Title |
Pre-pregnancy BMI, gestational weight gain and risk of preeclampsia: a birth cohort study in Lanzhou, China
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12884-017-1567-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yawen Shao, Jie Qiu, Huang Huang, Baohong Mao, Wei Dai, Xiaochun He, Hongmei Cui, Xiaojuan Lin, Ling Lv, Dennis Wang, Zhongfeng Tang, Sijuan Xu, Nan Zhao, Min Zhou, Xiaoying Xu, Weitao Qiu, Qing Liu, Yawei Zhang |
Abstract |
To evaluate the independent and joint effects of maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and gestational weight gain (GWG) on the risk of preeclampsia and its subtypes. A birth cohort study was conducted from 2010 to 2012 in Lanzhou, China. Three hundred fourty seven pregnant women with preeclampsia and 9516 normotensive women at Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child Care Hospital were included in the present study. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between pre-pregnancy BMI, GWG, and risk of preeclampsia and its subtypes. Compared to women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI, those who were overweight/obese had an increased risk of preeclampsia (OR = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.37-2.39). Women with excessive GWG had an increased risk of preeclampsia (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.70-3.05) compared to women with adequate GWG. The observed increased risk was similar for mild-, severe- and late-onset preeclampsia. No association was found for early-onset preeclampsia. Overweight/obese women with excessive GWG had the highest risk of developing preeclampsia compared to normal weight women with no excessive weight gain (OR = 3.78; 95%CI: 2.65-5.41). Our results suggested that pre-pregnancy BMI and GWG are independent risk factors for preeclampsia and that the risk might vary by preeclampsia subtypes. Our study also proposed a potential synergistic effect of pre-pregnancy BMI and GWG that warrants further investigation. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Uganda | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 212 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 28 | 13% |
Student > Master | 25 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 7% |
Researcher | 14 | 7% |
Other | 9 | 4% |
Other | 28 | 13% |
Unknown | 93 | 44% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 25% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 12% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 2% |
Other | 15 | 7% |
Unknown | 99 | 47% |