Abstract
Objective To compare placental pathology and fetal growth in pregnancies with an isolated fetal neural tube defect (NTD; cases) to those without congenital anomalies (controls). We hypothesised that cases would be at an increased risk of placental pathology and poorer anthropometric outcomes at birth compared to controls
Methods We performed a matched case-cohort study using data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project. Cases (n=74) and controls (n=148) were matched (1:2 ratio) for maternal pre-pregnancy BMI, maternal race, infant sex, gestational age at birth and study site. Primary outcomes were placental characteristics (weight and size measurements, pathology). Secondary outcomes were infant birth outcomes. Subgroup analysis was done by type of NTD (spina bifida, anencephaly or encephalocele), infant sex, and preterm/term delivery. Data were analysed using adjusted generalized linear and nominal logistic regression models. Results are presented as adjusted β or adjusted odds ratio (aOR; 95% confidence interval).
Results Cases had lower placental weight (β=-22.2 g [-37.8 – −6.6]), surface area (β=-9.6 cm2 [-18.3 – −1.0]) and birth length z-scores (β=-0.4 [-0.7 – −0.001]) compared to controls. Cases were more likely to have a single umbilical artery (vs. two; 6 [8.1%] vs. 1 [0.7%]; aOR=301 [52.6 – 1726]), overall placental hypermaturity (9 [12.2%] vs. 5 [3.4%]; aOR=6.8 [3.1 – 14.7]), and many (vs. few) Hofbauer cells (9 [12.2%] vs. 7 [4.7%]; aOR=3.02 [1.2 – 7.3]), stromal fibrosis (9 [12.2%] vs. 10 [6.8%]; aOR=3.0 [1.4 – 6.3]) and pathological edema (11 [14.9%] vs. 12 [8.1%]; aOR=3.04 [1.4 – 6.7]) in placental terminal villi compared to controls. Placental pathology varied across NTD subtypes, infant sex, and preterms vs. term pregnancies.
Conclusions Fetuses with isolated NTDs may be at increased risk of placental pathology, which could be contributing to poor fetal growth in these pregnancies and subsequent postnatal morbidities.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received to support this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Carleton University Research Ethics Board (REB) exempts publicly available and anonymous data from REB review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available in the United States National Archives at https://www.archives.gov/research/electronic-records/nih.html, National Archives Identifier: 606622 (Record Group 443: Records of the National Institutes of Health [NIH]). Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.
