Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: Population based study

537Citations
Citations of this article
327Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To provide perinatal mortality and congenital anomaly rates for babies born to women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Design: National population based pregnancy cohort. Setting: 231 maternity units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Participants: 2359 pregnancies to women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who delivered between 1 March 2002 and 28 February 2003. Main outcome measures: Stillbirth rates; perinatal and neonatal mortality; prevalence of congenital anomalies. Results: Of 2359 women with diabetes, 652 had type 2 diabetes and 1707 had type 1 diabetes. Women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to come from a black, Asian, or other ethnic minority group (type 2, 48.8%; type 1, 9.1%) and from a deprived area (type 2, 46.3% in most deprived fifth; type 1, 22.8%). Perinatal mortality in babies of women with diabetes was 31.8/1000 births. Perinatal mortality was comparable in babies of women with type 1 (31.7/1000 births) and type 2 diabetes (32.3/1000) and was nearly four times higher than that in the general maternity population. 141 major congenital anomalies were confirmed in 109 offspring. The prevalence of major congenital anomaly was 46/1000 births in women with diabetes (48/1000 births for type 1 diabetes; 43/1000 for type 2 diabetes), more than double that expected. This increase was driven by anomalies of the nervous system, notably neural tube defects.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Macintosh, M. C. M., Fleming, K. M., Bailey, J. A., Doyle, P., Modder, J., Acolet, D., … Miller, A. (2006). Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: Population based study. British Medical Journal, 333(7560), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38856.692986.AE

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free