doi: 10.4103/2249-4847.
119998
PMCID: PMC3830148
Prevalence of Congenital Anomalies in
Neonates and Associated Risk Factors in a
Tertiary Care Hospital in Eastern India
Shatanik Sarkar, Chaitali Patra, Malay Kumar Dasgupta, Kaustav Nayek, and Prasanta Ray
Karmakar1
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Background:
Congenital anomalies are a major cause of stillbirths and neonatal mortality. The pattern and
prevalence of congenital anomalies may vary over time or with geographical location.
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of this study is to determine the proportion and types of congenital anomalies in live
newborns and to study maternal and perinatal risk factors.
Materials and Methods:
This cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out in the neonatal care unit of R. G. Kar
Medical College and Hospital during the period of September 2011 to August 2012. All the live
born babies born in this hospital during this period were included. The newborns were examined
for the presence of congenital anomalies and mothers were interviewed for socio-demographic
variables.
Results:
During the study period, 12,896 babies were born, of which 286 had congenital malformations,
making the prevalence 2.22%. Most of the women (55.7%) belonged to the age group between
21 and 30 years. Congenital anomalies were seen more commonly (3.3%) in the multiparas in
comparison with primiparas (1.8%). The predominant system involved was Musculo-skeletal
system (33.2%) followed by gastro-intestinal (GI) system (15%). Talipes (17.1%) was the most
common one in musculoskeletal group and likewise cleft lip and cleft palate in GI system.
Congenital anomalies were more likely to be associated with low birth weight, prematurity,
multiparity, consanguinity and cesarean delivery.
Conclusion:
Public awareness about preventable risk factors is to be created and early prenatal diagnosis and
management of common anomalies is strongly recommended.
Keywords: Congenital anomaly, prematurity, prevalence, risk factors, types
Go to:
INTRODUCTION
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) document of 1972, the term congenital
malformations should be confined to structural defects at birth.[1] However, as per the more
recent WHO fact-sheet of October 2012, congenital anomalies can be defined as structural or
functional anomalies, including metabolic disorders, which are present at the time of birth.[2]
Congenital anomalies are an important cause of neonatal mortality both in developed and
developing countries. It accounts for 8-15% of perinatal deaths and 13-16% of neonatal deaths in
India.[3,4] It is not only a leading cause of fetal loss, but also contributes significantly to preterm
birth, childhood and adult morbidity along with considerable repercussion on the mothers and
their families.
Go to:
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This study was undertaken to determine the proportion and pattern of congenital anomalies in
live newborns and to study the associated maternal and perinatal risk factors.
Go to:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out in the neonatal care unit of a tertiary care
Hospital in Kolkata during the period of August 2011 to July 2012. All the babies born with
congenital anomalies during this period were included. All still borns were excluded from this
study.
The newborns were examined and assessed systematically for the presence of congenital
anomalies. Diagnosis of congenital anomalies was based on clinical evaluation of newborn
babies by the pediatrician and other appropriate investigations such as radiography,
ultrasonography, echocardiography and chromosomal analysis etc., System wise distribution of
the anomalies was performed. For each case, a detailed antenatal and maternal history including
the age of the mothers, parity or the history of consanguinity were obtained by reviewing the
maternal and labour ward records and by interviewing the parents.
A marriage has been considered consanguineous, when that is found to have occurred between a
male and a female who are blood-related, e.g., between brother and sister, between 1st cousins
etc., Birth weights >2.5 kg were considered to be normal; whereas, birth weights <2.5 kg and
<1.5 kg were termed as low birth weight (LBW) and very low birth weight (VLBW)
respectively. Babies born at <37 completed weeks (i.e., <259 days), calculated from the 1st day
of last menstrual period, were considered as premature.
Data was entered into excel data sheet and appropriate statistical analysis was performed.
Proportion was calculated and the association was tested with Chi-square test and Fisher′s exact
test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Go to:
RESULTS
During the study period, 12896 newborns were born in our institution; of which 286 had
congenital malformations, making the prevalence 2.22%. Among all the newborns, 56 babies
were born of twin delivery, three of triplet delivery and five of these 59 babies, that were
products of multiple gestations, had one or more congenital anomalies. The congenital anomalies
affected significantly higher proportion of male babies (2.9%) than their female counterparts
(1.5%).
The predominant system involved was Musculo-skeletal system (33.2%) followed by gastro-
intestinal (GI) system (15%) and central nervous system (CNS) (11.2%) [Table 1]. Talipes
(17.1%) was the most common anomaly seen in the musculoskeletal group and likewise cleft lip
(6.6%) and cleft palate (3.5%) in GI system and meningomyeleceole (6.3%) in CNS.
Table 1
System wise distribution of congenital anomalies (n=286)
Regarding the parity of the mothers, 9,185 were primiparas and rest 3,425 were multiparas.
Cases of congenital anomaly were found in 3.3% of multiparas, whereas in primiparas, the
proportion was only 1.8%. It has been seen that more than half of the mothers were aged
between 20 and 30 years (55.7%) with only 10% of the mothers were over the age of 30 years.
The prevalence of congenitally anomalous babies born was 1.9% for mothers <20 years, 2.4%
for 20-30 years and 2.2% for >30 years. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
In the present study, 5 mothers had a history of consanguinity and two of them showed some
congenital anomaly (40%) in their babies, whereas in non-consanguineous couples, the
prevalence was only 2.2%. This percentage was about 18 times less than in consanguineous
couples and was highly significant. Prematurity and LBW was found to have a higher risk of
congenital anomalies. The occurrence was about 4.5 times more in case of preterm delivery as
compared with the term ones, making it statistically significant. Mode of delivery was also
significantly associated with congenital anomaly and it was more in case of cesarean deliveries
[Table 2].
Table 2
Association between congenital anomalies and maternal and perinatal risk factors
Go to:
DISCUSSION
The pattern and prevalence of congenital anomalies may vary over time or with geographical
location, reflecting a complex interaction of known and unknown genetic and environmental
factors including socio-cultural, racial and ethnic variables.[5] With improved control of
infections and nutritional deficiency diseases, congenital malformations have become important
causes of perinatal mortality in developing countries like India.[6]
In the present study, the prevalence of congenital malformations in the newborns were 2.22%,
which is comparable with the earlier studies from India, which reported incidence of 2.72% and
1.9%.[7,8] There are other reports from different parts of the world representing different
frequency of congenital malformations.[9,10] Although we got nearly the same result as reported
in other studies, [7,8,9,10,11] the prevalence of congenital anomaly would have been more than
the present rate, if we could have included the abortions and stillbirths. Tertiary care hospital
usually do not have definite catchment area and complicated cases are more commonly
encountered. Hence, prevalence calculated in this type of hospital-based study cannot be
projected to the total population. Community based study should be ideal for true estimation of
incidence of congenital anomalies in a population.
With regard to pattern of congenital anomalies in the study, the most common system involved
was musculoskeletal system (33.2%), followed by gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) (15%), CNS
(11.2%), genitourinary (10.5%), cardiovascular system (9.1%), skin (8.7%) etc., This was
comparable with studies conducted by others.[12,13,14,15,16,17] Some studies however
recorded higher incidence of CNS malformations followed by GIT and musculoskeletal system,
[9,18] whereas Suguna Bai et al.[19] reported GI malformations as the most common one.
More male babies with congenital anomalies than females were noted in the present study. Male
preponderance was similar to the other studies.[6,7] It may be because of the fact that the
females were afflicted with more lethal congenital malformations and could not survive to be
born with signs of life.
Association of LBW with increased risk of congenital malformations is very well-
documented.[6] Our finding is in accordance with that. The incidence of congenital anomalies
was significantly higher in preterm babies as compared with the full term babies, which is in
conformity with the previous studies reported from this country.[17] Mode of delivery also
showed a significant association with congenital anomalies in this study with cesarean section
being more commonly associated than normal delivery.
Suguna Bai et al.[19] reported a higher incidence of malformation in the babies born to mothers
aged over 35 years, whereas Dutta et al.[18] documented statistically insignificant association of
increased maternal age and congenital anomalies. The relationship between maternal age and
babies born with congenital malformations, in our study, revealed that a majority of malformed
babies were born of mothers aged 20-29 years; though, it was statistically insignificant.
Previous studies have reported significantly higher incidence of malformations among the
multiparas.[6] Our result is consistent with this finding, which indicates a positive correlation
between the birth order and the incidence of congenital anomalies.
Consanguineous marriages are reported to play a major role in the occurrence of congenital
malformations.[20] In the present study also, prevalence of malformed babies was more when
born out of consanguineous marriages as seen in studies from Kuwait, Arab [21,22] and also
India.[17]
Despite the high risk of recurrence of congenital malformations, there are no well-accepted
preventive measures in developing countries like India. It indicates that strong preventive
measures for congenital anomalies in this region are needed. Increasing awareness about
maternal care during pregnancy, educational programs on congenital malformations and the
consequences of consanguineous marriages need to be highlighted to decrease the incidence of
congenital anomalies and their comorbidities.
Limitations
As it is a tertiary care hospital or referral centre, prevalence calculated may be higher than the
general population in this hospital-based study. Hence, the data cannot be projected to the
general population, for which population-based studies are necessary. Secondly, we could not
include the abortions and stillborns, because often the abnormalities are not obvious or visible
externally. In those cases, a pathological autopsy is warranted and in most of the cases, parental
consent is not available for pathological autopsy.
Go to:
CONCLUSION
This study has highlighted the prevalence and types of congenital anomalies seen in our locality.
Regular antenatal visits and prenatal diagnosis are recommended for prevention, early
intervention and even planned termination, when needed.
Go to:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All the parents of the babies included in the study.
Go to:
Footnotes
Source of Support: Nil
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Go to:
REFERENCES
1. Patel ZM, Adhia RA. Birth defects surveillance study. Indian J Pediatr. 2005;72:489–91.
[PubMed]
2. World Health Organization. Section on congenital anomalies. [Cited on 2012 Oct]. Available
from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs370/en/
3. Bhat BV, Ravikumara M. Perinatal mortality in India-Need for introspection. Indian J Matern
Child Health. 1996;7:31–3.
4. Agarwal SS, Singh U, Singh PS, Singh SS, Das V, Sharma A, et al. Prevalence and spectrum
of congenital malformations in a prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian J Med Res.
1991;94:413–9. [PubMed]
5. Birch MR, Grayson N, Sullivan EA. AIHW Cat. No. PER 23. Birth Anomalies Series No. 1.
Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2004. Recommendations for development of a
new Australian birth anomalies system: A review of the congenital malformations and birth
defects data collection.
6. Mohanty C, Mishra OP, Das BK, Bhatia BD, Singh G. Congenital malformations in
newborns: A study of 10,874 consecutive births. J Anat Soc India. 1989;38:101–11.
7. Chaturvedi P, Banerjee KS. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborns from rural
Maharashtra. Indian J Pediatr. 1989;56:501–7. [PubMed]
8. Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P, Jain M. Congenital malformations at birth in Central
India: A rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genet. 2010;16:159–63. [PMC
free article] [PubMed]
9. Khatemi F, Mamoori GA. Survey of congenital major malformations in 10/000 newborns. Iran
J Pediatr. 2005;15:315–20.
10. Tomatir AG, Demirhan H, Sorkun HC, Köksal A, Ozerdem F, Cilengir N. Major congenital
anomalies: A five-year retrospective regional study in Turkey. Genet Mol Res. 2009;8:19–27.
[PubMed]
11. Mir NA, Galczek WC, Soni A. Easily identifiable congenital malformations in children:
Survey of incidence and pattern in 32,332 live born neonates. Ann Saudi Med. 1992;12:366–71.
[PubMed]
12. Gupta RK, Singh A, Gupta R. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn at birth: A hospital
based prospective study. Proceedings of the 42nd National Conference of Indian Academy of
Pediatrics (Pedicon); Jan 6-9; Kolkata, India. 2005.
13. Swain S, Agrawal A, Bhatia BD. Congenital malformations at birth. Indian Pediatr.
1994;31:1187–91. [PubMed]
14. Tibrewala NS, Pai PM. Congenital malformations in the newborn period. Indian Pediatr.
1974;11:403–7. [PubMed]
15. Mishra PC, Baweja R. Congenital malformations in the newborns. A prospective study.
Indian Pediatr. 1989;26:32–5. [PubMed]
16. Verma M, Chhatwal J, Singh D. Congenital malformations - A retrospective study of 10,000
cases. Indian J Pediatr. 1991;58:245–52. [PubMed]
17. Mathur BC, Karan S, Vijaya Devi KK. Congenital malformations in the newborn. Indian
Pediatr. 1975;12:179–83. [PubMed]
18. Dutta V, Chaturvedi P. Congenital malformations in rural Maharashtra. Indian Pediatr.
2000;37:998–1001. [PubMed]
19. Suguna Bai NS, Mascarene M, Syamalan K, Nair PM. An etiological study of congenital
malformation in the newborn. Indian Pediatr. 1982;19:1003–7. [PubMed]
20. Hudgins L, Cassidy SB. Congenital anomalies. In: Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, Walsh MC,
editors. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby-Elsevier; 2006. pp. 561–81.
21. Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA, Bastaki LA. Profile of major congenital
malformations in neonates in Al-Jahra region of Kuwait. East Mediterr Health J. 2005;11:700–6.
[PubMed]
22. Al-Gazali LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, Varghese M. The profile of major congenital
abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet. 1995;32:7–13.
[PMC free article] [PubMed]
