Skip to main content

Small size in early pregnancy linked to poor heart health later in life

Poor growth in the first three months of pregnancy is associated with a range of cardiovascular risk factors in childhood, finds a study published on bmj.com today.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence and suggest that the first trimester of pregnancy may be a critical period for cardiovascular health in later life.

The first trimester of pregnancy includes the ‘embryonic phase’ (a period of rapid development when the heart and other major organs start to form). So a team of researchers in the Netherlands decided to examine whether poor growth during this period is associated with cardiovascular risk in childhood.

The study involved 1,184 school age children with first trimester crown to rump length measurements (commonly used to estimate fetal age) whose mothers had a known first day of their last menstrual period and a regular cycle.

Several factors, such as mothers’ age, ethnicity, education, smoking status, body mass index and blood pressure were also recorded.

At around age six, children were assessed for cardiovascular risk factors, including body mass index, body fat distribution, blood pressure, cholesterol levels and insulin concentrations.

Using first trimester crown to rump length, the researchers split the group of fetuses into fifths. Compared with those in the highest fifth, those in the lowest fifth (the smallest fetuses) had, at age 6, significantly more total fat mass and android fat mass (fat stored around the abdomen), higher diastolic blood pressure and an adverse cholesterol profile.

First trimester growth restriction was also associated with an increased risk of clustering of these cardiovascular risk factors in childhood.

The authors acknowledge that some of their associations may have arisen by chance, but suggest that the first trimester might be a critical period for cardiovascular and metabolic function.

“Further studies are needed to identify the underlying causal biological mechanisms and long term consequences,” they add. Future strategies to improve cardiovascular health “may start from early pregnancy onwards or even before conception,” they conclude.

In an accompanying editorial, Professor Gordon Smith and Catherine Aiken from the University of Cambridge say despite some limitations, this study adds to a growing body of evidence that fetal growth restriction is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular – and many other – diseases in later life.

But they add “we need a deeper understanding of the strength, nature and mechanisms of the reported associations before rushing to intervene.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As