Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Profile of Women with Congenital Fetal Malformations: A Retrospective Cohort Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Background

Though this is an era of imaging, many women with fetal congenital malformations are presenting beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy posing problems in decision making. This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of congenital fetal malformations presenting to tertiary health care and to analyse the gestational age at presentation and spectrum of malformations and the clinical and socio-demographic factors.

Material and Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of hospitalised women with diagnosis of congenital fetal malformations (CFM) from January 2017 to December 2017. The data was retrieved from Medical Records Section after due permissions and analysed with respect to socio-demographic status, age, consanguinity, type of congenital anomaly and gestational age at presentation.

Results

The prevalence of CFM was 1.56%. The majority (64%) of CFM were detected during the second trimester and 27% were detected in the 3rd trimester. The most common anomalies were CNS followed by multiple anomalies and 72% and 65% of them were live born respectively. The majority (90%) belonged to lower middle socioeconomic group and were from rural background (82%). The majority of women were less than 30 years of age (77.6%) and 38% were primigravidae. Consanguinity was present in 34%, medical disorders were associated in 29% and 3% had family history of congenital fetal anomalies.

Conclusion

The most common anomalies were CNS and majority were primigravidae. The most common medical disorder associated was diabetes. It is possible that they are deficient in folic acid and vitamin B12. Hence pre-conceptional control of medical disorders, nutritional counselling regarding intake of micronutrients and awareness programmes to take pre-conceptional folic acid and vitamin B12 are the need of the hour for prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO. Congenital anomalies. Fact sheets. www.who.int

  2. Bhide P, Kar A. A National estimate of the birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in India: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1149-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Toufaily MH, Westgate MN, Lin AE, Holmes LB. Causes of congenital malformations. Birth Defects Res. 2018;110(2):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Czeizel AE. Birth defects are preventable. Int J Med Sci. 2005;2(3):91–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.2.91. Epub 2005 Jul 1. PMID: 16007259; PMCID: PMC1168872.

  5. Canals CA, Cavada CG, Nazer HJ. Identification of risk factors for congenital malformations. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142(11):1431–9. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014001100010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jain S, Rani V, Sargawan R, Jain N. A demographic profile of women seeking MTP for gross congenital malformations in a tertiary referral hospital in North India. IJRCOG. 2018;7(11):4465–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Prema N, Sudhakaran R, Divya BV, Meerabai V, Maharani M. Prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies in a tertiary care centre in Tamilnadu. Obg Rev J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;2(4):55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marwah A, Marwah P. Profile of gross congenital malformations among live newborns and its associated risk factors from a tertiary care rural teaching Institute. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(6):2394–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ara A, Kumar D, Dewan D, Digra NC. Incidence of congenital anomalies in rural population of Jammu. A prospective study. Indian J Public Health. 2018;62:188–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(3):159–63. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6866.73412.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarkar S, Patra C, Dasgupta MK, Nayek K, Karmakar PR. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in neonates and associated risk factors in a tertiary care hospital in eastern India. J Clin Neonatol. 2013;2(3):131–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hadzagić-Catibusić F, Maksić H, Uzicanin S, Užičanin S, Heljić S, Zubčević S, et al. Congenital malformations of the central nervous system: clinical approach. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2008;8(4):356–60. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2008.2897.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dursun A, Zenciroglu A, Hakan N, Karadag N, Karagol BS, Aydin B, et al. Distribution of congenital anomalies in a neonatal intensive care unit in Turkey. J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(10):1069–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ficara A, Syngelaki A, Hammami A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Value of routine ultrasound examination at 35–37 weeks in detection of fetal abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55:75–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Manegold G, Tercanli S, Struben H, Huang D, Kang A. Is a routine ultrasound in the third trimester justified? Additional fetal anomalies diagnosed after two previous unremarkable ultrasound examinations. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(4):381–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Towner D, McGahan J, Rhee-Morris L. The dynamic fetal brain. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35:238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grandjean H, Larroquen D, Levi S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:446–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG. 2008;115:689–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Estrada CR Jr. Prenatal hydronephrosis: early evaluation. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18:401–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coelho GM, Bouzada MC, Pereira AK, Figueiredo EF, Leite MR, Olievera DS. Outcome of isolated antenatal hydronephrosis: a prospective cohort study. Pediatr Nephrol. 2007;22:1727–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chaoui R. The four-chamber view: four reasons why it seems to fail in screening for cardiac abnormalities and suggestions to improve detection rate. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:3–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. DeVore GR, Medearis AL, Bear MB, et al. Fetal echocardiography: factors that influence imaging of the fetal heart during the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 1993;12:659–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Axt-FliednerR Chiriac A, Gembruch U. First and early second trimester fetal heart scanning. Ultrashall Med. 2009;30:364–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lotto R, Smith LK, Armstrong N. Clinicians’ perspectives of parental decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e014716. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. (2017) Folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2017;317(2):183–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19438.

  26. Wilson RD, Genetics Committee, Wilson RD, et al. Pre-conception folic acid and multivitamin supplementation for the primary and secondary prevention of neural tube defects and other folic acid-sensitive congenital anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(6):534–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30230-9

  27. ElKoumi MA, Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital-based study. Pediatr Rep. 2013;5:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ameen KS, Alaf SK, Shabila NP. Pattern of congenital anomalies at birth and their correlations with maternal charecteristics in the maternity teaching hospital, Erbil city Iraq. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:501. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2141-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Dhanvantri Nagar, Puducherry, 605006, India

    Sonal Garg, Papa Dasari & Ashraf M. Ali

Authors
  1. Sonal Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Papa Dasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashraf M. Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and data review, manuscript preparation: PD, Data collection, Data analysis, manuscript preparation: SG. Data analysis and manscript checking AMA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Papa Dasari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Myself, Papa Dasari and SonalGarg, Ashraf M Ali have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Ethics approval

Not applicable as it is a retrospective study; Approval taken for use of Medical records.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garg, S., Dasari, P. & Ali, A.M. Clinical Profile of Women with Congenital Fetal Malformations: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Fetal Med. 8, 41–48 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40556-020-00287-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40556-020-00287-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation