The effect of consanguinity on reproductive outcomes in Maternity Teaching Hospital in Erbil city

Banaz Nassih  Mohamad; Ghada  Alsakkal

doi:10.56056/amj.2023.198

Authors

Banaz Nassih Mohamad M.B.Ch.B. Senior House Officer of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Maternity Teaching Hospital in Erbil
Ghada Alsakkal M.B.Ch.B. C.A.B.O.G. Assistant Professor and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynecologist

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2023.198

Keywords:

Congenital malformation, Consanguinity, Infant mortality, Reproductive loss

Abstract

Background and objectives: Consanguinity is a wide spread practice, increases the incidence of multifactorial disorders such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, obesity has been associated with stillbirths, low birth weight, preterm delivery, abortion, infant and child mortality, congenital birth defects and malformations. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of consanguinity on maternal and neonatal health measurement.

Methods: This case control study was carried out in Maternity Teaching Hospital in Erbil city, Kurdistan region, Iraq. The study duration was from 1^st April 2020 to 1^st April 2021. Data obtained from group I, two hundred fifty women had consanguineous marriage and group II, 250 women had non consanguineous marriage, regarding their pregnancy outcomes such as full term or premature live birth or still birth and miscarriage and any obvious congenital malformation.

Results: The mean age of women of Group I (26.9 years) was significantly less than the mean age of women of group II (28.1 years). No significant differences were detected between the two study groups regarding the gestational age ,parity, antenatal care, stillbirth, miscarriage and rate of preterm deliveries. The rate of Cesarean section in Group I (26.8%) was significantly less than the rate of Group II (37.2%).

Conclusions: Pregnant women with history of consanguinity had lower mean age than those without consanguinity without important differences in their parity, educational level and mean gestational age. Consanguinity had not resulted in increased rates of stillbirth, preterm labor, miscarriages or twin pregnancies in the studied sample.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Leutenegger AL, Sahbatou M, Gazal S, Cann H, Génin E. Consanguinity around the world: What do the genomic data of the HGDP-CEPH diversity panel tell us? Eur J Hum Genet. 2011; 9:583-7.

Islam MM. The changing pattern and determinants of declining consanguinity in Jordan during 1990–2012. Ann Hum Biol. 2018;45(2): 140-7.

Alharbi OA, Al-Shaia WA, Al-Hamam AA, Al-Marzoug HM, Ahmed AE, Bagha M. Attitude of Saudi Arabian adults towards consanguineous marriage. Qatar Med J. 2015;2015(2):1–8.

Romdhane L, Ben Halim N, Rejeb I, et al. Specific aspects of consanguinity: Some examples from the Tunisian population. Hum Hered. 2014;77(1–4):167–74.

Afzal RM, Lund AM, Skovby F. The impact of consanguinity on the frequency of inborn errors of metabolism.Mol Genet Metab Rep.2018;15:6-10.

Seher T, Thiering E, Al Azemi M, et al. Is parental consanguinity associated with reduced ovarian reserve. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31(3):427–33.

Ng D. The Implications of Parental Consanguinity on the Care of Neonates. Adv Neonatal Care. 2016;16(4):273–82.

Riaz HF, Mannan S, Malik S. Consanguinity and its socio-biological parameters in Rahim Yar Khan District, Southern Punjab, Pakistan. J Health Popul Nutr. 2016; 35:14.

Assaf S, Khawaja M. Consanguinity trends and correlates in the Palestinian Territories. J Biosoc Sci. 2009;41(1):107–24.

Sharma SK, Kalam MA, Ghosh S, Roy S. Prevalence and determinants of consanguineous marriage and its types in India: evidence from the National Family Health Survey, 2015–2016. J Biosoc Sci. 2020; 9:1–11.

Siong KH, Au Yeung SKC, Leung TY. Parental consanguinity in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2019;25(3):192–200.

Sandridge AL, Takeddin J, Al-Kaabi E, Frances Y. Consanguinity in Qatar: Knowledge, attitude and practice in a population born between 1946 and 1991. J Biosoc Sci. 2010;42(1):59–82.

Bhinder MA, Sadia H, Mahmood N, et al. Consanguinity: A blessing or menace at population level? Ann Hum Genet. 2019;83(4):214–9.

El Sabeh M, Kassir MF, Ghanem P, et al. Consanguinity rates among Syrian refugees in Lebanon: A study on genetic awareness J Biosoc Sci.2021;53(3):356-66.

Fareed M, Afzal M. Genetics of consanguinity and inbreeding in health and disease. Ann Hum Biol. 2017;44(2):99–107.

Tadmouri GO, Nair P, Obeid T, Al Ali MT, Al Khaja N, Hamamy HA Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reprod Health. 2009; 6:17–24.

Preterm birth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth, accessed 2020).

Stillbirth: Overview. NICHD. 23 September 2014.

Stillbirth. World Health Organization. 2016.

The Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics (4 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2012. pp. 438–439. ISBN 978-1451148015.

Multiple pregnancies: antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies. Clinical guideline [CG129]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2011.

Bachir, S., Aouar, A. Study of the impact of consanguinity on abortion and mortality in the population of Beni Abbes (southwestern Algeria). Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2019:20;1: 1-7.

Maghsoudlou S, Cnattingius S, Aarabi M, et al. Consanguineous marriage, prepregnancy maternal characteristics and stillbirth risk: a population-based case–control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94(10): 1095–101.

Bittles AH, Devi AR, Rao NA. Consanguinity, twinning and secondary sex ratio in the population of Karnataka, south India. Ann Hum Biol. 1988;15(6):455-60.

Tayebi N, Yazdani K, Naghshin N. The prevalence of congenital malformations and its correlation with consanguineous marriages. Oman Med J. 2010 ; 25(1) :37-40.

Hashemipour M, Amini M, Talaie M, et al. Parental consanguinity among parents of neonates with congenital hypothyroidism in Isfahan. East Mediterr Health J. 2007;13(3):567-74.