Cross-sectional study of gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women at a tertiary care center in southern India
Aim The aim of this study was to determine maternal and neonatal outcomes of less than recommended or excess gestational weight gain (GWG) based on the recommended Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines. Material and Methods Using a cross‐sectional study design, GWG was assessed for 1462 pregnant wo...
Saved in:
Published in | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research Vol. 40; no. 1; pp. 25 - 31 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Australia
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.01.2014
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Aim
The aim of this study was to determine maternal and neonatal outcomes of less than recommended or excess gestational weight gain (GWG) based on the recommended Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines.
Material and Methods
Using a cross‐sectional study design, GWG was assessed for 1462 pregnant women presenting to a tertiary care perinatal institute in India. Body mass index at baseline, co‐existing morbidities, fetal growth, details of delivery, and maternal and fetal outcomes were determined and documented. Appropriate GWG for each woman was determined based on the revised IOM guidelines. Outcome measures included the proportion of pregnant women compliant with IOM guidelines for GWG and associations of less than recommended or excess GWG with maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Results
A total of 547 (37.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.96–39.92) pregnant women gained less than recommended and 313 (21.41%, 95%CI: 19.36–23.57) pregnant women gained more than the recommended weight. Preterm deliveries were associated with less than optimal weight gain (adjusted odds ratio 3.58, 95%CI: 1.75–7.32) after adjusting for gestational age at delivery. GWG was not associated with neonatal outcomes in this population.
Conclusions
The lack of associations with perinatal outcomes indicates that the IOM guidelines may not be the appropriate standard for monitoring GWG in this population. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-RBC61V58-J ArticleID:JOG12115 istex:F8AE28CD1E43D27BB2C2CE90E0456A0E17B94013 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1341-8076 1447-0756 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jog.12115 |