ECE2020 Audio ePoster Presentations Diabetes, Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition (285 abstracts)
Do early gestation maternal body composition parameters identify neonates born large for gestational age?
Alexandra Cremona 1,2,3,4 , Amanda Cotter 4,5 , Khadijah Ismail 4,5 , Kevin Hayes 6 , Alan Donnelly 1,7 , Jill Hamilton 8 & Clodagh O’Gorman 1,4,9
1Health Research Institute (HRI), Ireland; 2University of Limerick, School of Allied Health (SAH), Ireland; 3Irish Nutrition & Dietetic Institute (INDI), Ireland; 4University of Limerick, Graduate Entry Medical School (GEMS), Ireland; 5University Maternity Hospital Limerick (UMHL), Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Ireland; 6University of Cork, Department of Statistics, Ireland; 7University of Limerick, Physical Education and Sport Sciences (PESS), Ireland; 8The Hospital for Sick Children, The Division of Endocrinology, Department of Paediatrics, Toronto, Canada; 9University Hospital Limerick, Department of Paediatrics, Limerick, Ireland
Background: Globally, birth-weights are increasing progressively. Birth-weights large for gestational age (LGA) defined as ≥90th centile are linked to increased delivery complications, and adiposity in the neonate. This has been linked to glucose intolerance and CVD later in life. Oversupply of nutrients in utero contribute to excess foetal growth, and maternal obesity may contribute to this rise. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between parameters of maternal body composition to neonatal birth weight.
Methods: A prospective observational study was undertaken. Pregnant women aged between 18–50 y of age with gestational age between 10–16 weeks were included in the study. Women aged ≤ 18 y, twin-pregnancies, known foetal anomaly or pre-existing condition affecting oedema status were excluded. 8-point skinfold thickness, MUAC, waist, hip, weight and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous (SAT) and visceral abdominal adipose (VAT) were measured. Birth outcomes were abstracted from medical notes post-partum. Birth centiles were adjusted for maternal ethnicity, weight, height and gestational age at birth. Shapiro Wilk’s test and visual inspection of Q-Q plots were used to assess distribution of data. Spearman rho correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between all test variables and outcome measures as continuous variables. Non-parametric independent sample test was used to assess differences between group medians using LGA as a binary-classification.
Results: 224 women were recruited in their first trimester of pregnancy. Twenty five neonates were born LGA. Very few significant, but weak (rho~.1) correlations were found with unadjusted birth weight and all test variables. No correlations were found for all test variables when correlated with birth weight centile. Medians and 95% confidence intervals.(CI), as well U statistic asymptotic p-values are reported for both groups in Table 1 below. No test variables were found to be statistically different (P < 0.05) between neonates born LGA and non-LGA.
| LGA (n = 25) | Non-LGA (n = 199) | P | |||||
| BMI | 24.9.(23.3–28.6) | 25.9.(25.3–27.1) | .979 | ||||
| Weight | 65.7.(63.0–78.7) | 69.5.(68.3–73.5) | .768 | ||||
| Height | 164.3.(162.6–167.2) | 165.1.(163.4–165.7) | .936 | ||||
| Ultrasound measures | |||||||
| Abdominal(SAT) | 1.45.(1.27–1.82) | 1.37.(1.35–1.58) | .671 | ||||
| Abdominal(VAT) | .78.(.65–1.04) | .84.(.85–1.03) | 1.0 | ||||
| Abdominal(Total) | 2.37.(1.94–2.83) | 2.32.(2.22–2.60) | 1.0 | ||||
| Skinfold Thickness | |||||||
| Bicep | 13.6.(12.7–18.8) | 14.3.(14.7–17.4) | .689 | ||||
| Tricep | 21.4.(20.2–26.2) | 21.3.(21.6–24.3) | .852 | ||||
| Subscapular | 16.8.(15.2–22.6) | 18.3.(19.3–22.9) | .669 | ||||
| Supra-iliac | 32.1.(25.7–36.9) | 26.2.(26.6–30.6) | .350 | ||||
| Supraspinale | 21.4.(16.9–25.8) | 17.9.(18.5–22.1) | .173 | ||||
| Abdominal | 27.4.(23.0–31.4) | 26.2.(25.7–29.4) | .363 | ||||
| Thigh | 35.8.(35.7–40.7) | 34.2.(31.6–44.4) | .893 | ||||
| Calf | 22.2.(17.1–26.2) | 19.9.(20.0–23.3) | .611 | ||||
| Total SFT | 163.8.(148.4–202.9) | 160.7.(163.4–186.1) | .392 | ||||
| Appendicular SFT | 95.2.(83.3–114.0) | 91.9.(92.5–105.1) | .979 | ||||
| Trunkal SFT | 93.8.(82.1–115.3) | 86.8.(90.6–104.6) | .979 | ||||
| % body fat | 38.1.(36.2–42.3) | 38.0.(38.3–40.9) | 1.00 | ||||
| Girths MUAC | 30.0.(28.4–32.3) | 30.2.(29.6–31.2) | .936 | ||||
| MAMC | 23.0.(21.8–24.4) | 22.7.(22.7–23.7) | .979 | ||||
| Waist | 80.2.(78.1–88.3) | 80.3.(81.1–85.1) | .957 | ||||
| Hip | 94.8.(91.9–104.1) | 95.0.(94.7–98.8) | 1.000 | ||||
| * = statistically significant at P ≤0.05 | |||||||
Conclusion: Parameters of body composition in early gestation do not predict neonates born large for gestational age.
Article tools
My recent searches
My recently viewed abstracts
Authors
Endocrine Abstracts
ISSN 1470-3947 (print) | ISSN 1479-6848 (online)
© Bioscientifica 2024 |
Privacy policy |
Cookie settings
BiosciAbstracts
Bioscientifica Abstracts is the gateway to a series of products that provide a permanent, citable record of abstracts for biomedical and life science conferences.
Find out more