Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 275, Issue 1, pp 39–43 | Cite as

Effect of prepregnancy body mass index categories on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes

  • Haim A. Abenhaim
  • Robert A. Kinch
  • Lucie Morin
  • Alice Benjamin
  • Robert Usher
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the association between body mass index (BMI) and obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study comparing prepregnant BMI categories with obstetrical and neonatal outcomes using the McGill Obstetrical and Neonatal Database on all deliveries in 10 year period (1987–1997). Prepregnant BMI was categorized into underweight (<20), normal (20–24.9), overweight (25–29.9), obese (30–39.9), and morbidly obese (40+). Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for age, smoking, parity, and preexisting diabetes using normal BMI as the reference.

Results

The population consisted of underweight 4,312 (23.1%), normal weight 10,021 (53.8%), overweight 3,069 (16.5%), obese 1,137 (6.1%), and morbidly obese 104 (0.6%). As compared to women with normal BMIs, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese women had an increased risk of preeclampsia 2.28 (1.88–2.77), 4.65 (3.71–5.83), 6.26 (3.48–11.26); gestational hypertension 1.56 (1.35–1.81), 2.01 (1.64–2.45), 2.77 (1.60–4.78); gestational diabetes 1.89 (1.63–2.19), 3.22 (2.68–3.87), 4.71 (2.89–7.67); preterm birth 1.20 (1.04–1.38), 1.60 (1.32–1.94), 2.43 (1.46–4.05); cesarean section 1.48 (1.35–1.62), 1.85 (1.62–2.11), 2.92 (1.97–4.34); and macrosomia 1.66 (1.23–2.24), 2.32 (1.58–3.41), 2.10 (0.64–6.86). Underweight women were less likely to have: preeclampsia 0.67 (0.52–0.86), gestational hypertension 0.71 (0.60–0.83), gestational diabetes 0.82 (0.69–0.97), cesarean section 0.89 (0.81–0.97), shoulder dystocia 0.88 (0.80–0.96), birth injuries 0.40 (0.21–0.77), and macrosomia 0.43 (0.28–0.68) but more likely to have small for gestational age infants 1.54 (1.37–1.72) and intrauterine growth restricted infants 1.33 (1.07–1.67).

Conclusion

In a large Canadian teaching hospital, increasing prepregnancy BMI category was associated with an increasing risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Underweight prepregnancy BMI was associated with a reduced risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Keywords

Obesity Body mass index Pregnancy outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Wilding J (1997) Science, medicine, and the future: obesity treatment. BMJ 315:997–1000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jung RT (1997) Obesity as a disease. Br Med Bull 53:307–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allison DB, Saunders SE (2000) Obesity in North America: an overview. Med Clin North Am 84:305–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bianco AT, Smilen SW, Davis Y, Lopez S, Lapinski R, Lockwood CJ (1998) Pregnancy outcome and weight gain recommendations for the morbidly obese women. Obstet Gynecol 97:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Groot LC (1999) High maternal body weight and pregnancy outcome. Nutr Rev 57:62–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sebire NJ (2001) Is maternal underweight really a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcome? A population-based study in London. BJOG 108:61–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cnattingius S, Bergstrom R, Lipworth L, Kramer MS (1998) Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 338:147–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowers J (1999) Obesity and related pregnancy complications in an inner-city clinic. J Perinatol 19:216–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michlin R (2000) Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome. Isr Med Assoc J 2:10–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Usher R, McLean F (1969) Intrauterine growth of live born Caucasian infants at sea level; Standards obtained from measurements in 7 dimensions of infants born between 25 and 44 weeks’gestation. J Pediatr 74:901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel (1998) Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: the evidence report. Obes Res 6(Suppl 2):51S–209SGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hortobagyi T, Israel RG, O’Brien KF (1994) Sensitivity and specificity of the Quetelet index to assess obesity in men and women. Eur J Clin Nutr 48:369–375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heymsfield SB, Allison DB, Heshka S, Pierson RN Jr (1995) Assessment of human body composition. In: Allison DB (ed) Handbook of assessment methods for eating behavior and weight related problems: measures, theory, and research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 515–560Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher D, Visser M, Sepulveda D, Pierson RN, Harris T, Heymsfield SB (1996) How useful is body mass index for comparison of body fatness across age, sex, and ethnic groups. Am J Epidemiol 143:228–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Troiano RP, Frongillo EA, Sobal J, Levstsky DA (1996) The relationship between body weight and mortality: a quantitative analysis of combined information from existing studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:63–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolfe HM, Zador IE, Gross TL, Martier SS, Sokol RJ (1991) The clinical utility of maternal body mass index in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 164:1306–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haim A. Abenhaim
    • 1
  • Robert A. Kinch
    • 1
  • Lucie Morin
    • 1
  • Alice Benjamin
    • 1
  • Robert Usher
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of NeonatologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations