Pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal

PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2019
Historique:
received: 14 03 2019
accepted: 28 06 2019
entrez: 7 8 2019
pubmed: 7 8 2019
medline: 10 1 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes. In our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age. PROSPERO CRD42017051537.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
In our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017051537.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31386658
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002866
pii: PMEDICINE-D-19-00986
pmc: PMC6684044
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1002866

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K02325X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2011-04-034
Pays : United Kingdom

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Obes Surg. 2004 Feb;14(2):230-5
pubmed: 15018752
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 May;30(10):1182-1188
pubmed: 27426696
N Engl J Med. 1992 Dec 24;327(26):1832-5
pubmed: 1307234
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Sep;216:56-60
pubmed: 28732251
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Aug;211(2):169-75
pubmed: 20670854
Obes Surg. 2016 Feb;26(2):443-51
pubmed: 26661108
Obes Surg. 2008 May;18(5):540-4
pubmed: 18317852
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):814-24
pubmed: 25714159
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;205(3):206.e1-8
pubmed: 21596369
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Aug;13(8):1384-1391
pubmed: 28526433
Diabetologia. 2017 Jan;60(1):153-157
pubmed: 27757488
Pediatr Obes. 2014 Dec;9(6):427-34
pubmed: 24339139
JAMA Surg. 2013 Feb;148(2):145-50
pubmed: 23560285
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
JAMA Surg. 2017 Feb 1;152(2):128-135
pubmed: 27760265
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Jul;130(1):3-9
pubmed: 25863541
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Dec;103(3):246-51
pubmed: 18768177
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 May;285(5):1211-8
pubmed: 22057892
BMJ. 2017 Feb 8;356:j1
pubmed: 28179267
PLoS Med. 2018 Sep 26;15(9):e1002656
pubmed: 30256796
Obes Surg. 1998 Aug;8(4):461-4; discussion 465-6
pubmed: 9731683
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):965-72
pubmed: 16260513
CMAJ. 2006 Apr 25;174(9):1273-7
pubmed: 16636326
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):220-6
pubmed: 16021083
Obes Surg. 2015 Nov;25(11):2030-9
pubmed: 25893647
Adv Nutr. 2015 Jul 15;6(4):420-9
pubmed: 26178026
Clin Obes. 2017 Jun;7(3):183-190
pubmed: 28320081
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 May;93(5):447-53
pubmed: 24592873
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Jan;5(1):53-64
pubmed: 27743978
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Nov;94(11):4275-83
pubmed: 19820018
Diabetologia. 2017 Dec;60(12):2504-2513
pubmed: 28918470
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(11):1747-50
pubmed: 26217944
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Sep;98(3):244-7
pubmed: 17433814
Obes Surg. 2016 Dec;26(12):2837-2842
pubmed: 27317009
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008 Jan-Feb;4(1):39-45
pubmed: 18201669
Obes Surg. 2010 Sep;20(9):1251-7
pubmed: 20524157
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;119(3):547-54
pubmed: 22353952
BMJ. 2013 Nov 12;347:f6460
pubmed: 24222480
Obes Rev. 2017 Mar;18(3):293-308
pubmed: 28085991
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Feb;27(3):275-8
pubmed: 23773032
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Oct;181:45-53
pubmed: 25126981
Obes Rev. 2015 Aug;16(8):621-38
pubmed: 26016557
Obes Surg. 2016 Nov;26(11):2581-2589
pubmed: 27052316
Obes Surg. 2004 Mar;14(3):318-24
pubmed: 15072650
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;218(6):573-580
pubmed: 29454871
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;131(3):451-456
pubmed: 29420411
BJOG. 2013 Nov;120(12):1477-82
pubmed: 23927006
Lancet. 2018 May 5;391(10132):1830-1841
pubmed: 29673873
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 May;190(5):1335-40
pubmed: 15167839
Int J Obes (Lond). 2015 Apr;39(4):686-94
pubmed: 25644056
Obes Surg. 2010 Nov;20(11):1501-8
pubmed: 20803358
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013 Mar;41(3):156-63
pubmed: 23099024
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;214(5):655.e1-7
pubmed: 26627725
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;208(6):464.e1-5
pubmed: 23467053
Nutrition. 2010 Nov-Dec;26(11-12):1031-7
pubmed: 20363593
Obes Surg. 2011 Jun;21(6):699-706
pubmed: 21331506

Auteurs

Zainab Akhter (Z)

Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Judith Rankin (J)

Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Dries Ceulemans (D)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Lem Ngongalah (L)

Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Roger Ackroyd (R)

Department of Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Roland Devlieger (R)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Rute Vieira (R)

Institute of Health Sciences Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

Nicola Heslehurst (N)

Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH