Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:57:36.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationship of birth weight with congenital cardiovascular malformations in a population-based study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2014

Robert A. Petrossian
Affiliation:
Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America
Karen S. Kuehl
Affiliation:
Children’s National Medical Center, Sheikh Zayed Campus for Advanced Children’s Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America
Christopher A. Loffredo*
Affiliation:
Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr C. A. Loffredo, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3800 Reservoir Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20057, United States of America. Tel: 202-687-3758; Fax: 202-687-0313; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Introduction: A known comorbidity of congenital cardiovascular malformations is low birth weight, but the reasons for this association remain obscure. This retrospective study examines the relationship between congenital cardiovascular malformations and the birth weight of singletons, taking into account differences in gestational age and other factors. Methods: Using data from the retrospective, population-based Baltimore–Washington Infant Study, six types of congenital cardiovascular malformations were investigated in comparison with controls (n=3519) through linear regression: d-transposition of the great arteries (n=187), other conotruncal heart defects (n=361), endocardial cushion defects (n=281), left heart obstructive lesions (n=507), atrial septal defects (n=281), and membranous ventricular septal defects (n=622). Results: Infants with conotruncal heart defects (−218 g), endocardial cushion defects with Down syndrome (−265 g), endocardial cushion defects without Down syndrome (−194 g), left heart obstructive lesions (−143 g), atrial septal defects (−150 g), and membranous ventricular septal defects (−127 g) showed significant birth weight deficits, adjusting for gestational age, and other covariates. Infants with d-transposition of the great arteries (−67 g) did not show significant birth weight deficits compared with the control group. Discussion: The degree of birth weight decrement appears to be highly related to the specific type of congenital cardiovascular malformation. As a whole, these infants do not exhibit low birth weights solely because of being premature, and thus other mechanisms must underlie these associations.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sadowski, SL. Congenital cardiac disease in the newborn infant: past, present, and future. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2009; 21: 3748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Archer, JM, Yeager, SB, Kenny, MJ, Soll, RF, Horbar, JD. Distribution of an mortality from serious congenital heart disease in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2011; 127: 293299.Google Scholar
3. Curzon, CL, Milford-Beland, S, Li, JS, et al. Cardiac surgery in infants with low birth weight is associated with increased mortality: analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons congenital heart database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135: 546551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Padley, JR, Cole, AD, Pye, VE, et al. Five-year analysis of operative mortality and neonatal outcomes in congenital heart disease. Heart Lung Circ 2011; 20: 460467.Google Scholar
5. Natarajan, G, Anne, SR, Aggarwal, S. Outcomes of congenital heart disease in late preterm infants: double jeopardy? Acta Paediatr 2011; 100: 11041107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. McLaughlin, FJ, Altemeier, WA, Christensen, MJ, et al. Randomized trial of comprehensive prenatal care for low-income women: effect on infant birth weight. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 128132.Google Scholar
7. Lu, MC, Tache, V, Alexander, GR, et al. Preventing low birth weight: is prenatal care the answer? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 362380.Google Scholar
8. Rosenthal, GL. Patterns of prenatal growth among infants with cardiovascular malformations: possible fetal hemodynamic effects. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143: 505513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Jacobs, EGJ, Leung, MP, Karlberg, J. Birthweight distribution in southern Chinese infants with symptomatic congenital heart disease. J Paediatr Child Health 2003; 39: 191196.Google Scholar
10. Kramer, HH, Trampisch, HJ, Rammos, S, Giese, A. Birth weight of children with congenital heart disease. Eur J Pediatr 1990; 149: 752757.Google Scholar
11. Ferencz, C, Loffredo, CA, Correa-Villaseñor, A, Wilson, PD. Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors of Major Cardiovascular Malformations: The Baltimore–Washington Infant Study 1981–1989. Futura Publishing Co, Armonk, 1997: 2937.Google Scholar
12. International Society of Cardiology Classification of Heart Disease in Childhood. VRB Offsetdrukkerij, Groningen, 1970.Google Scholar
13. Ferencz, C, Rubin, JD, Loffredo, CA, Magee, CA. Epidemiology of Congential Heart Disease: The Baltimore–Washington Infant Study 1981–1989. Futura Publishing Co, Armonk, 1993: 113.Google Scholar
14. World Health Organization. P07: Disorders Related to Short Gestation and Low Birth Weight, not elsewhere Classified. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2010.Google Scholar
15. Lindinger, A, Schwedler, G, Hense, HW. Prevalence of congenital heart defects in newborns in Germany: results of the first registration year of the PAN study (July 2006 to June 2007). Klin Padiatr 2010; 222: 321326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Gelson, E, Gatzoulis, M, Steer, PJ, Lupton, M, Johnson, M. Tetralogy of Fallot: maternal and neonatal outcomes. BJOG 2008; 115: 398402.Google Scholar
17. Hirsch, JC, Copeland, G, Donohue, JE, Kirby, RS, Grigorescu, V, Gurney, JG. Population-based analysis of survival for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. J Pediatr 2011; 159: 5763.Google Scholar
18. Donofrio, MT, duPlessis, AJ, Limperopulous, C. Impact of congenital heart disease on fetal brain development and injury. Cardiovasc Med 2011; 23: 502511.Google Scholar
19. Limperopoulos, C, Tworetzky, W, McElhinney, DB, et al. Brain volume and metabolism in fetuses with congenital heart disease: evaluation with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Circulation 2009; 121: 2633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Wernovsky, G. Current insights regarding neurological and developmental abnormalities in children and young adults with complex congenital cardiac disease. Cardiol Young 2006; 16: 92104.Google Scholar
21. Wernovsky, G, Shillingford, AJ, Gaynor, JW. Central nervous system outcomes in children with complex congenital heart disease. Curr Opin Cardiol 2005; 20: 9499.Google Scholar
22. Itsukaichi, M, Kikuchi, A, Yoshihara, K, Serikawa, T, Takakuwa, K, Tanaka, K. Changes in fetal circulation associated with congenital heart disease and their effects on fetal growth. Fetal Diagnosis Therapy 2011; 30: 219224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed