorders/cardiac dysrhythmias and chronic hypertension of mothers may have a role in the origin of AVCD, while high doses of folic acid in early pregnancy may reduce the risk of the development of AVCD. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 97:217224, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

3.8
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