ISSN 0100-7203 RBGO eISSN 1806-9339 Gynecology & Obstetrics
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Number 8 • Volume 39 • Pages 373–440 • August 2017
ISSN 0100-7203
RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Editor in Chief
Marcos Felipe Silva de Sá Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Former Editors
Jean Claude Nahoum Sérgio Pereira da Cunha Rio de Janeiro, RJ (1979–1989) Ribeirão Preto, SP (1994–1997) Clarice do Amaral Ferreira Jurandyr Moreira de Andrade Rio de Janeiro, RJ (1989–1994) Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil (1997–2015)
Associated Editors
Agnaldo Lopes da Silva Filho Helena von Eye Corleta Maria Celeste Osório Wender Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Alessandra Cristina Marcolin Ilza Maria Urbano Monteiro Omero Benedicto Poli Neto Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Daniel Guimarães Tiezzi José Geraldo Lopes Ramos Patrícia El Beitune Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil de Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Eddie Fernando Candido Murta José Guilherme Cecatti Ricardo Carvalho Cavalli Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Campinas, SP, Brazil Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Uberaba, MG, Brazil José Maria Soares Júnior Rosiane Mattar Edward Araujo Júnior Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Julio Cesar Rosa e Silva Rodrigo de Aquino Castro Fabrício da Silva Costa Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Monash University, Melbourne, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Victoria, Australia Lucia Alves da Silva Lara Silvana Maria Quintana Fernando Marcos dos Reis Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Lucia Helena Simões da Costa Paiva Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain Gerson Botacini das Dores Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, University of Miami, Miami, USA Campinas, SP, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil Gustavo Salata Romão Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito Victor Hugo de Melo Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, SP, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Editorial Board
Alex Sandro Rolland de Souza Carlos Augusto Alencar Junior Dino Roberto Soares de Lorenzi Instituto de Medicina Integral Universidade Federal do Ceará, Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Prof. Fernando Figueira, Recife, PE, Brazil Fortaleza, CE, Brazil Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil Ana Carolina Japur de Sá Rosa e Silva Carlos Grandi Diogo de Matos Graça Ayres de Campos Universidade de São Paulo, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Buenos Aires, Argentina Eduardo Pandolfi Passos Ana Katherine da Silveira Gonçalves Cesar Cabello dos Santos Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil Edmund Chada Baracat Aurélio Antônio Ribeiro da Costa Délio Marques Conde Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade de Pernambuco, Hospital Materno Infantil de Goiânia, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Recife, PE, Brazil Goiânia, GO, Brazil Eliana Aguiar Petri Nahas Belmiro Gonçalves Pereira Dick Oepkes Universidade Estadual Paulista Universidade Estadual de Campinas, University of Leiden, Leiden, “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Botucatu, Campinas, SP, Brazil The Netherlands SP, Brazil Eliana Martorano Amaral Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza Rintaro Mori Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, National Center for Child Health Campinas, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil and Development, Tokyo, Japan Francisco Edson Lucena Feitosa Luis Otávio Zanatta Sarian Roberto Eduardo Bittar Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Universidade de São Paulo, CE, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil George Condous Luiz Carlos Zeferino Rosane Ribeiro Figueiredo Alves Nepean Hospital in West Sydney, Sidney, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Australia Campinas, SP, Brazil GO, Brazil Giuseppe Rizzo Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler Roseli Mieko Yamamoto Nomura Università degli Studi di Roma Instituto Nacional do Câncer, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, “Tor Vergata”, Roma, Italy Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Gutemberg Leão de Almeida Filho Luiz Henrique Gebrim Rosiane Mattar Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Iracema de Mattos Paranhos Calderon Manoel J. B. Castello Girão, Rossana Pulcinelli Vieira Francisco Universidade Estadual Paulista Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, São Paulo, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Botucatu, SP, Brazil Marcelo Zugaib Ruff o de Freitas Junior João Luiz Pinto e Silva Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Goiânia, GO, Brazil Campinas, SP, Brazil Marcos Desidério Ricci Sabas Carlos Vieira João Paulo Dias de Souza Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal do Piauí, Teresina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil PI, Brazil Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil Maria de Lourdes Brizot Sebastião Freitas de Medeiros João Sabino Lahorgue da Cunha Filho Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Cuiabá, MT, Brazil Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Marilza Vieira Cunha Rudge Selmo Geber José Carlos Peraçoli Universidade Estadual Paulista Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Botucatu, SP, Brazil Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Newton Sergio de Carvalho Silvia Daher Botucatu, SP, Brazil Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, José Juvenal Linhares PR, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil Universidade Federal do Ceará, Nuno Henrique Malhoa Migueis Clode Shaun Patrick Brennecke Campus de Sobral, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa, Lisboa, University of Melbourne Parkville, Joshua Vogel Portugal Victoria, Australia Department of Reproductive Health and Olímpio Barbosa Moraes Filho Técia Maria de Oliveira Maranhão Research, World Health Organization, Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Geneva, Switzerland PE, Brazil Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil Juvenal Soares Dias-da-Costa Paulo Roberto Nassar de Carvalho Toshiyuki Hata Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Instituto Fernandes Figueira-Fiocruz, University Graduate School of Medicine, Pelotas, RS, Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Kagawa, Japan Laudelino Marques Lopes Renato Augusto Moreira de Sá Wellington de Paula Martins University of Western Ontario, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Universidade de São Paulo, London, Ontario, Canada Niterói, RJ, Brazil Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
Editorial Offi ce
Bruno Henrique Sena Ferreira
Editorial Production
Thieme Medical Publishers ISSN 0100-7203
Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations
Society Board (2017) Presidency and Executive Staff
President Avenida das Américas, 8445 – sala 711 César Eduardo Fernandes (SP) Barra da Tijuca – Rio de Janeiro – RJ CEP: 22793-081 Brazil Administrative Director Phone.: (+55 21) 2487-6336 Marcelo Burlá (RJ) Fax: (+55 21) 2429-5133 Finnancial Director www.febrasgo.org.br Corintio Mariani Neto (SP) [email protected] Scientifi c Director [email protected] Marcos Felipe Silva de Sá (SP)
Professional Status Defence RBGO Editorial Offi ce Juvenal Barreto Borriello de Andrade (SP) Av. Bandeirantes, 3900 – 8º andar – Vice-president of North Region Campus da USP Hilka Flávia Barra do E. Santo (AM) 14049-900 – Ribeirão Preto/SP Vice-president of Northeast Region Fone (+55 16) 3602-2803 Flavio Lucio Pontes Ibiapina (CE) FAX (+55 16) 3633-0946 Vice-president of Middle West Region Alex Bortotto Garcia (SP) Vice-president of Southeast Region Agnaldo Lopes da Silva Filho (MG) Vice-president of South Region Maria Celeste Osório Wender (RS) O nosso diálogo com a Ginecologia já começou. E evolui com a sua participação.
ACESSE O DIÁLOGO ROCHE e comece a interagir com o nosso conteúdo exclusivo para sua especialidade, que inclui aulas em parceria com a Febrasgo, abordando o câncer de colo do útero e o HPV. Esperamos sua visita.
www.dialogoroche.com.br
ACESSE AGORA:
MAIO/2017 - BR/NCOM/0517/0028
50107-414946-Anuncio_Dialogo_Roche-210x280.indd 1 5/25/17 3:51 PM Volume 39, Number 8/2017 RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Editorial
373 Barriers to Implementing and Consolidating a Family Planning Program that would meet Brazilian Needs Luis Bahamondes, Arlete Fernandes, and Ilza Monteiro
Original Articles
Obstetrics
376 Trends in the Prevalence of Live Macrosomic Newborns According to Gestational Age Strata, in Brazil, 2001–2010, and 2012–2014 Maria Isabel do Nascimento, Daniele Francine Pereira, Calliana Lopata, Carina Ladeia Flores Oliveira, Ariane Arruda de Moura, Maria Júlia da Silva Mattos, and Lucas Saraiva da Silva
384 Food Insecurity, Prenatal Care and Other Anemia Determinants in Pregnant Women from the NISAMI Cohort, Brazil: Hierarchical Model Concept Fran Demétrio, Carlos Antônio de Souza Teles-Santos, and Djanilson Barbosa dos Santos
Human Reproduction
397 Profi le of Reproductive Issues Associated with Diff erent Sickle Cell Disease Genotypes Flávia Anchielle Carvalho, Ariani Impieri Souza, Ana Laura Carneiro Gomes Ferreira, Simone da Silva Neto, Ana Carolina Pessoa de Lima Oliveira, Maria Luiza Rodrigues Pinheiro Gomes, and Manuela Freire Hazin Costa
Gynecological Surgery and Urogynecology
403 Evaluation of Cases of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis at Universidade Estadual de Campinas in a period of 10 Years Daniela Angerame Yela, Lucas Trigo, and Cristina Laguna Benetti-Pinto
Lower Genital Tract Diseases
408 Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in Cervix Sample in an 11.3-year Follow-Up after Vaccination against HPV 16/18 Cirbia Silva Campos Teixeira, Julio Cesar Teixeira, Eliane Regina Zambelli Mesquita Oliveira, Helymar Costa Machado, and Luiz Carlos Zeferino
Sexuality
415 Survey on Aesthetic Vulvovaginal Procedures: What do Portuguese Doctors and Medical Students Think? Pedro Vieira-Baptista, Joana Lima-Silva, José Fonseca-Moutinho, Virgínia Monteiro, and Fernanda Águas
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda online www.thieme-connect.com/products RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics Volume 39, Number 8/2017
Review Article
424 Physical Activity during Pregnancy: Recommendations and Assessment Tools Cibele Santini de Oliveira, Thiago dos Santos Imakawa, and Elaine Christine Dantas Moisés
Case Reports
433 Diff erential Diagnosis between Bartholin Cyst and Vulvar Leiomyoma: Case Report Kelly Alessandra da Silva Tavares, Thomas Moscovitz, Marcos Tcherniakovsky, Luciano de Melo Pompei, and César Eduardo Fernandes
436 Cotyledonoid Dissecting Leiomyoma with Symplastic Features: Case Report Fatma Cavide Sonmez, Zeynep Tosuner, Ayse Filiz Gökmen Karasu, Dilek Sema Arıcı, and Ramazan Dansuk
Complementary material is available online at www.rbgo.org.br.
Copyright © 2017 by Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Inc. RBGO Gynecology Revista Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia is an official publication of the and Obstetrics/Revista Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia is published Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Brazilian monthly by Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda., Rua do Matoso, 170, Rio de Federation of Association of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Febrasgo), It is Janeiro 20270-135, Brazil. listed in Isi - Web of Science, Web of Knowledge (Emerging), MEDLINE / Editorial comments should be sent to [email protected]. Articles may PubMed, Index Medicus, Scopus (Sci Verse), SCImago, SciELO (Scientific be submitted to this journal on an open-access basis. For further informa- Electronic Library Online), LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe tion, please send an e-mail to [email protected]. The content of this em Ciências da Saúde, Index Medicus Latino Americano), and Portal de journal is available online at www.thieme-connect.com/products. Visit our Periódicos Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Web site at www.thieme.com and the direct link to this journal at www. Superior). Thieme Medical Publishers is a member of the CrossRef initiative. rbgo.com.br. ISSN 0100-7203
Some of the product names, patents, and registered designs referred to in this medical knowledge, neither the authors, editors, or publisher, nor any other publication are in fact registered trade marks or proprietary names even though party who has been involved in the preparation of this work, warrants that specifi c reference to this fact is not always made in the text. Therefore, the the information contained here in is in every respect accurate or complete, appearance of a name without designation as proprietary is not to be construed and they are not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results as a representation by the Publisher that it is in the public domain. obtained from use of such information. Because of rapid advances in the All rights, including the rights of publication, distribution, and sales, as well medical sciences, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages as the right to translation, are reserved. No part of this work covered by the should be made. Readers are encouraged to confirm the information con- copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means— tained herein with other sources. For example, readers are advised to check graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or the product information sheet included in the package of each drug they information and retrieval systems—without written permission of the Publisher. plan to administer to be certain that the information contained in this publi- Important Note: Medical knowledge is ever-changing. As new research cation is accurate and that changes have not been made in the recommended and clinical experience broaden our knowledge, changes in treatment and dose or in the contraindications for administration. This recommendation is drug therapy may be required. The authors and editors of the material here- of particular importance in connection with new or infrequently used drugs. in have consulted sources believed to be reliable in their efforts to provide Although all advertising material is expected to conform to ethical information that is complete and in accord with the standards accepted at (medical) standards, inclusion in this journal does not constitute a guar- the time of publication. However, in view of the possibility of human er- antee or endorsement of the quality or value of such product or of claims ror by the authors, editors, or publisher of the work herein, or changes in made by its manufacturer. THIEME Editorial 373
Editorial Barriers to Implementing and Consolidating a Family Planning Program that would meet Brazilian Needs Barreiras à implementação e consolidação de um programa de planejamento familiar que atenda às necessidades brasileiras
Luis Bahamondes1 Arlete Fernandes1 Ilza Monteiro1
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2017;39:373–375.
Around 50–55% of all births in Brazil are unplanned, and planned pregnancies and 1.47 million planned pregnancies these figures include both unwanted and mistimed pregnan- occur annually, with 351 maternal deaths, of which 49 (14%) cies.1,2 The overall rate of induced abortion is estimated at are attributed to abortions, and 302 to complications result- 1.5%, with all induced abortions resulting from unplanned ing from miscarriages and childbirth. The number of infant pregnancies culminating in an adjusted abortion rate of 2.7%. deaths in the first year of life is estimated at 32,864. The In many cases, unplanned pregnancies terminate in induced model estimates the number of preterm deliveries attributed abortions and, since abortion in Brazil is restricted and only to unplanned pregnancies at 122,523. The estimated number allowed under certain circumstances, many of these proce- of neonatal admissions associated with unplanned pregnan- dures are unsafe. Indeed, unsafe abortions are estimated to cies was 224,631 for 2010, including all preterm deliveries account for 13% of all maternal deaths.3,4 and 7.6% of all term deliveries.10 The cost of unplanned pregnancies weighs not only on the Consequently, the total annual costs attributed to un- healthcare system but also on society, and involves the cost planned pregnancies are estimated at R$4.1 billion or more, of abortion care and of unplanned childbirth. When the depending on the exchange rate. Approximately R$4.07 pregnancy is unplanned, the likelihood of preterm births billion (99.2%) of that total amount is attributed to childbirth and low birthweight infants increases, and this scenario and its resulting complications. Based on national cost implies high costs associated with neonatal care and long- estimates and the number of unplanned pregnancies per term disabilities.5,6 The total fertility rate in Brazil has fallen year, the cost per unplanned pregnancy is calculated at R significantly in recent decades, and today stands at 1.8 births $4,439. However, this is based only on cases occurring within per woman. Over the same period, the use of contraceptives the public healthcare system, with abortions paid for by has increased.7,8 individuals or clandestine cases not being included in this Preventing unplanned pregnancies through publicly calculation. This simple analysis highlights the considerable funded programs is a strategy that has proven to be effective cost savings that can be achieved by reducing the number of in significantly cutting costs for health services.9 In this unplanned pregnancies.10,11 There are many examples re- editorial, we will discuss the current situation in Brazil, garding the potential cost savings that can be made by providing an insight into the inequalities that exist in the preventing unplanned pregnancies. In the United States, provision of contraceptive methods, particularly long-acting for instance, it was estimated that every dollar spent on reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods, and highlighting preventing unplanned pregnancies results in savings of US the causes and consequences of unplanned pregnancies in $2.76 at 2 years and US$5.33 at 5 years following Brazil, where fertility planning services are vastly different to delivery.10,11 those provided in developed countries, and where abortion If most unplanned pregnancies can be avoided, why is the legislation is restrictive. unplanned pregnancy rate still so high in Brazil (50–55% of all The Brazilian National Healthcare Service (SUS, in the pregnancies) when contraceptive prevalence is high and the Portuguese acronym) covers the cost of around 70–75% of total fertility rate is in decline? The answer to this question is all procedures performed in the country, including those complex and depends on many factors. Scientific evidence related to reproduction. An estimated 1.79 million un- shows that the most effective approach to prevent unplanned
Address for correspondence DOI https://doi.org/ Copyright © 2017 by Thieme Revinter Luis Bahamondes, MD, PhD, Caixa 10.1055/s-0037-1604423. Publicações Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Postal 6181, 13084-971, ISSN 0100-7203. Campinas, SP, Brazil (e-mail: bahamond@caism. unicamp.br). 374 Editorial
pregnancies is through education and contraceptive use, with right included in the Brazilian constitution? Yet another – LARC methods being the most effective intervention.12 16 obstacle is that the manufacturers of the LARC methods Many international and national agencies and societies, have done little to provide training to the thousands of including the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecol- Brazilian gynecologists. ogy and Obstetrics (FEBRASGO, in the Portuguese acronym), Notwithstanding, many doctors who have actually been advocate the use of LARC methods as first-line. Long-acting trained refuse to provide copper IUDs to women at basic reversible contraceptive methods include intrauterine contra- health units. Why? In many cases, because they are over- ceptives, that is, the copper intrauterine device (IUD) and the whelmed with work and obliged to meet quotas in terms of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), and the number of consultations they perform daily. Another subdermal implants. However, the prevalence ofcontraceptive common situation is the physician refusing to insert an IUD if use in Brazil is based on combined oral contraceptives (COCs), the woman is not having her menstrual period at that time. which are associated with a failure rate of around 8/100 This is a major barrier, since it is often difficult to schedule an women-years, and tubal ligation2, which is in decline in this appointment within a few days of the onset of menstruation. country.17,18 In other cases, doctors prescribe a COC because it is simpler Conversely, the sales of LARC methods, the most effective than inserting an IUD, or because there is no adequate – contraceptive methods, have been very low,18 20 even during referral system in the event of complications, or even be- the recent Zika virus outbreak.21 This reflects the fact that cause the appropriate instruments are not available, such as most women are using contraceptive methods such as COCs, a Hartman forceps to remove IUDs in cases in which the progestin-only pills, injectable and emergency contracep- threads cannot be visualized. In addition to the difficulties tives, all of which are much less effective than LARC methods. involved in scheduling consultations, other barriers at ser- Moreover, there is an unmet need for family planning that is vice delivery points (SDPs) involve issues such as the fact that estimated at 8%, assuming that at least 22 million women LARC methods, when available, can only be inserted by need contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. It was physicians, that the methods are sometimes allowed to recently calculated from current sales of contraceptives that remain on the shelves at the SDPs until their expiration almost 18 million women are protected; however, 90% of date has passed, and that healthcare providers are not given these are relying on methods for which the typical use updated information on the benefits and risks of LARC effectiveness is low.21 methods. Furthermore, there are the myths, misconceptions Several barriers have been identified that may limit the and misinformation that exist regarding these methods, and uptake of LARC methods. First, there are the public policies women’s fear of pain at insertion. for the provision of contraceptive methods. The Brazilian The lack of reimbursement or incomplete insurance cov- Ministry of Health recently refused FEBRASGO’s request to erage for LARC methods may result in the client having to pay introduce the LNG-IUS and contraceptive implants into high up-front costs. The high cost of LARC methods has public healthcare services, arguing that the cost of these already been shown to represent an important barrier to methods is high, and that the copper IUD is available within access these methods.22 A recent study conducted in the the public sector. Even though it is true that the copper IUD is clinic of our institution showed that providing women with available and cheaper than the other two methods, the the LNG-IUS at no cost proved successful in preventing reality is that it is used by no more than 1.8% of women of unwanted pregnancies, maternal morbidity and mortality, reproductive age. This situation could remain unchanged child mortality, and unsafe abortion.20 The SUS provides free even if the LNG-IUS and the implants were available; how- coverage to around 74% of the population, including the ever, many women are unable to use the copper IUD, or do provision of contraceptive methods at no cost, since family not like the method, and could benefit if the LNG-IUS and the planning is guaranteed under the Brazilian constitution. The implants were also available. On the other hand, reflecting LNG-IUS and the contraceptive implants, however, are not the current situation with the copper IUD, it is possible that, included in the contraceptive arsenal provided free of charge even if all the LARC methods were available in the public by the SUS, with only a few, very rare exceptions. sector, this would not necessarily increase the prevalence of A new model of family planning management needs to be the use of LARC methods or, consequently, lead to any developed urgently. It is not right that the unplanned preg- reduction in the unplanned pregnancy rate. nancy rate remains high despite high contraceptive preva- The lack of training of healthcare providers in LARC lence, nor that the prevalence of the use of LARC methods is placement is another factor that contributes to the low low. The availability of LARC methods must be increased, as rates of use of these methods. For one thing, many medical well as the access to and use of these methods. Task sharing is residency teaching programs in Obstetrics and Gynecology necessary, and a coordinated response is needed from the fail to provide any training on LARC placement, while federal, state and municipal governments; however, govern- hospitals run by the Catholic Church refuse to provide mental response alone will be insufficient. To ensure access any family planning methods at all. It could be argued to LARC methods, the academia must be involved, as well as that, in this particular case, they have the right to do so; professional and scientific organizations, private health in- however, why does the Brazilian Ministry of Education pay surance companies, policy makers, and all stakeholders. This for the training of medical residents who then fail to receive editorial may serve to initiate a debate on the subject, not adequate training in family planning, which is a human only in government offices but also among medical and
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Vol. 39 No. 8/2017 Editorial 375
nursing students, residents in Gynecology and Obstetrics and 9 Amaral G, Foster DG, Biggs MA, Jasik CB, Judd S, Brindis CD. Public family practice, and at scientific congresses and other appli- savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost cable events. Brazil urgently needs to identify an appropriate analysis of family planning services in California. Health Serv Res 2007;42(05):1960–1980 and rapid solution to reduce the high rate of unplanned 10 Le HH, Connolly MP, Bahamondes L, Cecatti JG, Yu J, Hu HX. The pregnancies in the country and its consequences in terms of burden of unintended pregnancies in Brazil: a social and public maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as the high rate of health system cost analysis. Int J Womens Health 2014; unsafe abortions. 6:663–670 11 Pesquisa revela dados sobre parto e nascimento no Brasil [Re- search reveals data on labor and delivery in Brazil] [webpage on Conflicts of Interest the Internet]. Ministry of Health of Brazil; 2012. Available at: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. http://www.ensp.fiocruz.br/portal-ensp/informe/site/materia/ detalhe/29584. Accessed on April 24, 2017 12 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Acknowledgments Committee Opinion No. 392, December 2007. Intrauterine device This editorial was supported in part by Fundação de Apoio and adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(06):1493–1495 à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (grant # 2015/ 13 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee 20504–9). on Gynecologic Practice; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 450: Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114(06):1434–1438 References 14 Oringanje C, Meremikwu MM, Eko H, Esu E, Meremikwu A, Ehiri 1 Santelli J, Rochat R,Hatfield-Timajchy K, et al; Unintended Pregnancy JE. Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among Working Group. The measurement and meaning of unintended adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(04):CD005215 pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2003;35(02):94–101 15 Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting – 2 Pesquisa Nacional de Demografia e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher. reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366(21):1998 2007 Banco de dados [National Demographic and Health of Children 16 Facts onAbortion in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. New York, NY: and Women: Database] [webpage on the Internet]. Ministry of Guttmacher Institute; 2012. Available at: http://www.guttmacher. Health of Brazil; 2008. Available at: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/ org/pubs/IB_AWW-Latin-America.pdf. Accessed on February 18, bvs/pnds/banco_dados.php. Accessed on October 12, 2016 2017 fi 3 Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence 17 Trussell J. Contraceptive ef cacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008. 6th ed. AL, Cates W, Kowal D, Policar M (eds). Contraceptive Technology: Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Available at: http:// Twentieth Revised Edition. New York NY: Ardent Media; 2011 whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501118_eng.pdf. 18 Bahamondes L, Bottura BF, Bahamondes MV, et al. Estimated Accessed on April 13, 2017 disability-adjusted life years averted by long-term provision of 4 Vlassoff M, Walker D, Shearer J, Newlands D, Singh S. Estimates of long acting contraceptive methods in a Brazilian clinic. Hum health care system costs of unsafe abortion in Africa and Latin Reprod 2014;29(10):2163–2170 America. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2009;35(03):114–121 19 Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, et al. Provision of no-cost, 5 Rocha RC, de Souza E, Soares EP, Nogueira ES, Chambô Filho A, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med Guazzelli CA. Prematurity and low birth weight among Brazilian 2014;371(14):1316–1323 adolescents and young adults. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2010;23 20 Ferreira JM, Monteiro I, Fernandes A, Bahamondes MV, Pitoli A, (03):142–145 Bahamondes L. Estimated disability-adjusted life years averted by 6 Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth. Geneva: free-of-charge provision of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrau- World Health Organization; 2012. Available at: http://www.who.int/ terine system over a 9-year period in Brazil. J Fam Plann Reprod pmnch/media/news/2012/introduction.pdf. Accessed on April 14, Health Care 2017:jfprhc-2016-101569 [Epub ahead of print] 2017 21 Bahamondes L, Ali M, Monteiro I, Fernandes A. Contraceptive 7 Potter JE, Schmertmann CP, Assunção RM, Cavenaghi SM. Map- sales in the setting of the Zika virus epidemic. Hum Reprod 2017; ping the timing, pace, and scale of the fertility transition in Brazil. 32(01):88–93 Popul Dev Rev 2010;36(02):283–307 22 Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Preventing unin- 8 Curtis SL. Contraceptive use dynamics research needs post ferti- tended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstet lity transition. Rev Bras Estud Popul 2012;29:191–193 Gynecol 2012;120(06):1291–1297
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Vol. 39 No. 8/2017 THIEME 376 Original Article
Trends in the Prevalence of Live Macrosomic Newborns According to Gestational Age Strata, in Brazil, 2001–2010, and 2012–2014 Tendências na prevalência de recém-nascidos vivos macrossômicos, estratificadas por idade gestacional, Brasil, 2001–2010 e 2012–2014
Maria Isabel do Nascimento1 Daniele Francine Pereira2 Calliana Lopata2 Carina Ladeia Flores Oliveira2 Ariane Arruda de Moura2 Maria Júlia da Silva Mattos2 Lucas Saraiva da Silva2
1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Instituto de Saúde Address for correspondence Maria Isabel do Nascimento, PhD, Coletiva, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, RJ, Brasil Hospital Universitário Antonio Pedro, Secretaria da Coordenação de 2 Medical Students, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal Medicina, Rua Marquês do Paraná, 303, Centro, Niterói (RJ), Brasil Fluminense, Niterói, RJ, Brasil (e-mail: [email protected]).
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2017;39:376–383.
Abstract Purpose To describe the trends in the prevalence of macrosomia (birth weight 4,000 g) according to gestational age in Brazil in the periods of 2001–2010 and 2012–2014. Methods Ecological study with data from the Brazilian Live Birth Information System (SINASC, in the Portuguese acronym) regarding singleton live newborns born from 22 gestational weeks. The trends in Brazil as a whole and in each of its five regions were analyzed according to preterm (22–36 gestational weeks) and term (37–42 gestational weeks) strata. Annual Percent Changes (APCs) based on the Prais-Winsten method and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to verify statistically signifi- cant changes in 2001–2010. Results In Brazil, the prevalence of macrosomic births was of 5.3% (2001–2010) and 5.1% (2012–2014). The rates were systematically higher in the North and Northeast Regions both in the preterm and in term strata. In the preterm stratum, the North Region presented the highest variation in the prevalence of macrosomia (þ137.5%) Keywords when comparing 2001 (0.8%) to 2010 (1.9%). In the term stratum, downward trends ► macrosomia were observed in Brazil as a whole and in every region. The trends for 2012–2014 were ► prevalence more heterogeneous, with the prevalence systematically higher than that observed for ► trends 2001–2010. The APC in the preterm stratum (2001–2010) showed a statistically ► epidemiology significant trend change in the North (APC: 15.4%; 95%CI: 0.6–32.3) and South (APC: ► maternal health 13.5%; 95%CI: 4.8–22.9) regions. In the term stratum, the change occurred only in the ► child health Northregion(APC:-1.5%;95%CI:-2.5–-0.5).
received DOI https://doi.org/ Copyright © 2017 by Thieme Revinter January 8, 2017 10.1055/s-0037-1604266. Publicações Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil accepted ISSN 0100-7203. May 24, 2017 TrendsinthePrevalenceofLiveMacrosomicNewbor Nascimento et al. 377
Conclusion The prevalence of macrosomic births in Brazil was higher than 5.0%. Macrosomia has potentially negative health implications for both children and adults, and deserves close attention in the public health agenda in Brazil, as well as further support for investigation and intervention.
Resumo Objetivo Descrever tendências nas prevalências de macrossomia (peso ao nascer 4.000 g) segundo idade gestacional no Brasil em 2001–2010 e em 2012–2014. Métodos Estudo ecológico com dados do Sistema de Informação sobre Nascidos Vivos (SINASC), incluindo bebês nascidos vivos a partir de 22 semanas, de gestações únicas. As tendências no Brasil como um todo e nas suas cinco regiões foram analisadas nos estratos pré-termo (22–36 semanas de gestação) e termo (37–42 semanas de gestação). Mudanças percentuais anuais (APCs) baseadas nos modelos de regressão propostos por Prais-Winsten e intervalos de confiança (ICs) de 95% foram calculados para verificar diferenças estatisticamente significantes no período 2001–2010. Resultados No Brasil, a prevalência de macrossomia foi de 5,3% (2001–2010) e 5,1% (2012–2014). As frequências foram sistematicamente maiores nas regiões Norte e Nordeste, tanto no pré-termo quanto no termo. No pré-termo, a região Norte apresentou a variação mais importante na prevalência de macrossomia (þ137,5%) quando comparados o ano de 2001 (0,8%) e o de 2010 (1,9%). No termo, tendências declinantes foram observadas no Brasil e em todas as suas regiões. As tendências em 2012–2014 foram mais heterogêneas, com frequências maiores do que aquelas observadas em 2001–2010. As APCs no estrato pré-termo (2001–2010) mostraram Palavras-chave que as mudanças foram estatisticamente significantes no Norte (APC: 15,4%; IC95%: ► macrossomia fetal 0,6–32,3) e no Sul (APC: 13,5%; IC95%: 4,8–22,9). No termo, a mudança ocorreu ► prevalência apenas no Norte (APC: -1,5%; IC95%: -2,5–-0,5). ► tendências Conclusão A prevalência de macrossomia no Brasil foi maior do que 5,0%. A ► epidemiologia macrossomia tem implicações potencialmente negativas para a saúde da criança e ► saúde materna do adulto, e merece mais atenção das políticas de saúde pública no Brasil, bem como ► saúde da criança mais apoio para investigação e intervenção.
Introduction Besides the potential for immediate injuries to both the The term fetal macrosomia implies fetal growth beyond a mothers and the newborns, macrosomia is suspected to be specific weight, regardless of the fetal gestational age.1 related to long-term harmful health effects, such as increased However, there is little consensus on the cut-off weight risk of developing obesity during childhood9 and adulthood,10 that properly allows to classify newbornss as macrosomic.2 as well as cancer,11 diabetes,12 and other chronic diseases. Definitions based on percentiles are dependent on gestation- The conditions associated to macrosomia include pregesta- al age3 and regional features.4 These parameters increase the tional and gestational diabetes mellitus, maternal obesity, and complexity to estimate the fetus’ measures, and this limits gestational weight gain,2 which may be reasonably controlled their use in the obstetric practice. Simpler classifications via adequate prenatal care. Considering prenatal care as based only on the cut-off weight are commonly used, and universally offered in Brazil, and the scarce scientific literature macrosomic newborns are considered those who were born investigating macrosomia at the population level, this study with a birth weight 4,000 g5 or 4,500 g.3,6 aimed to describe trends in the prevalence of live newborns Even though low birth weight is an issue of major interest in weighing 4,000 g according to gestational age strata, in the specialized scientific literature focusing on unfavorable Brazil and in its five regions, in the periods of 2001–2010 perinatal outcomes, the effects of macrosomia are also adverse, and 2012–2014. with potentially serious consequences for the mothers and 3 newborns. Maternal problems include high frequency of Methods cesarean sections, perineum lacerations, postpartum hemor- rhage, prolonged hospitalization, and puerperal infections. This is an ecological study based on nationwide information The newborns are at risk of shoulder dystocia, fracture, intra- provided by the Department of Informatics of the Brazilian uterine hypoxemia, intensive care unit admission and death.7,8 Unified Healthcare System (DATASUS, in the Portuguese
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Vol. 39 No. 8/2017 378 TrendsinthePrevalenceofLiveMacrosomicNewbor Nascimento et al.
acronym), the main national vital statistics subsystems tical significance evaluated via the Durbin Watson test. The coordinator in Brazil. The Brazilian Live Births Information annual percent changes (APCs) and their respective 95% System (SINASC, in the Portuguese acronym) is the subsys- confidence intervals (95%CIs) were estimated as described tem that stores epidemiologic information on live births in by Antunes and Cardoso.15 The statistical procedures were Brazil, and it is the source of the variables (namely year of performed using The Microsoft Excel Software (Microsoft birth, number of live newborns, gestational age, and birth Corporation, Redmond, WA, US). weight) used in the present study. All live newborns from singleton pregnancies from 22 gestational weeks from 2001 Ethical Procedures to 2010 and from 2012 to 2014 were included in the study. This study followed the recommendations for scientific The data for 2011 were not used because the gestational research involving human subjects, and as it was conducted age field in the birth certificate form was modified in using de-identified secondary datasets publicly available on that year, and its inclusion could cause the erroneous the DATASUS website; therefore, it was exempt from formal classification of some babies in regard to gestational age. ethical procedures. The definition of macrosomia was based on the cut-off birth weight 4,000 g. Results Prevalence of macrosomic births in Brazil as a whole and in its five regions (North, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast and In Brazil, the number of live births after 22 gestational weeks South) was calculated for each year, for all live newborns reached over 30 million during 2001–2010, and over 8 from 22 gestational weeks, for preterm newborns (from 22 to million during 2012–2014. The number of newborns with 36 gestational weeks), and for term newborns (from 37 to 42 birth weight 4,000 g reached 1,606,330 (2001–2010) and gestational weeks). Considering the improvement in cover- 422,069 (2012–2014), determining an overall prevalence of age and data quality provided by the SINASC in more recent 5.3% (2001–2010) and 5.1% (2012–2014). This indicator years, a correction factor created by Szwarcwald et al13 was decreased slightly ( 8.9%) when comparing the frequency used to reduce the effect of underreported births only during obtained in 2001 (5.6%) and in 2010 (5.1%). There was no the 2001–2010 period, so as to more accurately represent the change in the 2012–2014 period (►Fig. 1). real number of live births in Brazil. Prevalence indicators showed distinct trends according to As differences between the SINASC data and the primary gestational age strata and time periods. Comparing the data studied by Silveira et al14 were more marked involving preterm strata rates observed in the 2001–2010 period, newborns weighing up to 3,000 g, with lower or no signifi- the prevalence of macrosomia increased both in Brazil as a cant difference above this weight group, no factor was used whole and in four of its five regions, with the Southeast to correct the birth weight 4,000 g in relation to gesta- Region registering a variation of zero. The highest increase tional age. occurred in the North Region (> 130.0%). In the 2012–2014 period, macrosomia preterm rates registered a slight nega- Secular Trends Analysis tive change. The highest reduction occurred in the South First, a trend assessment (increasing, decreasing, or station- Region ( 20.0%). ary) was visually obtained through the inspection of specific In the term strata, from 2001 to 2010, the prevalence rates graphs for Brazil as a whole. The dependent variable (preva- for macrosomia decreased in Brazil as a whole and in all lence of live newborns weighing 4,000 g) was placed on regions. In the 2012–2014 period, the frequency was some- the y-axis and correlated with the independent variable what heterogeneous. The prevalence of newborns born from (year of birth), which was placed on the x-axis. The analyses 37 gestational weeks and weighting 4,000 g decreased in were repeated for each of the five Brazilian regions. Brazil as a whole and in the South Region, but it increased in the North and Southeast Regions. There were no variations Trend Variation in the 2001–2010 Period in the Northeast and Midwest Regions (►Table 1). Anticipating that some random effects related to prevalence Pictorial representations of the time series allowed the variations over time would make it more difficult to interpret visualization of prevalence trends (solid lines) in Brazil and potential trends, a second step was taken with the plotting in every region separately for the 2001–2010 period. and reevaluation of smoothed prevalence rates using a third- Smoothed data (dotted lines) showed that preterm macro- order moving average. This step was only adopted for the somia prevalence rates changed harmonically during 2004– 2001–2010 period, as this statistical technique is not recom- 2005 (►Fig. 2). mended for analysis of historical data with less than 7 time The results indicate statistically significant elevation trends points.15 in preterm macrosomic births in the North and South Regions. Next, to address the residue autocorrelation effects deter- According to the APCs, the North Region had the most impor- mined by time frame proximity, a step-by-step procedure tant annual variation (APC: 15.4%; 95%CI: 0.6–32.3) followed proposed by Antunes and Cardoso15 was followed beginning by the South Region (APC: 13.5%; 95%CI: 4.8–22.9). In term with the ten-base logarithmic transformation of the preva- macrosomic births, the APCs suggest statistically significant lence rates. Finally, parameter estimations were made by declining trends only in the North Region (APC: 1.5%; 95%CI: generalized linear regression designated as autoregressive 2.5– 0.5). In Brazil as a whole and in the other four regions, modeling, using the Prais-Winsten method, and with statis- the trends were stationary (►Table 2).
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Vol. 39 No. 8/2017 TrendsinthePrevalenceofLiveMacrosomicNewbor Nascimento et al. 379
Fig. 1 Birth of live newborns after 22 gestational weeks registered in the Brazillian Live Births Information System (SINASC, in the Portuguese acronym), and trends in the prevalence of macrosomic live newborns in Brazil, from 2001 to 2010, and from 2012 to 2014. The principal y-axis shows the total number of births. The secondary y-axis shows prevalence of macrosomic babies. The x-axis shows the year of birth.
Table 1 Prevalence of live macrosomic newborns ( 4,000 g) according to GW strata in Brazil and its regions, from 2001 to 2010 and from 2012 to 2014
Year Brazil North Northeast Midwest Southeast South
22 to 36 37 to 42 22 to 36 37 to 42 22 to 36 37 to 42 22 to 36 37 to 42 22 to 36 37 to 42 22 to 36 37 to 42 GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%) GW (%)
2001 0.6 5.9 0.8 7.3 0.7 7.5 0.5 5.8 0.6 4.5 0.3 5.6
2002 0.4 5.6 0.7 6.9 0.3 7.1 0.5 5.5 0.5 4.4 0.2 5.3
2003 0.3 5.3 0.6 6.4 0.4 6.5 0.2 5.2 0.4 4.2 0.2 5.0
2004 0.3 5.5 0.6 6.5 0.2 6.7 0.3 5.3 0.4 4.4 0.2 5.3
2005 0.3 5.7 0.6 6.4 0.2 7.0 0.2 5.6 0.3 4.6 0.3 5.5
2006 1.0 5.7 2.5 6.5 1.5 7.1 0.8 5.6 0.7 4.6 0.5 5.3
2007 0.9 5.6 2.5 6.4 1.3 7.1 0.7 5.4 0.6 4.4 0.6 5.1
2008 0.9 5.7 1.9 6.4 1.4 6.9 0.9 5.4 0.6 4.6 0.6 5.5
2009 0.9 5.5 1.8 6.3 1.4 6.8 1.0 5.3 0.5 4.5 0.5 5.3
2010 0.9 5.4 1.9 6.1 1.2 6.7 0.8 5.1 0.6 4.4 0.6 5.1