Fatores maternos e perinatais relacionados à macrossomia fetal Maternal and perinatal factors related to fetal macrosomia

OBJETIVO: identificar fatores maternos e perinatais relacionados a fetos com peso igual ou maior do que 4.000 g no nascimento. MÉTODOS: estudo de corte transversal, de 411 casos consecutivos de macrossomia fetal, ocorridos no período de março de 1998 a março de 2005. Compararam-se os dados obtidos aos de 7.349 casos de fetos com peso entre 2.500 e 3.999 g ao nascimento, ocorridos no mesmo período. Foram analisadas variáveis maternas (idade, paridade, diabete melito, ocorrência de parto cesáreo, mecônio, desproporção feto-pélvica, principais indicações das cesáreas) e perinatais (ocorrência de tocotraumatismo, índice de Apgar inferior a sete no 1º e 5º minuto, natimortalidade, neomortalidade precoce, necessidade de internação na Unidade de Tratamento Intensivo Neonatal). As avaliações estatísticas foram realizadas com o teste não paramétrico do chi2 com a correção de Yates e com o teste t de Student. Adotou-se o nível de significância de pPURPOSE: to identify maternal and perinatal factors related to neonates with birthweight >4,000 g. METHODS: cross-section cohort study with 411 consecutive cases of fetal macrosomia (FM) which occurred from March 1998 to March 2005. Data were compared to 7,349 cases of fetal birthweight >2,500 and <3,999 g which occurred in the same period. Maternal variables (maternal age, parity, diabetes, previous cesarean section, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, cephalopelvic disproportion, main cesarean section indications) and perinatal variables (birth injury, <7 1-min and 5-min Apgar score, fetal and early neonatal mortality range, need of neonatal intensive care unit) were analyzed. For statistical analysis the chi2 test with Yates correction and Student's t test were used with the level of significance set at 5%. RESULTS: FM was significantly associated with older mothers, more parous and <7 1-min Apgar score (p<0.05; OR=1.8; 95% CI: 1,4-2.5) and <7 5-min Apgar score (p<0,05; OR=2.3; 95% CI: 1.3-4,1), diabetes mellitus (p<0.05; OR=4.2; 95% CI: 2.7-6.4), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (p<0.02; OR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.7), need of neonatal intensive care unit (p<0,05; OR=2.0; 95% CI: 1.5-2.7), early neonatal mortality (p<0,05; OR = 2.7; 95% CI: 1.0-6.7), cesarean section (p < 0.05; OR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1,6-2,5) and cephalopelvic disproportion (p < 0.05;OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6-4,8). There was no statistical difference between birth injury and fetal mortality range. In the FM group the main cesarean section indications were repeat cesarean sections (11.9%) and cephalopelvic disproportion (8.6%); in the normal birthweight group, repeat cesareans (8.3%) and fetal distress during labor (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: in spite of the characteristic limitations of a retrospective evaluation, the analysis demonstrated which complications were associated with large fetal size, being useful in obstetric handling of patients with a diagnosis of extreme fetal growth. FM remains an obstetric problem of difficult solution, associated with important maternal and perinatal health problems, due to the significant observed rates of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in developed and developing countries