Analysis of perinatal outcomes of pregnancies from consanguineous marriages in a tertiary hospital in Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

Aim: In this article, we aimed to contribute to the outcomes of the consanguineous marriage literature by analyzing fetal results in this population. Material and Method: We included 185 patients in this retrospective research. Demographic, clinical, ultrasonographic and delivery data were received from electronic patient records. Also, we recorded the postnatal results, and findings of the infants. By combining all the data, we reported a descriptive analysis of the results of our consanguineous marriage cases with perinatology follow-up. Results: We had 231 pregnant women in the study, and their mean age was 28.9 years. 117 (50.6%) of the pregnant women had first-degree, and 114 (50.4%) had second-degree consanguineous marriages. Fetal findings were evaluated as usual in 157 (68%) of the pregnant in the ultrasonographic scans performed between prenatal 20-24 weeks of gestation. When we look at the first postnatal examinations of the babies, no abnormal findings were in 134 babies (58.8%). Twenty-two infants (9.6%) were followed up in the neonatal intensive care unit with the diagnosis of transient tachypnea of the newborn, and phototherapy was required in 14 infants (6.1%) due to hyperbilirubinemia. The number of cases requiring surgical intervention after delivery or with significant life-threatening anomalies included 56 findings in 32 infants. There were spina bifida cases in 8 infants and hydrocephalus in 9 infants. Conclusion: There was an increased level of congenital anomalies associated with consanguineous marriages. Health care centers should educate individuals regarding the negative role of cousin marriages leading to abnormalities in children.

Keywords

• Consanguinity
• Perinatology
• Congenital Abnormalities
• Down syndrome

References

1. Chauhan BG, Yadav D, Jungari S. Association between consanguineous marriage and child nutritional outcomes among currently married women in Pakistan. Clin Epidemiol Global Health 2020; 8: 38–44.
2. Naveed M, Nadeem S, Hassan A, Tanvir I. Association of consanguineous marriages with congenital anomalies: Cousin marriages and birth defects. Pakistan BioMedical J 2019; 2.
3. Abrar S, Safdar W, Hanif M, Shujaat N. Pregnancy outcomes of consanguinity among antenatal patients attending combined military hospital Quetta, Pakistan. J Ayub Medical College Abbottabad 2018; 30: 423–7.
4. Robertson JM, Basany K, Farooq F, et al. Consanguineous marriage and early pregnancy loss in rural to Peri-Urban India. J Obstetr Gynecol India 2022; 72: 314–21.
5. Hamamy H, Antonarakis SE, Cavalli-Sforza LL, et al. Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva international consanguinity workshop report. Genetics in Medicine 2011; 13: 841–7.
6. Bittles AH, Black ML. The impact of consanguinity on neonatal and infant health. Early Human Develop 2010; 86: 737–41.
7. Alharbi KK, Al-Sheikh YA, Alsaadi MM, et al. Screening for obesity in the offspring of first-cousin consanguineous couples: A Phase-I study in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci 2020; 27: 242–6.
8. Anwar S, Taslem Mourosi J, Arafat Y, Hosen MJ. Genetic and reproductive consequences of consanguineous marriage in Bangladesh. PloS one 2020; 15: e0241610.

9. Balihallimath RL, Bhusaraddi PS, Shirol VS, Tyagi NK. Percentiles of Pregnancy Outcomes in Consanguineous Marriages. EJMCM 2020; 7.
10. Fareed M, Afzal M. Genetics of consanguinity and inbreeding in health and disease. Ann Human Biol 2017; 44: 99–107.
11. Brown S. Miscarriage and its associations. In: Seminars in reproductive medicine. © Thieme Medical Publishers; 2008. p. 391–400.
12. Maguire A, Tseliou F, O’Reilly D. Consanguineous Marriage and the Psychopathology of Progeny: A Population-wide Data Linkage Study. JAMA psychiatry 2018; 75: 438–46.
13. Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages : Preconception consultation in primary health care settings. Journal of community genetics 2012; 3: 185–92.
14. Bittles AH, Black ML. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010; 107: 1779–86.
15. Crowe S, Ridout DA, Knowles R, et al. Death and emergency readmission of infants discharged after interventions for congenital heart disease: a national study of 7643 infants to inform service improvement. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5: e003369.
16. Mohammadi MM, Hooman HA, Afrooz GA, Daramadi PS. The relationship between consanguineous marriage and death in fetus and infants. J Res Med Sci 2012; 17: 448–51.
17. Abbas HA, Yunis K. The effect of consanguinity on neonatal outcomes and health. Human Heredity 2014; 77: 87–92.
18. Yunis K, Mumtaz G, Bitar F, et al. Consanguineous marriage and congenital heart defects: a case-control study in the neonatal period. Am J Med Gen 2006; 140: 1524–30.
19. Hassan AFS, Howsawi BMI, Awwas MY Al, et al. The correlation between infants’ congenital heart defects and maternal folic acid supplementation. Egypt J Hospital Med 2018; 70: 771–6.
20. Mosayebi Z, Movahedian AH. Pattern of congenital malformations in consanguineous versus nonconsanguineous marriages in Kashan, Islamic Republic of Iran. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health J 2007; 13: 868-75
21. Tomatır AG, Demirhan H, Sorkun HÇ, Köksal A, Özerdem F, Cilengir N. Major congenital anomalies: a five-year retrospective regional study in Turkey. Genetics Moleculer Res 2009; 8: 19-27