Prevalence of birth defects in an Arctic Russian setting from 1973 to 2011: a register-based study

Reproductive Health

Jon Øyvind Odland¹  Andrej M Grjibovski⁴  Evert Nieboer²  Vitaly A Postoev³ 

[1] Department of Community Medicine, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway;Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;International School of Public Health, Northern State Medical University, 163061 Troickij av, 51 NSMU, ISPHA, office 2519, Arkhangelsk, Russia;Department of Preventive Medicine, International Kazakh-Turkish University, Turkestan, Kazakhstan

关键词: Arctic;    Russian Federation;    Murmansk county birth registry;    Prevalence;    Birth defects;    Birth register;   

Others  :  1131907
DOI  :  10.1186/1742-4755-12-3

 received in 2014-05-14, accepted in 2014-12-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Birth defects (BD) constitute an important public health issue as they are the main cause of infant death. Their prevalence in Europe for 2008–2012 was 25.6 per 1000 newborns. To date, there are no population-based studies for the Russian Federation. The aim of the present study is to estimate the prevalence of BD, its forms, and changes over time in the Russian Arctic city of Monchegorsk (Murmansk County) for the period 1973–2011.

Methods

The Murmansk County Birth Register and the Kola Birth Register were the primary sources of information, covering 30448 pregnancy outcomes in Monchegorsk (Murmansk County, Russia) during the study period.

Results

The total perinatal prevalence of BD was 36.1/1000 live births (LB) and stillborn (SB) (95% CI = 34.0-38.2). After exclusions of minor malformations according to the European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies guidelines, it decreased to 26.5/1000 LB plus SB (95% CI = 24.6-28.3). The perinatal prevalence of BD that are obligatory to report in Russia was 7.3/1000 LB plus SB (95% CI = 6.4-8.3). There was a significant positive time-trend in total perinatal prevalence of birth defects across the study period (p < 0.001 for trend). Prevalence of all BD increased from 23.5/1000 to 46.3/1000 (LB plus SB), while that excluding minor defects rose from 17.7/1000 to 35.7/1000 (LB plus SB). The most prevalent group of defects was malformations of the musculoskeletal system, which represented 35.4% of all BD. The most prominent increase was observed for the urinary system, rising from 0.2/1000 to 19.1/1000 (LB plus SB).

Conclusions

The observed perinatal prevalence of BD in Monchegorsk increased two-fold during the 38-year study period. Further investigations to identify the underlying bases for the observed progressive growth in BD are recommended.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Postoev et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT): Prevalence Tables 2008–2012. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/accessprevalencedata/prevalencetables webcite. Accessed 21 Feb 2014
• [2]Kobrinskaya BA, Demikova NS: Principles of establishing of birth defects’ monitoring in Russian Federation (Principy organizatcii monitoringa vrozhdennyh porokov razvitiya i ego realizaciya v Rossiyskoy Federacii – in Russian). Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics 2001, 4:55-60.
• [3]Sixty Third World Health Assembly Report: Birth Defects. A63/10; 1 April, 2010. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA63/A63_10-en.pdf?ua=1 webcite. Accessed 10 Mar 2014
• [4]Korsunskiy AA: Infant mortality in Russian Federation. The ways for decreasing (report at the Board of Ministry of Health of Russian Federation 09.01.2001) (Mladencheskaja smertnost v Rossijskoy Federacii. Puti snizheniya (izlozhenie doklada na kollegii Ministerstva Zdravoohranenija Rossijskoy Federacii 09.01.2001 – in Russian). Pediatry 2001, 2:5.
• [5]Order of Ministry of Health of Russian Federation № 268 10.09.1998: About Monitoring of Congenital Birth Defects Among Children“ (Prikaz Ministerstva Zdravoohranenija Rossijskoj Federacii N 268 ”O Monitoring Vrozhdennih Porokov Razvinija u Detej” – in Russian. . Moscow: Intersen; 1999.
• [6]International clearinghouse for birth defects monitoring system: Annual report 2003. http://www.icbdsr.org/filebank/documents/Report2003.pdf webcite. Accessed 10 Feb 2014
• [7]International clearinghouse for birth defects surveillance and research: Annual report 2011. http://www.icbdsr.org/filebank/documents/ar2005/Report2011.pdf webcite. Accessed 10 Feb 2014
• [8]Vaktskjold A, Talykova LV, Chashchin VP, Nieboer E, Thomassen Y, Odland JO: Genital malformations in newborns of female nickel-refinery workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006, 32(1):41-50.
• [9]Vaktskjold A, Talykova LV, Chashchin VP, Odland JO, Nieboer E: Maternal nickel exposure and congenital musculoskeletal defects. Am J Ind Med 2008, 51(11):825-33.
• [10]Petrova JG, Vaktskjold A: The incidence of neural tube defects in Norway and the Arkhangelskaja Oblast in Russia and the association with maternal age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009, 88(6):667-72.
• [11]Petrova JG, Vaktskjold A: The incidence and maternal age distribution of abdominal wall defects in Norway and Arkhangelskaja Oblast in Russia. Int J Circumpolar Health 2009, 68(1):75-83.
• [12]Kirillova EA, Nikiforova OK, Ghuchenko NA, Pobedinsky NM, Krasnikov DG: Monitoring of birth defects among newborns (Monitoring vrogdennih porokov razvitija u novorogdennih – in Russian). Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics 2000, 1:18-21.
• [13]Russian Institute of pediatrics and children surgery: Annual Report About Birth Defect Monitoring in Russia. Moscow; 2011. http://old.pedklin.ru/Defects/Results/report2011.html webcite. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
• [14]Murmansk statistical office: Official statistics. Population. http://murmanskstat.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ts/murmanskstat/ru/statistics/population/ webcite. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
• [15]Federal state Statistical Service: Demography data. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/demography/# webcite. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
• [16]Odland JO, Tchachtchine VP, Bykov V, Fiskebeck PE, Lund E, Thomassen Y, et al.: Critical evaluation of medical, statistical, and occupational data sources in the Kola Peninsula of Russia pertinent to reproductive health studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1999, 72(3):151-60.
• [17]Anda EE, Nieboer E, Voitov AV, Kovalenko AA, Lapina YM, Voitova EA, et al.: Implementation, quality control and selected pregnancy outcomes of the Murmansk county birth registry in Russia. Int J Circumpolar Health 2008, 67(4):318-34.
• [18]EUROCAT: Minor malformations for exclusion. EUROCAT guide 1.4, section 3.2. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-Guide-1.4-Section-3.2.pdf webcite. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
• [19]Mason CA, Kirby RS, Sever LE, Langlois PH: Prevalence is the preferred measure of frequency of birth defects. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2005, 73:690-2.
• [20]Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E: The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010, 686:349-64.
• [21]Medical birth registry of Norway (Medisinsk følselsregister – in Norwegian) http://mfr-nesstar.uib.no/mfr/ webcite. Accessed 14 Mar 2014
• [22]Luck CA: Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. BMJ 1992, 304:1474.
• [23]Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP): Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Oslo; 1998. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-report-arctic-pollution-issues/68 webcite. Accessed 15 Apr 2014
• [24]Center of disease control and prevention: morbidity and mortality weekly report: Current tobacco Use and secondhand smoke exposure among women of reproductive Age — 14 countries, 2008–2010. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6143a4.htm webcite Accessed 10 Apr 2014
• [25]Morgenstern W, Tsechkovski MS, Nussel E, Schettler G: CINDI Countrywide Integrated Noncommunicable Diseases Intervention Programme. Baseline Evaluation. Berlin: Springer; 1991. [A joint publication with WHO Regional Office for Europe]