Prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies in a tertiary care centre in Tamilnadu

  • Dr. Prema N Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karpagam Faculty Of medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
  • Dr. Sudhakaran R Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Karpagam Faculty Of medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
  • Dr. Divya B.V. Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Karpagam Faculty Of medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
  • Dr. Meerabai V. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karpagam Faculty Of medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
  • Dr. Maharani Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karpagam Faculty Of medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17511/joog.2016.i04.03
Keywords: Congenital Anomaly, Consanguinity, Diabetes Mellitus, Neural Tube Defect

Abstract

Background: A birth defect or congenital anomaly is an abnormality of structure, function or body metabolism that is present at birth and results in physical or mental disability. Evaluation and management of newborns with one or more malformations present a significant challenge to the healthcare providers and families. Despite major advances in understanding the etiology and pathogenesis, malformations remain a leading cause of infant mortality. This study brings about the prevalence of congenital anomalies among antenatal patients delivering beyond the period of viability, 22 weeks in a tertiary care centre in Tamilnadu and also the pattern of anomalies, along with the associated factors.

Materials and Methods: A cross sectional study with nested case control design was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Taminadu for one year from July 2015 to June 2016. Those fetuses induced in second trimester following detection by ultrasound and those babies detected to have congenital anomalies by postnatal examination were included in the study. Data of 191 cases and 191 controls were collected by interviewing the mothers and reviewing the existing patient records. Relevant antenatal, natal, postnatal and past illnesses were recorded in a proforma and analysed.

Results: In the study period, 191 babies out of 9877 were anomalous with a prevalence of 1.93%. Anomalies of the central nervous system were the commonest (35.6%). The ultrasound detection rate was 67.01%. Maternal age >25 years was seen in 55%. About 15.7% of the mothers had consanguineous marriage. The distribution among primigravida and multipara are almost similar.16.2% of cases had a history of infertility in the mother. 8.4% of the cases had a family history. About 4.7% cases had a history of exposure to antiepileptic drugs. Maternal diabetes mellitus and epilepsy contributed 32.5% and 4.5% of cases respectively. Intrauterine growth restriction and amniotic fluid abnormalities were commonly associated.

Conclusion: The study helps to know the pattern of congenital anomalies and the relationship of various gestational and familial factors and the importance of ultrasound in diagnosing anomalies. Surveillance of anomalies should be a must and all maternity hospitals should have their own anomaly register. Parents of any surviving anomalous child should receive emotional support and reassurance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Rajangam S, Devi R: Consagunity and chromosomal [1] abnormality in mental retardation and or multiple congenital anomalies. J Anat Soc India. 2007;56:30–33. Glossary of Health Care Terminology. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/9290201231.pdf.

2. Sadler TW: Langman’s Medical Embryology. 10th edition. Lippincott: Williams& Wilkins; 2011:111.

3. Sachdeva S, Nanda S, Bhalla K, Sachdeva R. Gross congenital malformation at birth in a government hospital. Indian J Public Health. 2014 Jan-Mar;58(1):54-6. doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.128170.

4. Penchaszadeh VB. Preventing congenital anomalies in developing countries. Community Genet. 2002;5(1):61-9.

5. Kar A, Preventing Birth Defects in India. [PubMed]

6. Economic and political weekly. 2011;46(48). Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P, Jain M. Congenital malformations at birth in Central India: A rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genet. 2010; 16:159–63.

7. Hall J, Solehdin F. Folic acid for the prevention of congenital anomalies. Eur J Pediatr. 1998 Jun;157(6):445-50.

8. Wasserman CR, Shaw GM, O'Malley CD, Tolarova MM, Lammer EJ. Parental cigarette smoking and risk for congenital anomalies of the heart, neural tube, or limb. Teratology. 1996 Apr;53(4):261-7.

9. Hashmi MA. Frequency of consanguinity and its effect on congenital malformation--a hospital based study. J Pak Med Assoc. 1997 Mar;47(3):75-8. [PubMed]

10. Kanaan ZM, Mahfouz R, Tamim H. The prevalence of consanguineous marriages in an underserved area in Lebanon and its association with congenital anomalies. Genet
Test. 2008 Sep;12(3):367-72. doi: 10.1089/gte.2007.0093.

11.Obu et al. Congenital malformations among newborns admitted in the neonatal unit of a tertiary hospital in Enugu, South-East Nigeria - a retrospective study. BMC Research Notes. 2012 5:177. [PubMed]

12. Dutta V, Chaturvedi P. Congenital malformations in rural Maharashtra. Indian Pediatr. 2000 Sep;37(9):998-1001. [PubMed]

13. Mohanty C, Mishra OP, Das BK, Bhatia BD, Singh G. Congenital malformation in newborn: A study of 10,874 consecutive births. J Anat Soc India. 1989;38:101-11.

14. Studies HUIoP. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2003. In: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies MoHGDoMaCHaFP, State Planning Organization and European Union, editor. Ankara, Turkey 2004. Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Stone D, Abramsky L, Alberman E, Scott J:

15. Socioeconomic inequalities in risk of congenital anomaly. Arch Dis Child2000, 82(5):349–352. [PubMed]

16. Varela MM, Nohr EA, Llopis-González A, Andersen AM, Olsen J. Socio-occupational status and congenital anomalies. Eur J Public Health. 2009 Apr;19(2):161-7. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp003. Epub 2009 Feb 12.

17. Kase JS, Visintainer P. The relationship between congenital malformations and preterm birth. J Perinat Med. 2007;35(6):538-42.

18. Mili F, Edmonds LD, Khoury MJ, McClearn AB. Prevalence of birth defects among low-birth-weight infants. A population study. Am J Dis Child. 1991 Nov;145(11):1313-8.

19. Kramer H, Trampisch H, Rammos S, Giese A: Birth weight of children withcongenital heart disease. Eur J Pediatr 1990, 149(11):752–757.

20. Hollier LM, Leveno KJ, Kelly MA, MCIntire DD, Cunningham FG. Maternal age and malformations in singleton births. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):701-6. [PubMed]

21. Hay S, Barbano H. Independent effects of maternal age and birth order on the incidence of selected congenital malformations. Teratology. 1972 Dec;6(3):271-9.

22. Croen LA, Shaw GM. Young maternal age and congenital malformations: a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 1995 May;85(5):710-3. [PubMed]

23. Grazi RV, Redheendran R, Mudaliar N, Bannerman RM. Offspring of teenage mothers: congenital malformations, low birth weights and other findings. J Reprod Med. 1982 Feb;27(2):89-96.

24. Cordier S, Bergeret A, Goujard J, Ha MC, Aymé S, Bianchi F, Calzolari E, De Walle HE, Knill-Jones R, Candela S, Dale I, Dananché B, de Vigan C, Fevotte J, Kiel G, Mandereau L. Congenital malformation and maternal occupational exposure to glycol ethers. Occupational Exposure and Congenital Malformations Working Group. Epidemiology. 1997 Jul;8(4):355-63.

25. Mathur BC, Karan S, Vijaya Devi KK. Congenital malformations in the newborn. Indian Pediatr. 1975 Feb;12(2):179-83. [PubMed]

26. Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA, Bastaki LA. Profile of major congenital malformations in neonates in Al-Jahra region of Kuwait. East Mediterr Health J. 2005 Jul;11(4):700-6.

27. Ordóñez MP, Nazer J, Aguila A, Cifuentes L. Congenital malformations and chronic diseases of the mother. Latin American collaborative study of congenital malformations (ECLAMC) 1971-1999. Rev Med Chil. 2003; 131:404–11.

28. New Delhi: Reproductive health; Annual report 2002-03. Indian Council of Medical Research; p. 91.

29. Macintosh MC, Fleming KM, Bailey JA, Doyle P, Modder J, Acolet D, Golightly S, Miller A. Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: population based study. BMJ. 2006 Jul 22;333(7560):177. Epub 2006 Jun 16.

30. Schaefer-Graf UM, Buchanan TA, Xiang A, Songster G, Montoro M, Kjos SL. Patterns of congenital anomalies and relationship to initial maternal fasting glucose levels in pregnancies complicated by type 2 and gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;182(2):313-20.

31. Wilcox AJ. Birth weight and perinatal mortality: the effect of maternal smoking. Am J Epidemiol. 1993 May 15;137(10):1098-104.

32. Kleinman JC, Madans JH. The effects of maternal smoking, physical stature, and educational attainment on the incidence of low birth weight. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Jun;121(6):843-55.

33. Horta BL, Victora CG, Menezes AM, Halpern R, Barros FC. Low birthweight, preterm births and intrauterine growth retardation in relation to maternal smoking. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997 Apr;11(2):140-51.

34. Uchida IA, Holunga R, Lawler C. Maternal radiation and chromosomal aberrations. Lancet. 1968 Nov 16;2(7577):1045-9.

35. Rittler M, Liascovich R, López-Camelo J, Castilla EE. Parental consanguinity in specific types of congenital anomalies. Am J Med Genet. 2001 Jul 22;102(1):36-43. [PubMed]

36. Becker SM, Al Halees Z, Molina C, Paterson RM. Consanguinity and congenital heart disease in Saudi Arabia. Am J Med Genet. 2001 Feb 15;99(1):8-13. [PubMed]

37. Honein MA, Paulozzi LJ, Moore CA. Family history, maternal smoking, and clubfoot: an indication of a gene-environment interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Oct 1;152(7):658-65. [PubMed]
Prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies in a tertiary care centre in Tamilnadu
CITATION
DOI: 10.17511/joog.2016.i04.03
Published: 2016-12-31
How to Cite
N, P., R, S., B.V., D., V., M., & Maharani, M. (2016). Prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies in a tertiary care centre in Tamilnadu. Obs Gyne Review: Journal of Obstetric and Gynecology, 2(4), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.17511/joog.2016.i04.03
Issue
Vol 2 No 4 (2016): Oct-Dec
Section
Original Article

Copyright (c) 2016 Author (s). Published by Siddharth Health Research and Social Welfare Society

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.