Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 283, Issue 2, pp 191–194 | Cite as

Is single umbilical artery an independent risk factor for perinatal mortality?

  • Shimon Burshtein
  • Amalia Levy
  • Gershon Holcberg
  • Alexander Zlotnik
  • Eyal SheinerEmail author
Materno-fetal Medicine

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate perinatal outcome of fetuses with isolated single umbilical artery (SUA), and specifically to examine whether an isolated SUA is an independent risk factor for perinatal mortality.

Methods

A population-based study was conducted, comparing pregnancies of women with and without SUA. Deliveries occurred between the years 1988–2006, in a tertiary medical center. Multiple gestations, chromosomal abnormalities and malformations were excluded from the analysis. Stratified analysis was performed using multiple logistic regression models to evaluate the association between SUA and perinatal mortality, while controlling for confounders.

Results

Out of 194,809 deliveries, 243 (0.1%) were of fetuses with isolated SUA. Fetuses with SUA were smaller (2,844 ± 733 vs. 3,197 ± 530 g, P < 0.001), and were delivered at an earlier gestational age (38.3 ± 3.0 vs. 39.3 ± 2.1 weeks, P < 0.001), when compared with fetuses with normal umbilical vessels. Mothers to fetuses with isolated SUA tended to have a history of infertility treatments (4.5 vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001) when compared with the comparison group. Fetuses with SUA had more complications, including fetal growth restriction (FGR 9.5 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001), polyhydramnios (11.5 vs. 3.7%; P < 0.001) and oligohydramnios (6.6 vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001). Deliveries of SUA fetuses had higher rates of placental abruption (3.3 vs. 0.7%; P < 0.001), placenta previa (1.2 vs. 0.4%; P = 0.03) and cord prolapse (2.9 vs. 0.4%; P < 0.001). Higher rates of cesarean deliveries were noted in this group (23.9 vs. 12.2%; P < 0.001). SUA newborns had higher rates of low Apgar scores (<7) in one (11.8 vs. 3.7%; P < 0.001) and 5 min (3.5 vs. 0.4%; P < 0.001). Higher rates of perinatal mortality were noted in the SUA group, as compared to fetuses with normal umbilical vessels (6.6 vs. 0.9%, OR 7.78; 95% CI 4.7–13.0; P < 0.001). Using a multiple logistic regression model, controlling for possible confounders, such as FGR, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, prolapse of cord, maternal hypertension and diabetes mellitus, isolated SUA remained an independent risk factor for perinatal mortality (adjusted OR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.06–7.43; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Isolated SUA in our population was noted as an independent risk factor for perinatal mortality.

Keywords

Single umbilical artery Preterm delivery FGR Low birth weight Pregnancy outcome 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Prucka S, Clemens M, Craven C, McPherson E (2004) Single umbilical artery: what does it mean for the fetus? A case–control analysis of pathologically ascertained cases. Genet Med 6:54–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Csécsei K, Kovács T, Hinchliffe SA, Papp Z (1993) Incidence and associations of single umbilical artery in prenatally diagnosed malformed, midtrimester fetuses: a review of 62 cases. Am J Med Genet 46(2):248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Persutte WH, Hobbins J (1995) Single umbilical artery: a clinical enigma in modern prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6(3):216–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Romero R, Pilu G, Jeanty P, Ghidini A, Hobbins JC (eds) (1988) Prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies. Appleton & Lange, NorwalkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanimura T, Ezaki KI (1968) Single umbilical artery found in Japanese embryos. Proc Congenit Anom Res Assoc Jpn 8:27Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Predanic M, Perni SC, Friedman A, Chervenak FA, Chasen ST (2005) Fetal growth assessment and neonatal birth weight in fetuses with isolated single umbilical artery. Obstet Gynecol 105:1093–1097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Catanzarite VA, Hendricks SK, Maida C, Westbrook C, Cousins L, Schrimmer D (1995) Prenatal diagnosis of the two vessel cord: implications for patient counseling and obstetric management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5:98–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jauniaux E, De Munter C, Pardou A, Elkhazen N, Rodesch F, Wilkin P (1989) Evaluation echographique du syndrome de l’artere ombilicale unique: une serie de 80 cas. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 18:341–348Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leung AKC, Robson WLM (1989) Single umbilical artery: a report of 159 cases. Am J Dis Child 143:108–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thummala MR, Raju TN, Langenberg P (1998) Isolated single umbilical artery anomaly and the risk for congenital malformations: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 33(4):580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doornebal N, de Vries TW, Bos AF, de Vries NK (2007) Screening infants with an isolated single umbilical artery for renal anomalies: nonsense? Early Hum Dev 83(9):567–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E, Mazor M (2006) Middle cerebral artery blood flow velocimetry among healthy fetuses with a single umbilical artery. J Ultrasound Med 25(11):1405–1408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bombrys AE, Neiger R, Hawkins S, Sonek J, Croom C, McKenna D, Ventolini G, Habli M, How H, Sibai B (2008) Pregnancy outcome in isolated single umbilical artery. Am J Perinatol 25(4):239–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maternal-Placental-Fetal Unit (2007) Fetal and early neonatal physiology. In: Decherney AH, Goodwin TM, Nathan L, Laufer N (eds) Current diagnosis and treatment OBS & GYN. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 170Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mu SC, Lin CH, Chen YL, Sung TC, Bai CH, Jow GM (2008) The perinatal outcomes of asymptomatic isolated single umbilical artery in full-term neonates. Pediatr Neonatol 49(6):230–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deshpande SA, Jog S, Watson H, Gornall A (2009) Do babies with isolated single umbilical artery need routine postnatal renal ultrasonography? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 94(4):F265–F267 [Epub 8 Jan 2009]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimon Burshtein
    • 1
  • Amalia Levy
    • 2
  • Gershon Holcberg
    • 1
  • Alexander Zlotnik
    • 3
  • Eyal Sheiner
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Health SciencesSoroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Health Services Evaluation, Faculty of Health SciencesSoroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Health SciencesSoroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations