Over the past quarter century it has become clear that adult onset chronic diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes have their roots in early development. The report by David Barker and colleagues showing an inverse relationship between birthweight and mortality from ischemic heart disease was the first clear-cut demonstration of fetal programming. Because fetal growth depends upon the placental capacity to transport nutrients from maternal blood, it has been a suspected causative agent since the original Barker reports. Epidemiological studies have shown that placental size and shape have powerful associations with offspring disease. More recent studies have shown that maternal phenotypic characteristics, such as body mass index and height, interact with placental size and shape to predict disease with much more precision than does birthweight alone. For example, among people in the Helsinki Birth Cohort, who were born during 1924–1944, the risk for acquiring colorectal cancer increased as the placental surface became longer and more oval. Among people in whom the difference between the length and breadth of the surface exceeded 6 cm, the hazard ratio for the cancer was 2.3 (95% CI 1.2–4.7, p=0.003) compared with those in whom there was no difference. Among Finnish men, the hazard ratio for coronary heart disease was 1.07 (1.02–1.13, P =0.01) per 1% increase in the placental weight/birthweight ratio. Thus, it appears that the ratio of birthweight to placental weight, known as placental efficiency, predicts cardiovascular risk as well. Babies born with placentas at the extremes of efficiency are more vulnerable for adult onset chronic diseases. Recent evidence suggests that placental growth patterns are sex specific. Boys’ placentas are, in general, more efficient than those made by girls. Another recent discovery is that the size, shape and efficiencies of the placenta can change over years of time with very narrow confidence limits. This suggests that the growth of the placenta within a population of women is strongly affected by their nutritional environment. Even though it is known that an individual placenta can expand to improve its nutrient acquisition capacity in the first 2/3(rd) of gestation, the mechanisms by which placentas grow in response to a specific nutritional environment are not known. Discovering those mechanisms is the task of the current generation of scientists. While it may seem obvious that good nutrition is highly important for women who are pregnant because it supports optimal placentation and fetal development, more research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which maternal nutrition, placenta growth and fetal health are related.
PMID 26428494 26428494 DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.030 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.030
Cite this article
Thornburg, K., & Marshall, N. (2015). The placenta is the center of the chronic disease universe. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 213(4 Suppl), S14-S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.030
Thornburg K, Marshall N. The placenta is the center of the chronic disease universe. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4 Suppl):S14-S20. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.030
Thornburg, Kent, and Nicole Marshall. "The placenta is the center of the chronic disease universe." American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 213, no. 4 Suppl, 2015, pp. S14-S20.
Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.
We sought to assess the relationship between a short interpregnancy interval (IPI) following a pregnancy loss and subsequent live birth and pregnancy outcomes. A secondary analysis of women enrolled in the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction trial with a human chorionic gonadotropin-positive pregnancy test and whose last reproductive outcome was a loss were included in this analysis (n = 677). IPI was defined as the time between last pregnancy loss and last menstrual period of the current pregnancy and categorized by 3-month intervals. Pregnancy outcomes include live birth, pregnancy loss, and any pregnancy complications. These were compared between IPI groups using multivariate relative risk estimation by Poisson regression. Demographic characteristics were similar between IPI groups. The mean gestational age of prior pregnancy loss was 8.6 ± 2.8 weeks. The overall live birth rate was 76.5%, with similar live birth rates between those with IPI ≤3 months as compared to IPI >3 months (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.16). Rates were also similar for periimplantation loss (aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.51-1.80), clinically confirmed loss (aRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51-1.10), and any pregnancy complication (aRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09) for those with IPI ≤3 months as compared to IPI >3 months. Live birth rates and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy loss, were not associated with a very short IPI after a prior pregnancy loss. The traditional recommendation to wait at least 3 months after a pregnancy loss before attempting a new pregnancy may not be warranted.
Cesarean delivery is a major source of maternal morbidity, and repeat cesarean delivery accounts for 40% of cesarean delivery, but recent data on the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean are limited. This study aimed to report the national rates of trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean by number of previous cesarean deliveries and examine the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on these rates. This was a population-based cohort study using the US natality data files. The study sample was restricted to 4,135,247 nonanomalous singleton, cephalic deliveries between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, with a history of previous cesarean delivery and delivered in a hospital between 2010 and 2019. Deliveries were grouped by number of previous cesarean deliveries (1, 2, or ≥3). The trial of labor after cesarean (deliveries with labor among deliveries with previous cesarean delivery) and vaginal birth after cesarean (vaginal deliveries among trial of labor after cesarean) rates were computed for each year. The rates were further subgrouped by history of previous vaginal delivery. Year of delivery, number of previous cesarean deliveries, history of previous cesarean delivery, age, race and ethnicity, maternal education, obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, inadequate prenatal care, Medicaid payer, and gestational age were examined concerning the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean using multiple logistic regression. SAS software (version 9.4) was used for all analyses. The trial of labor after cesarean rates increased from 14.4% in 2010 to 19.6% in 2019 (P<.001). This trend was seen in all categories of number of previous cesarean deliveries. Moreover, vaginal birth after cesarean rates increased from 68.5% in 2010 to 74.3% in 2019. The trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean rates were the highest for deliveries with a history of both 1 previous cesarean delivery and a vaginal delivery (28.9% and 79.7%, respectively) and the lowest for those with a history of ≥3 previous cesarean deliveries and no history of vaginal delivery (4.5% and 46.9%, respectively). Factors associated with the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean rates are similar, but several factors have different directions of effect, such as non-White race and ethnicity, which is associated with a higher likelihood of trial of labor after cesarean but a lower likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean. More than 80% of patients with a history of previous cesarean delivery deliver by repeat scheduled cesarean delivery. With vaginal birth after cesarean rates increasing among those who attempt a trial of labor after cesarean, emphasis should be put on safely increasing the trial of labor after cesarean rates.
Objective Complicated grief reactions follow some pregnancy outcomes, like miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. Stigma can delay treatment and worsen outcomes. Screening tools such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale detect complicated grief poorly, and specific tools for prolonged or complicated grief after a reproductive loss are cumbersome. In this study, a five-item questionnaire to detect complicated grief after reproductive loss of any type was designed and preliminary validated. Methods A questionnaire patterned after the extensively validated Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) was created by a group of physicians and lay advocates to employ non-traumatic but specific language related to grief after miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. One hundred and forty women at a large academic center were recruited in person and via social media to validate the questionnaire with well-studied instruments for anxiety (7-item Panic Disorder Severity Scale, PDSS), trauma (22-item Impact of Events Scale), and reproductive grief and depressive symptoms (33-item Perinatal Grief Scale [PGS]). Results The response rate was 74.9%. Of the 140 participants, 18 (12.8%) experienced their loss during high-risk pregnancies, and 65 (46.4%) were recruited via social media. Seventy-one (51%) respondents had a score > 4, a positive screen for the BGQ. On average, women experienced their loss 2 years prior to participation (IQR 1-5 years). Cronbach's alpha was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.83). The goodness of fit indices of the model met Fornell and Larker criteria (RMSEA = 0.167, CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.06). The AVE was 0.42 and the CR 0.78. Conclusions This investigator-created screening tool is internally consistent and meets preliminary criteria for discriminant validity. This tool can be refined prior to testing for sensitivity and specificity in screening for complicated grief after a reproductive loss.