Contribution Factors on Congenital Malformations in Neonates in Iran

authors:

avatar Sevda Riyahifar ORCID 1 , avatar Reza Ali Akbari Khoei ORCID 2 , avatar Kayvan Mirnia ORCID 3 , *

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Children’s Medical Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
Iranian Journal of Pediatrics: Vol.31, issue 5; e105984
published online: October 20, 2021
article type: Research Article
received: June 2, 2020
revised: March 8, 2021
accepted: September 24, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/ijp.105984

how to cite: Riyahifar S, Ali Akbari Khoei R, Mirnia K. Contribution Factors on Congenital Malformations in Neonates in Iran. Iran J Pediatr. 2021;31(5):e105984. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijp.105984.

Abstract

Background:

Congenital malformations are one of the most important and common types of anomalies in infants, and they are considered as the leading causes of disability and mortality in children. These malformations impose enormous costs on families and organizations involved in the treatment, maintenance, and education of patients.

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the risk factors affecting the incidence of congenital anomalies in infants born in Iran.

Methods:

In this retrospective descriptive-analytical study, we registered various information of all newborns examined and their mothers, including gender, family relationship of parents, type of delivery, types of congenital malformations, anomalies of the hands and feet, and anomalies of the nervous and reproductive systems in the maternity wards of hospitals in Iran. Data were gathered using a checklist. The relationships between different factors were assessed by chi-square test, and the factors influencing congenital malformations were investigated by logistic regression using SPSS-26 software. The significance level of all tests was 0.05.

Results:

According to the results, 7.5% of newborns had congenital malformations. Eclampsia and diabetes mellitus increased the risk of congenital malformations by 15 and 11%, respectively. The risk of congenital malformations in rural areas was 12% higher than in urban areas. Factors such as consanguineous marriages, history of abortion, and gender also affected the risk of congenital malformations.

Conclusions:

Necessary measures and plans in the field of premarital counseling, regular pre-pregnancy and post-pregnancy tests and controls, especially in rural and deprived areas, are essential and effective in reducing the incidence of congenital malformations.

1. Background

Congenital malformations are structural or functional anomalies at birth that lead to physical, mental, and developmental disabilities (1, 2). Genetic and environmental factors, as well as a combination of them, may cause congenital malformations. Appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic tools have gradually improved over the past decades and helped us to identify better and reduce the long-term effects and mortality. Early identification of congenital malformations is the first step to providing useful genetic counseling for parents. Nowadays, due to the importance of life expectancy in newborns, congenital malformations are the most crucial issue in health care (3). Annually, an average of 3 - 6% of newborns, about 8 million babies worldwide, are born with a severe congenital malformation, and estimates show that more than 90% of these babies are born in low- and average-income countries (4). Congenital malformations can occur as a defect or a combination of defects (5). Research showed that about 65 - 75% of congenital malformations are multifactorial. According to the results of several studies, factors such as defects in one or more genes (6), hereditary factors (7), diabetes mellitus (8-10), mother’s age (11), mother’s living environment during pregnancy (12), and consanguineous marriage (13-15) are the influencing factors for congenital malformations.

In a retrospective study by Verma et al. (1991) conducted on 10,000 babies born between January 1983 and March 1989, the prevalence of congenital malformations was reported as 6.6%. In this study, most of the anomalies were due to central nervous system (CNS). Anomalies were similar in both genders, although genital anomalies were more common in boys (16). Some chronic diseases like diabetes mellitus and high blood pressure in mothers are known as risk factors for many congenital malformations (17, 18).

2. Objectives

This study aimed to examine the factors affecting the birth of infants with congenital malformations using logistic regression.

3. Methods

3.1. Patient Population

We conducted this study based on the data of neonatal malformations registered in Iranian Maternal and Neonatal Network (IMAN). In this retrospective descriptive-analytical study, we analyzed the information of all live births and their mothers in 2015 in maternity hospitals of Iran in terms of variables such as gender, birth weight of the baby, consanguineous marriage, location of residence, chronic and underlying maternal diseases, and type of delivery. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (IR.TBZMED.REC.1399.688).

3.2. Data Collection

In this study, the information was analyzed based on all severe congenital malformations, including hands, feet, and nervous system malformations, gastrointestinal disorders, and genital malformations. Data gathering was performed using a checklist.

3.3. Statistical Analyses

Data analysis was done using chi-square test to investigate the associations between different factors and factors affecting congenital malformations. Logistic regression has been used by SPSS-26 software. P-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Out of a total of 1,491,883 newborns and their mothers, 111,211 (7.5%) babies were born with congenital malformations. Most of these infants had one or two anomalies (83.77% had one malformation, and 10.80% had two malformations). Also, 768,782 (51.6%) infants were male and 722,416 (48.4%) were female. Table 1 shows the information about newborns and their mothers.

Table 1.

Distribution of Quality Characteristics of Mothers a

VariableNo. (%)
Chronic blood pressure
Yes16076 (1.1)
No1475807 (98.9)
Eclampsia
Yes22330 (1.5)
No1469553 (98.5)
Diabetes mellitus
Yes39152 (2.6)
No1452731 (97.4)
Consanguineous marriage
Yes1175211 (78.8)
No316672 (21.2)
Place of residence
Rural371006 (24.9)
Urban1120877 (75.1)
History of abortion
Yes255240 (17.1)
No1236643 (82.9)

a Diabetes variables include all mothers with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The following tables show the associations between the variables of chronic blood pressure, eclampsia, diabetes, gender, history of abortion, and place of residence of parents with a malformation based on the chi-square test. As can be seen in Tables 2 to 8, all the variables had a significant relationship with congenital malformations, except chronic blood pressure (P-value < 0.05).

Table 2.

Congenital Malformation and Chronic Blood Pressure Cross-tab

Chronic Blood Pressure, Count (%)Test Results
NoYesχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation0.97010.325
No1365827 (98.9)14845 (1.1)
Yes109980 (98.9)1231 (1.1)
Table 3.

Congenital Malformation and Eclampsia Cross-tab

Eclampsia, Count (%)Test Results
NoYesχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation37.1511< 0.001
No1360244 (98.5)20428 (1.5)
Yes109309 (98.3)1902 (1.7)
Table 4.

Congenital Malformation and Diabetes Cross-tab

Diabetes Mellitus, Count (%)Test Results
NoYesχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation48.3091< 0.001
No1344795 (97.4)35877 (2.6)
Yes107936 (97.1)3275 (2.9)
Table 5.

Congenital Malformation and Abortion History Cross-tab

Abortion history, Count (%)Test Results
NoYesχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation69.6661< 0.001
No1145467 (83.0)235205 (17.0)
Yes91176 (82.0)20035 (18.0)
Table 6.

Congenital Malformation and Consanguineous Marriage Cross-tab

Consanguineous Marriage, Count (%)Test Results
NoYesχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation85.7801< 0.001
No1088821 (78.9)291851 (21.1)
Yes86390 (77.7)24821 (22.3)
Table 7.

Congenital Malformation and Place of Residence Cross-tab

Place of Residence, Count (%)Test Results
UrbanRuralχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation202.6981< 0.001
No345324 (25.0)1035348 (75.0)
Yes25682 (23.1)85529 (76.9)
Table 8.

Congenital Malformation and Gender Cross-tab

Gender, Count (%)Test Results
BoyGirlχ2dfP-Value
Congenital malformation13.3041< 0.001
No710999(51.5)669251 (48.5)
Yes57783 (52.1)53165 (47.9)

4.2. Logistic Regression

After examining the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables (congenital malformations), eclampsia, diabetes mellitus, consanguineous marriages, place of residence, gender, and history of abortion entered the logistic regression model (Table 9).

Table 9.

Logistic Regression Analysis for Determining the Effect of Essential Factors on Congenital Neonatal Malformations

Variables and LevelsCoefficientStandard ErrorP-ValueOdds Ratio95% CI for Odds Ratio
Intercept-2.6490.0080.0000.07-
Eclampsia
NoReference----
Yes0.1380.0240.0001.15(1.095, 1.204)
Diabetes mellitus
NoReference----
Yes0.1060.0190.0001.11(1.072, 1.153)
Abortion history
NoReference----
Yes0.0610.0080.0001.06(1.046, 1.080)
Consanguineous marriage
NoReference----
Yes0.0780.0080.0001.08(1.066, 1.098)
Habitat
UrbanReference----
Rural0.1110.0070.0001.12(1.101, 1.133)
Gender
FemaleReference----
Male0.0220.0060.0001.02(1.010, 1.035)

We analyzed the cause of birth anomalies by logistic regression analysis as the dependent variable, and the variables of eclampsia, diabetes mellitus, consanguineous marriage, place of residence, gender, and history of abortion were predictive (independent) variables. A total number of 1,491,883 neonates entered the analysis, and the full model was significant (χ2 = 456.250, df = 7, P-value < 0.001). The results showed that the variables of eclampsia, diabetes, consanguineous marriage, place of residence, infant’s gender, and history of abortion significantly predicted the infants’ congenital malformations. The chance of having a baby with congenital malformation was 15% higher in mothers with eclampsia than in healthy mothers, and 11% higher in mothers with diabetes mellitus than in healthy mothers. Also, the chance of having a baby with congenital malformations in rural areas was 12% higher than in urban areas. A history of abortion, consanguineous marriage, and the infant’s gender were factors influencing the onset of congenital malformations, although the odds ratios (OR) for these variables were close to 1.

5. Discussion

There are several influencing factors for congenital malformations, including chronic maternal illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, eclampsia, a history of abortion, and consanguineous marriages. These factors increase the chance of congenital malformations in babies. Moreover, in rural areas, the rate of congenital malformations was higher than urban areas. This may be due to the lack of facilities, regular tests, and ultrasounds, which indicates more serious attention for planning services of premarital counseling, testing, controls, and health services during pregnancy in rural areas. Also, male infants were more likely to have congenital malformations than female ones. In a study by Verma et al., maternal factors such as previous abortions, drug abuse, fever in the first trimester of pregnancy, diabetes mellitus, eclampsia, and anti-drip bleeding had a significant association with congenital malformations in infants. Our study showed a significant association between factors such as diabetes mellitus, eclampsia, and previous maternal abortions with congenital malformations in infants, which is consistent with the results of the study by Verma et al. In the study conducted by Verma et al., the malformations were similar in both genders, but in our study male infants had more malformations (16). In a multicenter case-control study in 2008, Correa et al. used data from approximately 18,000 deliveries from October 1997 to December 2003. In their study, there was a strong association between diabetes mellitus and congenital malformation, which is in line with our study results (17). In a 2012 cross-sectional study, Lin et al. concluded that the prevalence of congenital malformation in urban areas was higher than in rural areas, which is inconsistent with the results of our study (19). Kar et al. (2018), in a non-interventional hospital-based clinical trial study gathered data from September 2015 to August 2016 to analyze the prevalence of congenital malformation and the factors affecting it. They concluded that one of the factors influencing the incidence of congenital malformations is living in rural places, which is consistent with the results of our study (20). In a 2016 study in northern Iran, Kaviany et al. concluded that congenital malformations were significantly related to consanguineous marriages, which was similar to our study (21).

In a 2016 review study, Ng (22) found that consanguineous marriages may increase the chance of getting congenital malformation. Also, in a cross-sectional study conducted on 138 married couples and their children in 2016 by Al-Joborae et al., the prevalence of congenital malformations was significantly higher for parents with relatives (especially close relatives such as cousins) than the stranger parents (23). The results of these studies are similar to those obtained in the present study.

Lary and Paulozzi studied the prevalence of congenital malformations and concluded that male infants were more at risk for congenital malformations than females, which is in line with our study (24). In a 2014 descriptive-analytical study, Amini Nasab et al. examined the data of 118 infants from 2007 to 2011. Their results showed that congenital malformation was more common in male infants (55.9%) than in females (44.1%) (25). These results are also similar to our results.

Although chronic blood pressure is one of the most important and influential factors in the birth of babies with congenital malformations (18, 26, 27), we did not witness the effect of this factor in our study. Bellizzi et al. (2016) analyzed data from the World Health Organization (WHO) multi-country survey in which they reported 310,401 babies from 359 centers in 29 countries. They used logistic regression model with a random effect for detecting associations between six widespread congenital malformations and four high blood pressure disorders in mothers in the form of chronic blood pressure, preeclampsia, eclampsia, and chronic hypertention. This study showed that high blood pressure in mothers significantly increased the risk of congenital malformations of the kidneys, limbs, and lips/cleft/palate (18).

5.1. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that such measures as premarital counseling, regular pre-pregnancy and post-pregnancy tests, and controls, especially in rural and deprived areas, are essential to reduce the incidence of congenital malformations in Iran.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects--Atlanta, Georgia, 1978-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57(1):1-5.

  • 2.

    World Health Organization. Zika situation report: Neurological syndrome and congenital anomalies. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016.

  • 3.

    Corsello G, Giuffre M. Congenital malformations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(Suppl 1):25-9. [PubMed ID: 22356564]. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.664943.

  • 4.

    Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B. March of dimes: Global report on birth defects, the hidden toll of dying and disabled children. USA: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 2005.

  • 5.

    Klimo P, Rao G, Brockmeyer D. Congenital anomalies of the cervical spine. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2007;18(3):463-78. [PubMed ID: 17678749]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2007.04.005.

  • 6.

    Nasreen A, Naib JM, Ibrar M. Frequency of birth defects and associated risk factors. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2016;10(2):541-3.

  • 7.

    Perveen F, Tyyab S. Frequency and pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn and associated maternal risk factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17(6):340-3. [PubMed ID: 17623582].

  • 8.

    Rittler M, Lopez-Camelo J, Castilla EE. Sex ratio and associated risk factors for 50 congenital anomaly types: Clues for causal heterogeneity. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2004;70(1):13-9. [PubMed ID: 14745890]. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.10131.

  • 9.

    Basu M, Zhu JY, LaHaye S, Majumdar U, Jiao K, Han Z, et al. Epigenetic mechanisms underlying maternal diabetes-associated risk of congenital heart disease. JCI Insight. 2017;2(20). [PubMed ID: 29046480]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5846898]. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.95085.

  • 10.

    Adams MM, Mulinare J, Dooley K. Risk factors for conotruncal cardiac defects in Atlanta. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;14(2):432-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(89)90199-x.

  • 11.

    Loane M, Dolk H, Morris JK; Eurocat Working Group. Maternal age-specific risk of non-chromosomal anomalies. BJOG. 2009;116(8):1111-9. [PubMed ID: 19485989]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02227.x.

  • 12.

    Dolk H, Vrijheid M. The impact of environmental pollution on congenital anomalies. Br Med Bull. 2003;68:25-45. [PubMed ID: 14757708]. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg024.

  • 13.

    Naibkhil N, Chitkara E. Consanguineous marriages increase risk of congenital anomalies-studies in four generation of an Afghan family. Biomed Res J. 2016;27(1):34-9.

  • 14.

    Zahid M. Cousin marriage in the light of Islam and medical science. UOCHJRS. 2019;2(4):36-45. https://doi.org/10.33195/uochjrs-v2i(4)1162019.

  • 15.

    Younis M, Sasikala K, Anand AV, Iqbal J, Kailash S, Hura MUD. Genetic analysis, health issues and consanguineous marriage in muslim community. Int J Sci Res Sci Technol. 2018;4:100-7.

  • 16.

    Verma M, Chhatwal J, Singh D. Congenital malformations—a retrospective study of 10,000 cases. Indian J Pediatr. 1991;58(2):245-52.

  • 17.

    Correa A, Gilboa SM, Besser LM, Botto LD, Moore CA, Hobbs CA, et al. Diabetes mellitus and birth defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(3):237 e1-9. [PubMed ID: 18674752]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.028.

  • 18.

    Bellizzi S, Ali MM, Abalos E, Betran AP, Kapila J, Pileggi-Castro C, et al. Are hypertensive disorders in pregnancy associated with congenital malformations in offspring? Evidence from the WHO Multicountry cross sectional survey on maternal and newborn health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):198. [PubMed ID: 27473210]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4966715]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0987-8.

  • 19.

    Lin L, Ni B, Lin H, Zhang M, Li X, Yin X, et al. Traditional usages, botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of Polygonum multiflorum Thunb.: A review. J Ethnopharmacol. 2015;159:158-83. [PubMed ID: 25449462]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7127521]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2014.11.009.

  • 20.

    Kar A, Nanda S, Kar T, Dhal I, Satpathy BP, Mohapatra K. Prevalence and spectrum of congenital anomalies in multiple births with analysis of demographic and obstetric risk factors. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(9). https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2018/32531.12032.

  • 21.

    Kaviany N, Sedehi M, Golalipour E, Aryaie M, Golalipour M. Birth defects and parental consanguinity in the north of Iran. BMJ. 2016;16(8):1-7. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjmmr/2016/26374.

  • 22.

    Ng D. The implications of parental consanguinity on the care of neonates. Adv Neonatal Care. 2016;16(4):273-82. [PubMed ID: 27391567]. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000317.

  • 23.

    Al-Joborae SFF, al-Sadik ERA, A-Humairi AKH, Al-Joborae HFF, Hussein AMA. A study of the association of parental consanguinity with birth defects and neonatal medical problems in Babylon Province. Journal of University of Babylon, Pure and Applied Sciences. 2018;26(6):143-53.

  • 24.

    Lary JM, Paulozzi LJ. Sex differences in the prevalence of human birth defects: A population-based study. Teratology. 2001;64(5):237-51. [PubMed ID: 11745830]. https://doi.org/10.1002/tera.1070.

  • 25.

    Amini Nasab Z, Aminshokravi F, Moodi M, Eghbali B, Fatemimogadam F. [Demographical condition of neonates with congenital abnormalities under Birjand city health centers during 2007-2012]. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2014;21(1):96-103. Persian.

  • 26.

    Fisher SC, Van Zutphen AR, Werler MM, Lin AE, Romitti PA, Druschel CM, et al. Maternal antihypertensive medication use and congenital heart defects: Updated results from the national birth defects prevention study. Hypertension. 2017;69(5):798-805. [PubMed ID: 28373593]. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08773.

  • 27.

    Roman AS. Taking a rational approach to hypertension in the pregnant patient. Contemporary OB/GYN. 2019;64(5):35-7.