Fetal congenital anomalies among consanguineous and non consanguineous marriage pregnant women attending in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib medical university


  • Kaniz Fatema Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Fahmida Zabin Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Nigar Sultana Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Hasna Hena Pervin Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh




Congenital anomalies, Non-consanguineous, Consanguineous, Pregnant women


Background: Consanguineous marriage has been described as an important factor contributing to increased congenital malformations. Congenital anomalies began to emerge as one of the major childhood health problems and refers to any malformations that occur in a developing fetus. The aim of the study was to assess fetal congenital anomalies among consanguineous and non-consanguineous pregnant marriages.

Methods: An observational study design was adopted. Setting: Data were collected from the fetal medicine unit at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib medical university, Dhaka, Bangladesh during the period, from April 2017 to March 2018. Sample: A total sample was 100 pregnant women (Consanguineous and non-consanguineous with fetal congenital anomalies) were recruited according to certain criteria. Two tools were used as materials. Structured interview tool which entailed socio-demographic data; medical history, past obstetrical history, and ultrasonographic fetal assessment record.

Results: More than half of the fetuses in the consanguineous marriage group had multiple affected systems compared to one-quarter of fetuses in the non-consanguineous marriage group (68 and 24% respectively). In this study highly statistically, significant differences were found in central nervous system anomalies, followed by genitourinary, musculoskeletal and nonimmune hydrops fetalis. Prevalence of hydrocephalus was higher in the consanguineous marriage group compared to the non-consanguineous group, while the frequency of hydronephrosis was higher in non-consanguineous marriage group than consanguineous marriage group. Ubiquity of non-immune fetal hydrops was also higher in the non-consanguineous marriage group.

Conclusions: The most affected system of the fetus was CNS, followed by the gastrointestinal, urinary, and Musculoskeletal systems. Consanguineous couples are recommended to have genetic counseling, premarital examination, and screening about hereditary diseases.


Improved National prevalence Estimates for 18 selected major Birth defects-united states. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 2006;54(51 and 52);1301-5.

Eurocat. European Network of congenital Anomaly Registers. Available at: https://eu-rd-platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUROCAT-Guide-1.3.pdf. Accessed on 21 January, 2022.

Rani Kumer M, Rhat Bv. Perinatal mortality trends in a referral hospital. Indian J Pediatr. 1996;63:357-61.

Bhat BV, Rani Kumer M. Perinatal mortality trends in a referral hospital. India J maternal and child HITH. 1996;7:313.

Chalur vedi P, Banerjeeks, Spectrum of congenital malformation in the newborn form rural Maharash. Indian J pediator. 1989;56-5017.

Agarwas SS. Singh PS at al/ Prevalence and spectrum of congenital malformations in a prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian Med Res. 1991;94:413-9.

Petrini J, Damus K, Russell R, Poshman K. Contribution of birth defects in infant mortality in the united states. Teratol. 2002;66:3-6.

Giovanne T, Foberto T. Eauta C. Descriptive epidemiology of selected birth defects areas of hombedy Italy populations health metrics. 2007;5:4.

Kolter H. Warkany Medical progress Congenital malformations: eliologic faetors and itlic role prevention (1st of 2 parts) N Engl J Med. 1983;308:424-3.

Kalter H. Workary Medical Progness, congenital malformations (2nd of 2 part). N Engl J Med. 1983;308(9):491-7.

Neson K. Holmes LB. Malformations due to presumed spontaneous mutations in newborn infants. Engl J Med 1984; 320 (1) : 14-23.

Kold Jensen T.Y. Couguilal malformation: Children health and enuironment a review evidence. Available from: office for official publication of the European communities 2002, 116-126.

Neelu A Desai, Avinash Desai. Congenital anomalies. A prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian J Med Res 1991; 94: 413-9

Singh M, Sharma SK. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborns. Indians J Pediatr. 1980;47:239-44.

Asindi A, Asindi, Ibrahim H. Major congenital malformations among Saudi infants admitted to Asir central hospitals. Ann Saudi Med. 1947;7(2):250-3.

Parveen F, Tyab S. Frequency and pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn and associated maternal risk factor JCPSP. 2007;17(6):340-3.

Gelineau Van wase J, Fennel RH. Genetics of neural tube defects. Semin Pediatr Neural. 2001;8:160-4.

Binbacher R, Messerchmidt A. Diagnosis and prevention of neural tube defects. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:161-4.

Mishra PC, Baveza R. Congenital malformations in newborns: A prospective study. Indian pediatr. 1989;26:32-5.

Swain S, Agarwal A, Bhatia BD. Congenital malformations at birth. Indian Pediatr. 1994;31:1187-91.

Sorouri A. Consanguineous marriage and congenital anomalies. 1st edition. Isfahan University Med Sci. 180:1-15.

Mckusick V. Human Genetics, 2nd editor New delhi, Prentice Hall of India. 1972:145-9.

Pater HS. Practical Genetic counseling 5th edition. Butter worth Heinemann, Oxford. 1998;123-9.

Anjum R, Saher S, Soomro N. Frequency of congenital anomalies and associated maternal risk factors. Pak J Surg. 2006;22:18-23.

Ismail GM, Abd El Hamid AA, Abd El Naby AG. Assessment of Factors that Hinder Early Detection of Breast Cancer among Females at Cairo University Hospital. World Appl Sci J. 2013;23(1):99-108.

El Koumi MA, Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: A hospital-based study. Pediatr Rep. 2013;5:e5.

Perveen F, Tyyab S. Frequency and pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn and associated maternal risk factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17(6):340-3.

Shawky RM, Sadik DI. Congenital malformations prevalent among Egyptian children and associated risk factors. Egy J Med Human Genetics. 2017;12(1):6978.

Aryasinghe L, Moezzi D, Ansari TA, Khoury R, Mathew E, Sharbatti SA et al. Congenital Anomalies at Birth: A Hospital Based Study in UAE. J Nepal Paediatr Soc. 2012;32(2):4-7.

Al-Gazali LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, Varghese M. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet. 1995;32(1):7-13.

Jehangir W, Ali F, Jahangir T, Masood MS. Prevalence of Gross Congenital Malformations at Birth in the Neonates in a Tertiary Care Hospital. APMC. 2009;3(1):47-50.

Rajech S, Esmael A, Mohamad K, Ahmad MS, Abdussalam A, Muhammad M. Consanguinity and Its Effect on Morbidity and Congenital Disorders Among Arabs in Israel. Human Genetic Dis. 2011;267-6.

Mohammed YA, Shawky RM, Soliman AAS, Ahmed MM. Chromosomal study in newborn infants with congenital anomalies in Assiut University hospital: Cross-sectional study. Egy J Med Human Genetics. 2011;12(1):79-90.






Original Research Articles