Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The independent effects of maternal obesity and gestational diabetes on the pregnancy outcomes

  • Hayfaa A Wahabi1Email author,
  • Amel A Fayed2, 3,
  • Rasmieh A Alzeidan1 and
  • Ahmed A Mandil4
BMC Endocrine Disorders201414:47

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6823-14-47

Received: 9 July 2013

Accepted: 9 June 2014

Published: 13 June 2014

Abstract

Background

Obesity and gestational diabetes (GDM) in pregnancy are recognized risk factors for adverse outcomes, including cesarean section (CS), macrosomia and preeclampsia. The aim of this study was to investigate the independent effect of GDM and obesity on the adverse pregnancy outcomes at term.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of postpartum women, in King Khalid University Hospital, were stratified according to body mass index (obese ≥30 kg/m2, non-obese <30 kg/m2) and the results of GDM screening into the following groups, women with no obesity and no GDM (reference group), women with no obesity but with GDM, women with obesity but no GDM and women with both GDM and obesity. Adverse pregnancy outcomes included high birth weight, macrosomia, CS delivery and preeclampsia. Multiple logistic regression used to examine independent associations of GDM and obesity with macrosomia and CS.

Results

2701 women were included, 44% of them were obese and 15% had GDM. 63% of the women with GDM were obese. There was significant increase in the percentage of macrosomia, P < 0.001, high birth weight, P < 0.001, CS, P < 0.001 and preeclampsia, P < 0.001 in women with GDM and obesity compared to the reference group. Obesity increased the estimated risk of CS delivery, odds ratio (OR) 2.16, confidence intervals (CI) 1.74-2.67. The combination of GDM and obesity increased the risk of macrosomia OR 3.45, CI 2.05-5.81 and the risk of CS delivery OR 2.26, CI 1.65-3.11.

Conclusion

Maternal obesity and GDM were independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The combination of both conditions further increase the risk.

Keywords

Gestational diabetes Maternal obesity Cesarean section Macrosomia

Background

Obesity is one of today’s major public health problems in both developed and developing countries. In 2005 there were around 400 million obese adults; this number is estimated to reach one billion by the year 2030 [1]. Reports from the Middle East [2] and Saudi Arabia [3] suggested similar burden of obesity epidemic. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is higher among women, with an estimated prevalence of 63% in the reproductive age group [3] and more than 50% among pregnant women [4]. Obesity in pregnancy is a recognized risk factor for many maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes including increased rate of cesarean section (CS), macrosomia, preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (GDM) [57].

The prevalence of GDM in Saudi Arabia is 12%-18% [8, 9] which is one of the highest in the region and the world. Although there is an international agreement about the definition of GDM as “carbohydrate intolerance that begins or is first recognized during pregnancy” [10], there were many controversies about the adverse effects of GDM on the pregnancy outcomes and the need for screening and treatment of women who develop GDM [11]. However recent reports of randomized controlled trials and multicenter cohort studies, confirmed the need for control of hyperglycemia in women with GDM to improve the pregnancy outcomes [12] and that maternal hyperglycemia at levels even lower than those for diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in a linear relationship [13]. GDM is associated with many adverse pregnancy outcomes such as macrosomia and CS delivery [12, 14], moreover and with recent developments in the research on fetal origin of adult disease, GDM has been linked to long term health effects on the mothers and their children including; increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, maternal and childhood obesity and cardiovascular disease [15]. Few studies explored the relationship between GDM and maternal obesity and found an increased prevalence of GDM among obese women compared to those of normal weight [6], in addition obese women who develop GDM needed insulin to reach the target blood glucose level compared to normal weight women who were controlled by diet alone [16] and that the combination of obesity and GDM was associated with the worse outcomes compared to each condition alone [17, 18]. A few studies investigated the independent effect of obesity and maternal hyperglycemia on the pregnancy outcome. Ricard et al., who investigated the independent effects of obesity and GDM on fetal weight, CS delivery and pregnancy- induced hypertension, found that obesity had greater independent effect on these adverse outcomes compared to GDM [18]. In their re- analysis of the HAPO study cohort, the research group reached a similar conclusion to that of Ricard et al.; however the greater impact of obesity was not consistent across all the studied adverse outcomes [17].

The aim of this study was to investigate the independent effect of GDM and obesity on the pregnancy outcomes at term in a Saudi population.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study, designed to quantify the independent effects of maternal body mass index (BMI) and GDM on the pregnancy outcomes. Data were collected from all consented women who met the inclusion criteria and delivered in King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH), for the period of 12 months from the 1st of July 2011 to 30th of June 2012. The inclusion criteria for this study were:
  1. 1.

    Singleton pregnancy

     
  2. 2.

    Gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks at the time of delivery

     
  3. 3.

    Availability of documented records of maternal weight and height at the booking visit.

     
The exclusion criteria were:
  1. 1.

    Documented history of type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus prior to the index pregnancy.

     
  2. 2.

    Multiple- pregnancy.

     
  3. 3.

    Women who were not screened for gestational diabetes during the index pregnancy.

     

All women booked for antenatal care at KKUH are screened for pre-existing diabetes mellitus using fasting blood glucose (FBG) during their first antenatal visit. Values above 5.3 mmol/l indicate a full oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Further screening is carried out between 24–28 gestation weeks. Oral glucose (50 g) was administered, regardless of the time of the last meal. Venous plasma glucose was measured 1 h later. A value of 7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl) or more indicated the need for a full diagnostic OGTT. The diagnosis of GDM is based on the results of a 3-h, 100-g OGTT, interpreted according to the diagnostic criteria of Carpenter and Coustan [19]. Definitive diagnosis requires that two or more of the venous plasma glucose concentrations meet or exceed: fasting, 5.3 mmol/l (95 mg/dl), 1 h 10.0 mmol/l (180 mg/dl), 2 h 8.6 mmol/l (155 mg/dl) and 3 h 7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl). Once diagnosed, women with GDM follow a specific course of treatment including nutritional therapy and counseling together with antenatal fetal surveillance. Insulin therapy is introduced when nutritional therapy fails to maintain the FBG at 5.8 mmol/l (105 mg /100 ml) and/or the 2 h postprandial at 7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl).

Due to the proven effect of tobacco smoking, including environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure, on the pregnancy outcomes, we collected data on maternal smoking status. We considered women to be exposed to ETS when the husband or one of the children smokes at home. Duration of exposure to ETS was not reported in this study as only 30% of the participants could recall the duration of exposure.

The BMI was calculated for each subject using the maternal weight and height recorded during the booking visit, according to the following equation; BMI = weight (kg)/height (m)2. Women were booked for their first antenatal visit during the first or the second trimester of pregnancy, subject to availability of appointments. To investigate the independent effect of maternal obesity and GDM on the pregnancy outcomes, women were divided into two groups based on the BMI, non-obese with BMI < 30 kg/m2 and obese with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. Further stratification of the study population into a total of four groups was based on the results of the GDM screening as follows; women with no GDM and who were not obese were considered the control group, second group was women who had GDM but were not obese, third group was women who were obese but did not have GDM and the fourth group were women with both obesity and GDM.

Data on the demographic and reproductive characteristics in addition to data on the outcomes of pregnancies were collected from the participants’ medical records, after delivery in the post-natal ward, using a pre-designed data collection sheet. Data on exposure to tobacco smoke were collected from the participants in the postnatal ward.

The maternal characteristics included in the study were; maternal age, parity, booking visit weight and height, smoking habits and exposure to ETS, the mode of delivery vaginal or cesarean section (CS), and the occurrence of GDM or pre-eclampsia (PE) defined as blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg after 20 weeks gestation and ≥ 0.3 g proteinuria/day [20], during the index pregnancy. The neonatal characteristics included; gestation age at delivery, APGAR scores at 5 minutes, birth weight, neonatal head circumference, neonatal length and admission to NICU.

Primary outcomes

Fetal macrosomia (≥4 kg), birth weight, and CS delivery.

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included; gestation age at delivery (≥37 weeks), the occurrence of PE during the index pregnancy, APGAR scores at 5 minutes, birth weight <2.5 kg, neonatal head circumference, neonatal length and admission to NICU.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 17(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). We compared means using Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA). After assessing normality of distribution of the variables, either Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables as indicated. P-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Stepwise multivariate logistic regression models were used to explore the independent associations between the four groups of combination of maternal obesity and GDM with adverse pregnancy outcomes, considering women who were not obese and did not have GDM as the reference group. Adjusted odd ratios (OR) were calculated. The following variables were included as confounders for the final model for macrosomia and CS delivery; maternal age, parity, ETS exposure and gestation age (≥37 weeks).

Ethical approval

Ethical approval number 11/2862/IRB, was obtained for this study from institutional review board of the Collage of Medicine King Saud University before the commencement of the study.

Result

Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes

Of the 3200 women who delivered during the study period, 2701 met the inclusion criteria and consented to the study. The mean BMI of the study population at booking was 30.25 ± 14.99 kg/m2 and 44% of the participants were obese. The prevalence of GDM was 15%, and 63% of the women who were diagnosed with GDM were obese (Table 1). Of the study population 869 (32.2%) were exposed to ETS during the index pregnancy. The mean gestation age at booking was 21.8 ± 8.8 weeks; the mean maternal age was 29.38 ± 6.21 years. More than 50% of the participants were university graduates or above, however 76.1% of the women in this study were housewives (Table 1). The characteristics of the neonates in this study are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Maternal and neonatal characteristics of the studied population

Maternal characteristics

Age (year)

29.38 ± 6.21

Gravidity

3.50 ± 2.65

Parity

2.99 ± 2.18

Gestation age at booking (week)

21.8 ± 8.8

Education

 

 Illiterate

58 (2.1)

 School

1281 (47.5)

 University and above

1362 (50.4)

Work

 

 Housewife

2055 (76.1)

 Student

311 (11.5)

 Employee

335 (12.4)

BMI (kg/m2)

30.25 ± 14.99

Obesity/GDM groups

 

 No GDM No Obesity

1361 (50.4)

 GDM No Obesity

155 (5.7)

 Obesity No GDM

925 (34.2)

 GDM and Obesity

260 (9.6)

ETS exposure

 

 Not exposed

1832 (67.8)

 Exposed

869 (32.2)

Neonatal characteristics

 Gestational age at delivery (week)

39.11 ± 1.17

 Birth weight(kg)

3.19 ± 0.46

 Head circumference (cm)

34.44 ± 10.39

 Length (cm)

49.74 ± 2.56

 Gender (male)

1429 (52.9)

Data expressed as n (%) or mean ± Standard Deviation.

GDM = gestational diabetes mellitus, BMI = body mass index, ETS = environmental tobacco smoking.

Univariate analysis showed statistically significant association between maternal obesity and GDM with adverse pregnancy outcomes (Table 2). There was significantly increased percentage of CS delivery, P <0.001, macrosomia, P <0.001, PE, P <0.001, increased birth weight P <0.001, and length of the newborn, P <0.01, for GDM or obesity alone compared to the reference group. The combination of GDM and obesity showed considerably higher percentages of adverse outcomes compared to either GDM or obesity alone (Table 2). There was a noticeable trend of higher percentages of adverse pregnancy outcomes with obesity alone compared to GDM alone (Table 2).
Table 2

The effects of Obesity/GDM on the pregnancy outcomes of terms infants

 

Obesity/GDM groups

Pregnancy outcome

No Obesity No GDM

GDM No Obesity

Obesity No GDM

Obesity

 
    

GDM

p-value

Caesarean section

210 (15.4)

27 (17.4)

263 (28.4)

83 (31.9)

<0.001

Pre-eclampsia

7 (0.5)

3 (1.9)

14 (1.5)

9 (3.5)

<0.001

Gestational age (weeks)

39.15 ± 1.16

38.89 ± 1.00

39.17 ± 1.24

38.86 ± 1.08

<0.001

APGAR score at 5 min

8.91 ± 0.69

8.93 ± 0.57

8.93 ± 0.56

8.92 ± 0.69

0.90

Birth weight (kg)

3.13 ± 0.44

3.17 ± 0.41

3.22 ± 0.45

3.33 ± 0.54

<0.001

Macrosomia ≥4 kg

40 (2.9)

4 (2.6)

47(5.1)

32 (12.3)

<0.001

Low birth weight <2500 g

85 (6.2)

8 (5.2)

38 (4.1)

10 (3.8)

0.01

Newborn length (cm)

49.65 ± 2.21

49.29 ± 4.50

49.87 ± 2.70

50.0 ± 2.35

0.01

Newborn head circumference (cm)

34.23 ± 8.87

33.72 ± 3.02

34.89 ± 14.05

34.37 ± 1.46

0.384

NICU admission

61 (4.5)

9 (5.8)

48 (5.2)

15 (5.8)

0.79

NICU = Neonatal Intensive care.

Data is expressed either as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

The combination of GDM and obesity increased the odds of delivering a macrosomic baby by nearly fourfold, OR 3.45, Confidence Intervals (CI) (2.05-5.81) (Table 3). Obesity alone increased the estimated risk of delivering a macrosomic baby to 1.46, however this risk was not statistically significant, CI 0.94-2.27, P = 0.092 (Table 3).
Table 3

Adjusted ORs for macrosomia and cesarean section delivery in obese and non-obese women with and without gestational diabetes

Outcome

OR

CI

p-value

Macrosomia

   

No Obesity No GDM

1.00

  

No Obesity GDM

0.74

0.26-2.13

0.584

Obesity No GDM

1.46

0.94-2.27

0.092

Obesity GDM

3.45

2.05-5.81

<0.001

Cesarean section delivery

   

No Obesity No GDM

1.00

  

No Obesity GDM

0.97

0.62-1.53

0.91

Obesity No GDM

2.16

1.74-2.67

<0.001

Obesity GDM

2.26

1.65-3.11

<0.001

GDM = Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, BMI = Body Mass Index, OR = Odds Ratio.

Reference group: non diabetic non-obese women (BMI <30 kg/m2.

Adjusted for maternal age, parity, gestation age and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

The estimated risk of having a CS delivery was increased by more than twofold in obese mothers compared to those who were non-obese and did not develop GDM, OR 2.16, CI 1.74-2.67, P < 0.001 (Table 3). The combination of GDM and obesity had similar risk of CS delivery to that of obesity alone, OR 2.26, CI 1.65-3.11, P < 0.001 (Table 3).

Discussion

The results of this study showed that GDM and maternal obesity were independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The findings confirmed that the combination of both GDM and obesity had greater impact on macrosomia and CS delivery than either obesity or GDM alone. In addition there was a noticeable trend of increment in maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in mothers with obesity alone compared to those with GDM alone. The greater impact of maternal obesity on the adverse pregnancy outcomes has been reported by other investigators [6, 21].

While fetal weight is influenced by the parents’ weight and height through a genetic link, maternal weight has an additional influence by modulating the intrauterine environment [22]. Maternal obesity is associated with hyperinsulinemia, hyperlipidemia and increased inflammatory markers levels [23]. The level of circulating maternal lipids near delivery, rather than the maternal glucose level, was confirmed to be a strong predictor of fetal size [18, 24, 25]. This explains our findings of the greater influence of maternal obesity, both alone and in combination with GDM, on macrosomia, compared to the influence of GDM alone.

The high prevalence of 15% for GDM in this study is consistent with previous reports from Saudi Arabia [8, 9] and is not surprising considering the high prevalence of obesity among the obstetric population reported in this study. Our results pointed to modest effect of GDM on macrosomia compared to maternal obesity, these findings are consistent with the findings of Ricard et al. [18]. The pathophysiology of macrosomia in women with GDM is based on Pedersen hypothesis [26] of maternal hyperglycemia leading to fetal hyperinsulinemia and increased utilization of glucose and hence increased fetal adipose tissue. The hypothesis was further supported by the finding of high insulin levels in the cord blood of babies born to diabetic mothers [27]; however good control of blood glucose did not completely prevent the increase in macrosomia noticed in women with diabetes [28], which suggests a role for other mediators that might share a common pathway with obesity .

In this study we found an independent association between the frequency of CS delivery and maternal obesity with twofold increase in the estimated risk for CS delivery for obese women compared to the reference group. It is worth mentioning that GDM has not imposed extra risk for CS delivery over that estimated for maternal obesity. A recently published systematic review reported an estimated two to threefold increase in the rate of CS for obese women compared to those with normal weight [29]. Similar findings were reported by Dietz et al. even after adjustment for co-morbidity, such as GDM [30]. This finding is relevant considering the increasing rate of CS delivery [31] and obesity in many of the middle and high income countries [4, 5], taking into account the significant morbidities in obese women who deliver by CS such as wound infection, endometritis, urinary tract infection and prolonged postpartum hospitalization [32, 33].

The mechanism behind the increased frequency of CS in obese mother has not been fully explored, however cephalopelvic disproportion due to macrosomia and narrow maternal pelvis due to increased soft tissue mass [34], slow labour progression [35] and increased frequencies of emergencies [36] were all proposed as explanations for the association of maternal obesity and CS delivery.

The prevalence of maternal obesity in this study was 44% which is higher than that reported for Saudi obstetrics population but similar to at risk population of over weight and obese mothers from the same report [4]. Marked increase in the prevalence of maternal obesity in the last decade was reported from other developed countries and the region [6, 37]. Our findings indicated that most of the study population received formal education and more than 50% of the participants were university graduates; however more than 75% of the participants did not work for pay which might indicate the predominance of sedentary life style in this cohort, considering the high standard of living in Saudi Arabia (Gross national income per capita is $30,160) [38] and the availability of household help for domestic work.

Few reports investigated interventions to improve the outcomes in pregnancies complicated by maternal obesity. Recently published systematic reviews have shown that dietary interventions during pregnancy are effective in the prevention of maternal obesity and its adverse effects on the mother and the newborn [39, 40].

Based on the results of this study and previous similar reports [18, 25], we believe it is prudent for maternity health services worldwide to implement evidence based intervention for reducing and preventing obesity in pregnancy and its adverse effects on the mother and the fetus. Greater efforts should be directed towards investigating effective interventions for reducing maternal weight before pregnancy, such as bariatric surgery. It is important that women in the reproductive age group are aware of the adverse consequence of obesity on the pregnancy outcomes which will motivate better utilization of effective interventions.

We are aware of the limitations of this study including the retrospective nature of the investigation and the lack of data on pre-pregnancy maternal weight due to the routine late booking for antenatal care in the hospital, considering that maternal adiposity, which was the proposed influence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in this study, correlates better with maternal pre-pregnancy and first trimester weight rather than maternal weight in late pregnancy [41]. However other measurements of maternal obesity such as gestational weight gain, central obesity and modified categories of BMI to define obesity during pregnancy, were found to be associated with macrosomia and increased risk of CS [17, 42, 43]. This limitation of the study might have attenuated the effects of obesity in outcomes other than macrosomia and CS because of the variation in maternal weight gain during pregnancy; however it would not produce false positive results. The prevalence of obesity in this study is higher than previously reported, which might be due to the late booking of the women for antenatal care during the second trimester, this might limit the generalization of the results to the whole pregnant population of the Kingdom.

Conclusion

Maternal obesity and GDM were independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The combination of both conditions further increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes at term.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group no. RGP-VPP-149 and their appreciation to the great help they received from Mrs. Margaret Taiwo and the nurses in the postnatal word.

Funding

This study was funded by the research grant No: RGP-VPP-149, from the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Sheikh Bahmdan Chair of Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation, College of Medicine, King Saud University
(2)
King Saud Ben AbdulAziz University for Health Sciences
(3)
High Institute of Public Health Alexandria University
(4)
Department of Family and Community Medicine, King Saud University

References

  1. Kelly T, Yang W, Chen CS, Reynolds K, He J: Global burden of obesity in 2005 and projections to 2030. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008, 32: 1431-1437. 10.1038/ijo.2008.102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Musaiger AO, Al-Hazzaa HM: Prevalence and risk factors associated with nutrition-related noncommunicable diseases in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Int J Gen Med. 2012, 5: 199-217.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Daghri NM, Al-Attas OS, Alokail MS, Alkharfy KM, Yousef M, Sabico SL, Chrousos GP: Diabetes mellitus type 2 and other chronic non-communicable diseases in the central region, Saudi Arabia (riyadh cohort 2): a decade of an epidemic. BMC Med. 2011, 9: 76-10.1186/1741-7015-9-76.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. El-Gilany AH, El-Wehady A: Prevalence of obesity in a Saudi obstetric population. Obes Facts. 2009, 2: 217-220. 10.1159/000226597.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway LK, Prins JB, Chang AM, McIntyre HD: The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. Med J Aust. 2006, 184: 56-59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Athukorala C, Rumbold AR, Willson KJ, Crowther CA: The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who are overweight or obese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010, 10: 56-10.1186/1471-2393-10-56.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Di BA, D'Anna R, Cannata ML, Giordano D, Interdonato ML, Corrado F: Effects of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain during pregnancy on perinatal outcome in glucose-tolerant women. Diabetes Metab. 2012, 38: 63-67. 10.1016/j.diabet.2011.07.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Al-Rowaily MA, Abolfotouh MA: Predictors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a high-parity community in Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J. 2010, 16: 636-641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Wahabi H, Esmaeil S, Fayed A, Al-Shaikh G, Alzeidan R: Pre-existing diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes. BMC Research Notes. 2012, 5: 496-10.1186/1756-0500-5-496.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. American Diabetes Association: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010, 33 (Suppl): S62-S69.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Vidaeff AC, Yeomans ER, Ramin SM: Gestational diabetes: a field of controversy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2003, 58: 759-769. 10.1097/01.OGX.0000093782.25261.AC.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Robinson JS: Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005, 352: 2477-2486. 10.1056/NEJMoa042973.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, Coustan DR, Hadden DR, McCance DR, Hod M, McIntyre HD, Oats JJ, Persson B, Rogers MS, Sacks DA: Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008, 358: 1991-2002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Barakat MN, Youssef RM, Al-Lawati JA: Pregnancy outcomes of diabetic women: charting Oman's progress towards the goals of the Saint Vincent Declaration. Ann Saudi Med. 2010, 30: 265-270. 10.4103/0256-4947.65253.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Metzger BE: Long-term outcomes in mothers diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus and their offspring. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007, 50: 972-979. 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31815a61d6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Langer O, Yogev Y, Xenakis EM, Brustman L: Overweight and obese in gestational diabetes: the impact on pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 192: 1768-1776. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.049.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Catalano PM, McIntyre HD, Cruickshank JK, McCance DR, Dyer AR, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Trimble ER, Coustan DR, Hadden DR, Persson B, Hod M, Oats JJ, HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group: The hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study: associations of GDM and obesity with pregnancy outcomes. Diabetes Care. 2012, 35: 780-786. 10.2337/dc11-1790.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricart W, Lopez J, Mozas J, Pericot A, Sancho MA, Gonzalez N, Balsells M, Luna R, Cortázar A, Navarro P, Ramírez O, Flández B, Pallardo LF, Hernández-Mijas A, Ampudia J, Fernández-Real JM, Corcoy R: Body mass index has a greater impact on pregnancy outcomes than gestational hyperglycaemia. Diabetologia. 2005, 48: 1736-1742. 10.1007/s00125-005-1877-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR: Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982, 144: 768-773.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. ICD-10. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/O20-O29. Date accessed June 2014
  21. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group: Hyperglycaemia and adverse pregnancy outcome (HAPO) study: associations with maternal body mass index. BJOG. 2010, 117: 575-584.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths LJ, Dezateux C, Cole TJ: Differential parental weight and height contributions to offspring birthweight and weight gain in infancy. Int J Epidemiol. 2007, 36: 104-107. 10.1093/ije/dyl210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramsay JE, Ferrell WR, Crawford L, Wallace AM, Greer IA, Sattar N: Maternal obesity is associated with dysregulation of metabolic, vascular, and inflammatory pathways. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002, 87: 4231-4237. 10.1210/jc.2002-020311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaefer-Graf UM, Graf K, Kulbacka I, Kjos SL, Dudenhausen J, Vetter K, Herrera E: Maternal lipids as strong determinants of fetal environment and growth in pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 1858-1863. 10.2337/dc08-0039.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Retnakaran R, Ye C, Hanley AJ, Connelly PW, Sermer M, Zinman B, Hamilton JK: Effect of maternal weight, adipokines, glucose intolerance and lipids on infant birth weight among women without gestational diabetes mellitus. CMAJ. 2012, 184: 1353-1360. 10.1503/cmaj.111154.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Pedersen J: Diabetes and pregnancy; blood sugar of newborn infants during fasting and glucose administration. Ugeskr Laeger. 1952, 114: 685-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz R, Gruppuso PA, Petzold K, Brambilla D, Hiilesmaa V, Teramo KA: Hyperinsulinemia and macrosomia in the fetus of the diabetic mother. Diabetes Care. 1994, 17: 640-648. 10.2337/diacare.17.7.640.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Evers IM, de Valk HW, Mol BW, ter Braak EW, Visser GH: Macrosomia despite good glycaemic control in Type I diabetic pregnancy; results of a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Diabetologia. 2002, 45: 1484-1489. 10.1007/s00125-002-0958-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Chu SY, Kim SY, Schmid CH, Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Lau J, Curtis KM: Maternal obesity and risk of cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2007, 8: 385-394. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00397.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Morrow B, Cogswell ME: Population-based assessment of the risk of primary cesarean delivery due to excess prepregnancy weight among nulliparous women delivering term infants. Matern Child Health J. 2005, 9: 237-244. 10.1007/s10995-005-0003-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F: Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012, 206: 331.e1-331.e19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Isaacs JD, Magann EF, Martin RW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC: Obstetric challenges of massive obesity complicating pregnancy. J Perinatol. 1994, 14: 10-14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, Wadsworth J, Joffe M, Beard RW, Regan L, Robinson S: Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001, 25: 1175-1182. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801670.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Young TK, Woodmansee B: Factors that are associated with cesarean delivery in a large private practice: the importance of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 187: 312-318. 10.1067/mob.2002.126200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM: Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 104: 943-951. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000142713.53197.91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Cnattingius R, Cnattingius S, Notzon FC: Obstacles to reducing cesarean rates in a low-cesarean setting: the effect of maternal age, height, and weight. Obstet Gynecol. 1998, 92: 501-506. 10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00244-0.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Yazdani S, Yosofniyapasha Y, Nasab BH, Mojaveri MH, Bouzari Z: Effect of maternal body mass index on pregnancy outcome and newborn weight. BMC Res Notes. 2012, 5: 34-10.1186/1756-0500-5-34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. World Health Organization, Counrty profile Saudi Arabia 2009. http://www.who.int/countries/sau/en/index.html. Date of access June 2014
  39. Thangaratinam S, Rogozinska E, Jolly K, Glinkowski S, Duda W, Borowiack E, Roseboom T, Tomlinson J, Walczak J, Kunz R, Mol BW, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS: Interventions to reduce or prevent obesity in pregnant women: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2012, 16: ii-191.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Thangaratinam S, Rogozinska E, Jolly K, Glinkowski S, Roseboom T, Tomlinson JW, Kunz R, Mol BW, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS: Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: meta-analysis of randomised evidence. BMJ. 2012, 344: e2088-10.1136/bmj.e2088.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Sewell MF, Huston-Presley L, Amini SB, Catalano PM: Body mass index: a true indicator of body fat in obese gravidas. J Reprod Med. 2007, 52: 907-911.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bo S, Menato G, Signorile A, Bardelli C, Lezo A, Gallo ML, Gambino R, Cassader M, Massobrio M, Pagano G: Obesity or diabetes: what is worse for the mother and for the baby?. Diabetes Metab. 2003, 29: 175-178. 10.1016/S1262-3636(07)70026-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Suresh A, Liu A, Poulton A, Quinton A, Amer Z, Mongelli M, Martin A, Benzie R, Peek M, Nanan R: Comparison of maternal abdominal subcutaneous fat thickness and body mass index as markers for pregnancy outcomes: A stratified cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012, 52: 420-426. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01471.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/14/47/prepub

Copyright

© Wahabi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement