Deformations in infants of diabetic and control pregnancies

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for malformations in newborn infants exposed to potential teratogens

BACKGROUND

The surveillance of newborn infants exposed to potential teratogens often relies on the findings in routine physicians' examinations to identify malformations. Exposed newborn infants can have a wide variety of physical features, including malformations, birth marks, positional deformities, and minor anomalies. The routine physician's findings are not standardized. Some physicians record a wide variety of physical features and others do not. The purpose of this study was to develop criteria and definitions for identifying malformations and for identifying the more common and less severe physical features that would be excluded as not being malformations.

METHODS

The physical features recorded by the examining pediatricians were obtained from a review of the medical records of a consecutive sample of 1000 liveborn and stillborn infants and elective terminations for fetal anomalies.

RESULTS

A malformation, defined as a structural abnormality with surgical, medical or cosmetic importance, was present in 18 (2.8%) of the infants; 222 other recorded features were identified and excluded: malformations attributed to dominant or recessive genes (4) or chromosome abnormalities (6), minor anomalies and normal variations (65), birth marks (110), positional deformities (6), prematurity-related features (5), physiologic findings (4) and findings identified by prenatal ultrasound (but not by the examining pediatrician) (20), functional abnormalities (1) and findings in newborn screening (1).

CONCLUSIONS

Investigators should establish, in advance, the exclusion criteria to be used in programs, such as malformation surveillance programs or pregnancy registries, whose findings are based on a review of the routine examinations in medical records. It is essential that the same criteria be used in evaluating the drug-exposed and the unexposed comparison group.

Do infants with major congenital anomalies have an excess of macrosomia?

BACKGROUND

Infants that develop congenital anomalies may also have an excess prevalence of macrosomia (birth weight > or =4,000 g). This may indicate that abnormalities of glycemic control play a role in the etiology of birth defects. This study was undertaken to determine whether all infants with congenital anomalies have an excess of macrosomia and whether it is confined to specific types of anomalies.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted, comparing the birth weights of 8,226 infants with congenital anomalies ascertained by the Texas Birth Defects Monitoring Division with those of 965,965 infants without birth defects. Odds ratios were calculated to determine the association between birth weight and congenital anomalies, for 45 specific defects, and for all these defects combined.

RESULTS

For all 45 defects combined, a significant association occurred only in the highest birth weight category. Infants with congenital anomalies were more likely than infants without birth defects to have a birth weight > or =4,500 g (OR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.39-1.96). Infants born with ventricular septal defects, atrial septal defects, ventricular hypertrophy, or anomalies of the great vessels were 1.5-2.5 times more likely to weigh > or =4,000 g than were infants without birth defects. Based on small numbers, a stronger excess of macrosomia was observed for infants with encephalocele, holoprosencephaly, anomalies of the corpus callosum, preaxial polydactyly, and omphalocele.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that infants with specific congenital anomalies are more likely to be macrosomic than are infants without an anomaly. If these findings are confirmed, associations between macrosomia and specific types of birth defects may help to identify birth defects that are caused by alterations in glycemic control.