Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Large for Gestational Age Births Among South Indian Women: Temporal Trend and Risk Factors from 1996 to 2010

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background/Purpose

Mean birth weight is a good health indicator for any population. In the recent past, there have been many reports in the West indicating that there has been an increase in the proportion of large for gestational age (LGA) babies. The objective is to describe the change in the incidence of LGA babies from 1996 to 2010 in South India and the maternal risk factors.

Methods

A rotational sampling scheme was used, i.e., the 12 months of the year were divided into 4 quarters and a month was from each quarter was selected rotationally. All deliveries for that month were considered. Only deliveries that occurred between 28 and 42 weeks of pregnancy were considered. The association between risk variables was studied using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 35,718 deliveries that occurred during these 15-year-study period in the gestational age 28–42 weeks were registered through the outpatient clinics. The incidence of LGA was 9.4 % that has mostly remained at the same level. The incidence of LGA in mothers with gestational diabetes was 6.7, 3 and 17.6 % in overweight, obese and gestational l diabetes mothers. Overweight, obesity in pregnant women and cesarean section were significant risk factors.

Conclusion

Unlike in Western countries, where the incidence of LGA babies has spiraled upward, has remained nearly at the same level over one and a half decades, in South India. The risk factors for giving birth to LGA babies in South India were similar to other studies.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arbuckle TE, Sherman GJ. An analysis of birth weight by gestational age in Canada. CMAJ 1989;140(2):157–60, 65.

  2. Alberman E. Are our babies becoming bigger? J R Soc Med. 1991;84(5):257–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Power C. National trends in birth weight: implications for future adult disease. BMJ. 1994;308(6939):1270–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Oja H, Koiranen M, Rantakallio P. Fitting mixture models to birth weight data: a case study. Biometrics. 1991;47(3):883–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blondel B, Bréart G, du Mazaubrun C, et al. The perinatal situation in France. Trends between 1981 and 1995. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1997;26(8):770–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H, et al. Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr. 2002;141(4):538–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hadfield RM, Lain SJ, Simpson JM, et al. Are babies getting bigger? An analysis of birthweight trends in New South Wales, 1990-2005. Med J Aust. 2009;190(6):312–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lu Y, Zhang J, Lu X, et al. Secular trends of macrosomia in southeast China, 1994-2005. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:818.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryant DR, Leonardi MR, Landwehr JB, et al. Limited usefulness of fetal weight in predicting neonatal brachial plexus injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(3 Pt 1):686–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Axelsson O. Delivery of the large fetus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1990;69(6):473–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Spellacy WN, Miller S, Winegar A, et al. Macrosomia—maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66(2):158–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Das UG, Sysyn GD. Abnormal fetal growth: intrauterine growth retardation, small for gestational age, large for gestational age. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2004;51(3):639–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ørskou J, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB, et al. An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(10):931–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawoyin TO. A prospective study on some factors which influence the delivery of large babies. J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;96(6):352–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zetterström J, López A, Anzén B, et al. Anal sphincter tears at vaginal delivery: risk factors and clinical outcome of primary repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(1):21–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar VS, Jeyaseelan L, Sebastian T, et al. New birth weight reference standards customised to birth order and sex of babies from South India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology. 1991;181(1):129–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Definition of Term Pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Number 579. November 2013[Internet]. Available from: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Definition-of-Term-Pregnancy.

  19. Mehta M, Pattanayak RD. Follow-up for improving psychological well-being for women after a miscarriage: RHL Commentary (last revised: 1 January 2013). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization.

  20. WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004;363(9403):157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Irion O, Boulvain M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000938.

  22. Giapros V, Evagelidou E, Challa A, et al. Serum adiponectin and leptin levels and insulin resistance in children born large for gestational age are affected by the degree of overweight. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2007;66(3):353–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Surkan PJ, Hsieh C-C, Johansson ALV, et al. Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):720–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hedderson MM, Weiss NS, Sacks DA, et al. Pregnancy weight gain and risk of neonatal complications: macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1153–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siega-Riz AM, Viswanathan M, Moos M-K, et al. A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):339.e1-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ehrenberg HM, Dierker L, Milluzzi C, et al. Prevalence of maternal obesity in an urban center. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(5):1189–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Isaacs JD, Magann EF, Martin RW, et al. Obstetric challenges of massive obesity complicating pregnancy. J Perinatol. 1994;14(1):10–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Galtier-Dereure F, Boegner C, Bringer J. Obesity and pregnancy: complications and cost. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(5 Suppl):1242S–8S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25(8):1175–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Crane SS, Wojtowycz MA, Dye TD, et al. Association between pre-pregnancy obesity and the risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(2):213–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson SR, Kolberg BH, Varner MW, et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987;164(5):431–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bianco AT, Smilen SW, Davis Y, et al. Pregnancy outcome and weight gain recommendations for the morbidly obese woman. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(1):97–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cnattingius S, Bergström R, Lipworth L, et al. Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(3):147–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(2):219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lederman SA, Paxton A. Maternal reporting of pre pregnancy weight and birth outcome: consistency and completeness compared with the clinical record. Maternal Child Health J. 1998;2(2):123–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support and cooperation extended by the Heads of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department Units 3 and 5 of CMC for sharing their data with us. I sincerely thank and acknowledge the help rendered by Dr. Shuba Kumar (Social Scientist, SAMARTH, NGO, Chennai, India) in proof reading the manuscript. All the contributions by the authors to the research work were voluntary and not funded by any organization. The data were collected by the Clinical Data Management Centre, the Department of Biostatistics, Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Authors’ contributions

LJ was involved in phrasing the research questions. He was involved in the verification of analytic results, which were done by BY and SV. He was involved in drafting the methods section. He also participated in the interpretation of results section along with RJ. BY was Involved in data abstraction supervision, and quality control assurance. He was also involved in data analyses and interpretation. He was further involved in the literature review and drafting the Background section. VS was involved in developing data entry system in EPIINFO and involved in Data Validation part. He was also involved in data analyses and verified the analytic codes. RV was involved in drafting the Background section along with BY. She was involved in the literature review and guiding the Biostatisticians in analyses. She was also involved in writing the Discussion section. RJ has provided leadership in phrasing the research question, was involved in designing the methods of data abstraction and verified the results, and drafted the Discussion section, reviewed, and approved the overall manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632002, India

    Lakshmanan Jeyaseelan, Bijesh Yadav & Veerasamy Silambarasan

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit IV, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632002, India

    Reeta Vijayaselvi & Ruby Jose

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit IV, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, India

    Ruby Jose

Authors
  1. Lakshmanan Jeyaseelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bijesh Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veerasamy Silambarasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reeta Vijayaselvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ruby Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruby Jose.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Lakshmanan Jeyaseelan (LJ), Bijesh Yadav (BY), Veerasamy Silambarasan (VS), Dr. Reeta Vijayaaselvi (RV) and Dr. Ruby Jose (RJ) declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Christian Medical College, Vellore [IRB Min. No. 7109 dated 10.03.2010].

Informed Consent

The Institutional Review Board of Christian Medical College Vellore provided consent for this research paper as recorded in the following minutes (IRB Min. No. 7109 dated 10.03.2010).

Additional information

Lakshmanan Jeyaseelan is a Professor, Bijesh Yadav is a Senior Demonstrator, Veerasamy Silambarasan is a Research Fellow in the Department of Biostatistics, Reeta Vijayaselvi is a Assistant Professor, Ruby Jose is a Professor and Head in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit IV, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.

Publishing datasets

The dataset will not be available for publishing online since further research has been planned.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeyaseelan, L., Yadav, B., Silambarasan, V. et al. Large for Gestational Age Births Among South Indian Women: Temporal Trend and Risk Factors from 1996 to 2010. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 42–50 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0765-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0765-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation