4.5 Article

Lower rate of selected congenital heart defects with better maternal diet quality: a population-based study

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-308013

关键词

Congenital Abnorm; Epidemiology; Cardiology

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities [U50/CCU913241, U50/CCU822097]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate whether better diet quality in mothers is associated with lower risk for major non-syndromic congenital heart defects in their children. Design Multicentre population-based case-control study, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Setting Ten sites in the USA. Participants Mothers of babies with major non-syndromic congenital heart defects (n=9885) and mothers with unaffected babies (n=9468) with estimated date of delivery from 1997 to 2009. Main outcome measures Adjusted ORs for specific major congenital heart defects by quartiles of maternal diet quality in the year before pregnancy, assessed by the Diet Quality Index for pregnancy (DQI-P) and the Mediterranean Diet Score. Quartile 1 (Q1) reflecting the worst diet quality and Q4 the best diet quality. Results Better diet quality was associated with reduced risk for some conotruncal and atrial septal heart defects. For DQI-P, estimated risks reductions (Q4 vs Q1) for conotruncal defects were 37% for tetralogy of Fallot (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80) and 24% overall (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91); and for septal defects, 23% for atrial septal defects (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94) and 14% overall (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00). Risk reductions were weaker or minimal for most other major congenital heart defects. Conclusions Better diet quality is associated with a reduced occurrence of some conotruncal and septal heart defects. This finding suggests that a reduction in certain cardiac malformations may be an additional benefit of improved maternal diet quality, reinforcing current preconception care recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据