Advanced maternal age and its association with placenta praevia and placental abruption: a meta-analysis

• Autor(a) principal: Katrini Guidolini Martinelli
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Érica Marvila Garcia, Edson Theodoro dos Santos Neto, Silvana Granado Nogueira da Gama
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
• Texto Completo: https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6812
• topic: Maternal Age; Placenta Previa; Abruptio Placentae; Pregnancy Complications

This study aimed to investigate the existence and magnitude of the association between advanced maternal age (AMA) and occurrence of placenta praevia (PP) and placental abruption (PA) among nulliparous and multiparous women, by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched articles published between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, in any language, in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS. Women were grouped into two age categories: up to 34 years old and 35 years or older. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted for the PP and PA outcomes, using a meta-regression model to find possible covariates associated with heterogeneity among the studies and Egger’s test to assess publication bias. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) system (CRD42016045594). Twenty-three studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For both outcomes, an increase in age increased the magnitude of association strength, and PP (OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 2.79-3.57) was more strongly associated with AMA than PA (OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.35-1.54). For parity, there was no difference between nulliparous and multiparous women considered older for the PP and PA outcomes. Our review provided very low-quality evidence for both outcomes, since it encompasses observational studies with high statistical heterogeneity, diversity of populations, no control of confounding factors in several cases, and publication bias. However, the confidence intervals were small and there is a dose-response gradient, as well as a large magnitude of effect for PP.