Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(06): 597-601
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700857
Original Article

Isolated Single Umbilical Artery as a Risk Factor for Urinary Tract Infections in Childhood

Nata Tifferet Willner   *
1   Faculty of Medicine, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
,
Tamar Wainstock‡   *
2   Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
,
Asnat Walfisch
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
,
Eyal Sheiner
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
,
Daniella Landau
4   Department of Neonatology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
,
Ofer Beharier
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine whether isolated single umbilical artery (iSUA), even absent identifiable genitourinary (GU) abnormalities, increases the risk of GU infection during childhood.

Study Design Retrospective population-based comparison of fetuses with iSUA versus normal three-vessel cords. Fetuses with growth restriction, prematurity, multiple gestations, and anatomical or chromosomal anomalies were excluded. The primary outcome was hospital-associated GU infection during the first 18 years of life. Kaplan–Meier's survival curves were used to assess cumulative risk; Cox's multivariable models were used to adjust for confounders.

Results Among 227,599 term singleton deliveries, children with iSUA (n = 729) had a higher incidence (1.8 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001) and cumulative incidence (log-rank test, p < 0.001) of hospital-associated GU infection. The Cox's models confirmed these findings (hazard ratio: >2.82, confidence interval: 1.63–4.87 in composite models).

Conclusion iSUA represents an independent risk factor for GU infection. Urinary tract imaging may be warranted.

Keywords

single umbilical artery - genitourinary infection - urinary tract infection - umbilical vessel - fetus

Note

This study was conducted as part of the requirements for MD degree from the Goldman Medical School at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.


* These authors contributed equally to this study.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 March 2019

Accepted: 22 September 2019

Article published online:
22 November 2019

© 2019. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Shen N, Zhang W, Li G. Impact of isolated single umbilical artery on pregnancy outcome and delivery in full-term births. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42 (04) 399-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Murphy-Kaulbeck L, Dodds L, Joseph KS, Van den Hof M. Single umbilical artery risk factors and pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (04) 843-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chetty-John S, Zhang J, Chen Z. et al. Long-term physical and neurologic development in newborn infants with isolated single umbilical artery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 368.e1-368.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mu SC, Lin CH, Chen YL, Sung TC, Bai CH, Jow GM. The perinatal outcomes of asymptomatic isolated single umbilical artery in full-term neonates. Pediatr Neonatol 2008; 49 (06) 230-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Geipel A, Germer U, Welp T, Schwinger E, Gembruch U. Prenatal diagnosis of single umbilical artery: determination of the absent side, associated anomalies, Doppler findings and perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15 (02) 114-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bourke WG, Clarke TA, Mathews TG, O'Halpin D, Donoghue VB. Isolated single umbilical artery--the case for routine renal screening. Arch Dis Child 1993; 68 (5 Spec No): 600-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Daoub A, Drake TM. Congenital abnormalities of the urogenital tract: the clue is in the cord?. BMJ Case Rep 2014; 2014: pii: bcr2014208172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rittler M, Mazzitelli N, Fuksman R, de Rosa LG, Grandi C. Single umbilical artery and associated malformations in over 5500 autopsies: relevance for perinatal management. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2010; 13 (06) 465-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martínez-Frías ML, Bermejo E, Rodríguez-Pinilla E, Prieto D. ; ECEMC Working Group. Does single umbilical artery (SUA) predict any type of congenital defect? Clinical-epidemiological analysis of a large consecutive series of malformed infants. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A (01) 15-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Boom ML, Kist-van Holthe JE, Sramek A, Lardenoye SW, Walther FJ, Lopriore E. Is screening for renal anomalies warranted in neonates with isolated single umbilical artery?. Neonatology 2010; 97 (03) 225-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thummala MR, Raju TN, Langenberg P. Isolated single umbilical artery anomaly and the risk for congenital malformations: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 1998; 33 (04) 580-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ansari BM, Jewkes F, Davies SG. Urinary tract infection in children. Part I: epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis and management. J Infect 1995; 30 (01) 3-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Montini G, Tullus K, Hewitt I. Febrile urinary tract infections in children. N Engl J Med 2011; 365 (03) 239-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar