Association of Supine Going-to-Sleep Position in Late Pregnancy With Reduced Birth Weight: A Secondary Analysis of an Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis | Neonatology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.  Flowchart of Study Population
Flowchart of Study Population

The eligible population of 3108 excluded women with gestation less than 28 weeks. IPD indicates individual participant data.

Table 1.  Demographic Characteristics by Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position in Control Participants
Demographic Characteristics by Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position in Control Participants
Table 2.  Birth Weight, INTERGROWTH-21st Centile, and Customized Centile by Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position
Birth Weight, INTERGROWTH-21st Centile, and Customized Centile by Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position
Table 3.  Birth weight, INTERGROWTH-21st Centile, and Customized Centile by Original Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position
Birth weight, INTERGROWTH-21st Centile, and Customized Centile by Original Maternal Going-to-Sleep Position
1.
Humphries  A, Mirjalili  SA, Tarr  GP, Thompson  JMD, Stone  P.  The effect of supine positioning on maternal hemodynamics during late pregnancy  [published online June 3, 2018].  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1478958PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Cronin  RS, Li  M, Thompson  JMD,  et al.  An individual participant data meta-analysis of maternal going-to-sleep position, interactions with fetal vulnerability, and the risk of late stillbirth.  EClinicalMedicine. 2019;10:49-57. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Gordon  A, Raynes-Greenow  C, Bond  D, Morris  J, Rawlinson  W, Jeffery  H.  Sleep position, fetal growth restriction, and late-pregnancy stillbirth: the Sydney stillbirth study.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):347-355. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000627PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Heazell  A, Li  M, Budd  J,  et al.  Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth—findings from a stillbirth case-control study.  BJOG. 2018;125(2):254-262. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14967PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
McCowan  LME, Thompson  JMD, Cronin  RS,  et al.  Going to sleep in the supine position is a modifiable risk factor for late pregnancy stillbirth: findings from the New Zealand multicentre stillbirth case-control study.  PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179396. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Stacey  T, Thompson  JM, Mitchell  EA, Ekeroma  AJ, Zuccollo  JM, McCowan  LM.  Association between maternal sleep practices and risk of late stillbirth: a case-control study.  BMJ. 2011;342:d3403. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Milsom  I, Forssman  L.  Factors influencing aortocaval compression in late pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;148(6):764-771. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(84)90563-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Higuchi  H, Takagi  S, Zhang  K, Furui  I, Ozaki  M.  Effect of lateral tilt angle on the volume of the abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava in pregnant and nonpregnant women determined by magnetic resonance imaging.  Anesthesiology. 2015;122(2):286-293. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000553PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Rossi  A, Cornette  J, Johnson  MR,  et al.  Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pregnant women: cross-sectional analysis of physiological parameters throughout pregnancy and the impact of the supine position.  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:31. doi:10.1186/1532-429X-13-31PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Jeffreys  RM, Stepanchak  W, Lopez  B, Hardis  J, Clapp  JF  III.  Uterine blood flow during supine rest and exercise after 28 weeks of gestation.  BJOG. 2006;113(11):1239-1247. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01056.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kauppila  A, Koskinen  M, Puolakka  J, Tuimala  R, Kuikka  J.  Decreased intervillous and unchanged myometrial blood flow in supine recumbency.  Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55(2):203-205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Silva  KP, Hamamoto  TENK, Nomura  RMY.  Transient fetal blood redistribution associated with maternal supine position.  J Perinat Med. 2017;45(3):343-347. doi:10.1515/jpm-2016-0288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Khatib  N, Weiner  Z, Beloosesky  R, Vitner  D, Thaler  I.  The effect of maternal supine position on umbilical and cerebral blood flow indices.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;175:112-114. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.043PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Stone  PR, Burgess  W, McIntyre  JP,  et al; Maternal Sleep In Pregnancy Research Group, University of Auckland.  Effect of maternal position on fetal behavioural state and heart rate variability in healthy late gestation pregnancy.  J Physiol. 2017;595(4):1213-1221. doi:10.1113/JP273201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Konje  JC, Howarth  ES, Kaufmann  P, Taylor  DJ.  Longitudinal quantification of uterine artery blood volume flow changes during gestation in pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction.  BJOG. 2003;110(3):301-305. doi:10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.t01-1-02163.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
McIntyre  JP, Ingham  CM, Hutchinson  BL,  et al.  A description of sleep behaviour in healthy late pregnancy, and the accuracy of self-reports.  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):115. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0905-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Li  M, Thompson  JMD, Cronin  RS,  et al.  The Collaborative IPD of Sleep and Stillbirth (CRIBSS): is maternal going-to-sleep position a risk factor for late stillbirth and does maternal sleep position interact with fetal vulnerability? an individual participant data meta-analysis study protocol.  BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020323. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Li  M, McCowan  LME, Cronin  RS,  et al. Collaborative IPD analysis of maternal sleep position and late stillbirth (greater than or equal to 28 weeks of gestation). http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017047703. Accessed September 4, 2018.
19.
O’Brien  LM, Warland  J, Stacey  T, Heazell  AEP, Mitchell  EA; STARS Consortium.  Maternal sleep practices and stillbirth: findings from an international case-control study.  Birth. 2019;46(2):344-354. doi:10.1111/birt.12416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Villar  J, Cheikh Ismail  L, Victora  CG,  et al; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st).  International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.  Lancet. 2014;384(9946):857-868. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60932-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Freni-Sterrantino  A, Afoakwah  P, Smith  RB, Ghosh  RE, Hansell  A.  Birth weight centiles and small for gestational age by sex and ethnicity for England and Wales.  Arch Dis Child. 2019;13:13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Mikolajczyk  RT, Zhang  J, Betran  AP,  et al.  A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles.  Lancet. 2011;377(9780):1855-1861. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60364-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Buck Louis  GM, Grewal  J, Albert  PS,  et al.  Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):449.e1-449.e41. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
International Standards for Size at Birth [computer program]. Version v1.0.6257.25111. INTERGROWTH-21st Project; 2018.
25.
Gardosi  J, Francis  A. Customised centile calculator: GROW version 8.0.1. http://www.gestation.net. Accessed September 10, 2018.
26.
Gardosi  J, Mongelli  M, Wilcox  M, Chang  A.  An adjustable fetal weight standard.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6(3):168-174. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06030168.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Vasak  B, Koenen  SV, Koster  MP,  et al.  Human fetal growth is constrained below optimal for perinatal survival.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(2):162-167. doi:10.1002/uog.14644PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Francis  A, Hugh  O, Gardosi  J.  Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S692-S699. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Owusu  JT, Anderson  FJ, Coleman  J,  et al.  Association of maternal sleep practices with pre-eclampsia, low birth weight, and stillbirth among Ghanaian women.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(3):261-265. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.01.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Anderson  NH, Sadler  LC, McKinlay  CJD, McCowan  LME.  INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):509.e1-509.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
McIntyre  J. The Physiology of Maternal Sleep (and Sleep Position) in Healthy Late Pregnancy. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland; 2017. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/33462. Accessed December 12, 2018.
32.
Cronin  RS, Chelimo  C, Mitchell  EA,  et al.  Survey of maternal sleep practices in late pregnancy in a multi-ethnic sample in South Auckland, New Zealand.  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):190. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1378-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Tommy’s. Sleep on Side—a pregnancy campaign. https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/sleep-side-pregnancy-campaign. Published November 20, 2017. Accessed September 21, 2018.
34.
Cure Kids. Sleep on Side: stillbirth prevention campaign. https://www.sleeponside.org.nz/. Accessed September 21, 2018.
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    Sleeping position and birth weight
    Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH | University of Washington
    This is an interesting study showing that the position in which pregnant women sleep is associated with their infant's birthweight. There are clear biological mechanisms for this. This study may be especially important where prenatal exams reveal the child is small for gestational age.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Editor in Chief, JAMA Network Open
    Original Investigation
    Obstetrics and Gynecology
    October 2, 2019

    Association of Supine Going-to-Sleep Position in Late Pregnancy With Reduced Birth Weight: A Secondary Analysis of an Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    • 2Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    • 3Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • 4Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Division of Developmental Biology & Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, United Kingdom
    • 5Department of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom
    • 6Vicki Culling Associates, Wellington, New Zealand
    • 7National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • 8Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912614. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12614
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  As supine maternal position is associated with reduced uterine blood flow, is going to sleep in a supine position in the third trimester associated with reduced birth weight?

    Findings  This prespecified subgroup analysis of control participants in an individual participant data meta-analysis found that women at 28 weeks’ gestation or more who usually went to sleep in a supine position gave birth to infants with significantly lower mean birth weights (3410 g vs 3554 g for nonsupine sleep). This finding was independent of variables known to be associated with birth size.

    Meaning  A reduction in birth weight associated with third-trimester back sleeping is clinically significant, biologically plausible, and likely modifiable.

    Abstract

    Importance  Supine maternal position in the third trimester is associated with reduced uterine blood flow and increased risk of late stillbirth. As reduced uterine blood flow is also associated with fetal growth restriction, this study explored the association between the position in which pregnant women went to sleep and infant birth weight.

    Objective  To examine the association between supine position when going to sleep in women after 28 weeks of pregnancy and lower birth weight and birth weight centiles.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  Prespecified subgroup analysis using data from controls in an individual participant data meta-analysis of 4 case-control studies investigating sleep and stillbirth in New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Participants were women with ongoing pregnancies at 28 weeks’ gestation or more at interview.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was adjusted mean difference (aMD) in birth weight. Secondary outcomes were birth weight centiles (INTERGROWTH-21st and customized) and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for birth weight less than 50th and less than 10th centile (small for gestational age) for supine vs nonsupine going-to-sleep position in the last 1 to 4 weeks, adjusted for variables known to be associated with birth size.

    Results  Of 1760 women (mean [SD] age, 30.25 [5.46] years), 57 (3.2%) reported they usually went to sleep supine during the previous 1 to 4 weeks. Adjusted mean (SE) birth weight was 3410 (112) g among women who reported supine position and 3554 (98) g among women who reported nonsupine position (aMD, 144 g; 95% CI, −253 to −36 g; P = .009), representing an approximate 10-percentile reduction in adjusted mean INTERGROWTH-21st (48.5 vs 58.6; aMD, −10.1; 95% CI, −17.1 to −3.1) and customized (40.7 vs 49.7; aMD, −9.0; 95% CI, −16.6 to −1.4) centiles. There was a nonsignificant increase in birth weight at less than the 50th INTERGROWTH-21st centile (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.83-4.34) and a 2-fold increase in birth weight at less than the 50th customized centile (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.20-3.76). Going to sleep supine was associated with a 3-fold increase in small for gestational age birth weight by INTERGROWTH-21st standards (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.37-7.59) and a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age birth weight customized standards (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.77-3.44).

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study found that going to sleep in a supine position in late pregnancy was independently associated with reduced birth weight and birth weight centile. This novel association is biologically plausible and likely modifiable. Public health campaigns that encourage women in the third trimester of pregnancy to settle to sleep on their side have potential to optimize birth weight.

    Introduction

    Maternal supine position in late pregnancy is associated with significant hemodynamic changes that can result in a reduction in blood flow to the fetus.1 Supine maternal going-to-sleep position has recently been found to confer an independent 2.6-fold (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.72-4.04) increased risk of late (≥28 weeks’ gestation) stillbirth.2-6 Maternal effects of a supine position in late pregnancy include compression of the inferior vena cava1,7 and aorta1,8 leading to a reduction in maternal cardiac output,1,7,9 a reduction in uterine artery blood flow,10 and consequently decreased placental perfusion.11 Fetal effects associated with supine maternal position include a redistribution of blood circulation with increased flow through the fetal middle cerebral artery12,13 and increased fetal quiescence,14 suggesting fetal adaptation to mild hypoxic stress. Given that impaired utero-placental flow is associated with fetal growth restriction,15 it is plausible that repeated exposure to supine maternal position during sleep in late pregnancy may adversely affect fetal growth.

    The initial going-to-sleep position is the sleep position that women maintain for the longest duration throughout the night16; therefore, going-to-sleep position is likely to have the greatest impact on blood flow to the developing fetus.

    In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the control participants included in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of going-to-sleep position and risk of late pregnancy stillbirth, we hypothesized that women in the third trimester who reported going to sleep in a supine position during the previous 1 to 4 weeks would have babies with lower birth weight and birth weight centiles compared with women who did not go to sleep in a supine position.

    Methods

    We selected women from the control group with ongoing pregnancies from the Collaborative Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Sleep and Stillbirth (CRIBSS) study population.2-6 This was a 1-stage meta-analysis stratified by study and site. The IPD search strategy, search results, and PRISMA checklist have been published elsewhere,2,17 and the CRIBBS study was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.18 Five international case-control studies that collected data regarding maternal going-to-sleep position and late stillbirth were included in the CRIBBS IPD.3-6,19 Ethical approval was obtained by each individual case-control study.2 Each participant in the case-control studies provided written informed consent. Additional approval for the IPD meta-analysis was obtained from the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee; this approval applied to the study reported here. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

    Inclusion criteria for the current study were participation in the control group in the CRIBBS IPD study (comprising control participants recruited in 4 case-control studies from 3 high-income countries, New Zealand [2 studies],5,6 Australia,3 and the United Kingdom,4 between June 2006 and March 2016), gestational age at birth collected in weeks and days (to allow accurate calculation of the customized and INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight centiles), gestation at study interview of 28 weeks and 0 days or more, gestation at birth less than or equal to 42 weeks and 6 days, and data available for usual going-to-sleep position up to 4 weeks before the study interview.20 A further case-control study that was included in the CRIBBS IPD was excluded from the current analysis as this online survey collected gestational age in completed weeks only.19 Individual participants were also excluded if they had missing variables required for calculation of birth weight centiles. There were no missing data for the variables included in the analyses and no imputation was therefore undertaken. In all studies, a detailed face-to-face interview was undertaken with participants during pregnancy. Maternal ethnicity was included in the analyses as ethnicity has been associated with birth weight and fetal growth.21-23 Ethnicity data were self-reported from the original studies2-5 and harmonized by criteria agreed on by the CRIBSS IPD collaboration: white (includes New Zealand and Australian European, British, Irish, and Romani, and other Europeans), black (includes British Black, African, and Caribbean), South Asian (includes Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bhutanese, Afghan and Maldivian), Southeast and East Asian (includes Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Indonesian), Maori, Pacific Islander, and other ethnicity.17 Birth weight data were collected after birth from hospital records.

    We calculated the centiles for our study population according to INTERGROWTH-21st and customized centiles using published methods.24,25 INTERGROWTH-21st centiles are a birth weight standard derived from a low-risk birth cohort and are adjusted for gestation at birth and infant sex.20 Customized centiles are based on a fetal growth standard and are adjusted for gestation and infant sex as well as maternal height, weight, parity, and ethnicity.26 As adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, increase with decreasing birth weight and birth weight centiles,27 birth weight centiles were also categorized into less than the 10th centile (small for gestational age [SGA]) and less than the 50th centile. Specifically, birth weight less than the 50th centile was included as well as SGA as per our previous analyses of CRIBBS data.2 Furthermore, other publications have demonstrated an association with increased risk of stillbirth compared with infants with birth weight greater than the 50th centile.2,27 We also included data on large for gestational age (LGA), defined as birth weight greater than the 90th centile for each measure.

    For this analysis, maternal going-to-sleep position was the usual position over the previous week,5 previous 2 weeks,3 or previous month4,6 (whichever was longest) and varied by study. Position was recorded as left side, right side, supine, and other (which included variable sides, prone, and propped). For the main analysis, supine was compared with nonsupine. Secondary analysis was performed using all 4 going-to-sleep positions.

    Data were available on going-to-sleep position last night and last month for the same participant from 2 of the included studies.4,6 Changes in maternal going-to-sleep position over time were therefore investigated in sensitivity analysis using this subset of participants.

    Statistical Analysis

    Birth weight and birth weight centiles were compared by maternal going-to-sleep position and adjusted for infant gestational age at birth and at time of interview, infant sex, and maternal age, height, weight, parity, ethnicity, preexisting diabetes, preexisting hypertension, antepartum hemorrhage, gestational hypertensive disorder, gestational diabetes, cigarette smoking, and recreational drug use. To account for possible study differences, multivariable analyses were also adjusted for individual studies as a covariate. For continuous outcomes (birth weight and birth weight centiles), a generalized linear model was used with predicted adjusted means obtained using least-squares means. For binary outcomes (birth weight centile <10th, <50th, and >90th) logistic regression was used, stratified by study, and aORs and 95% confidence intervals were reported. The threshold for statistical significance was set at 2-tailed P < .05. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

    Results

    There were 1804 women who were controls in our CRIBBS database, of whom 1760 (97.6%; mean [SD] age, 30.25 [5.46] years) met the eligibility criteria (Figure). Of these women, 57 (3.2%) reported they usually went to sleep supine during the previous 1 to 4 weeks. Demographic characteristics by maternal going-to-sleep position in control participants are reported in Table 1. There were no differences in maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, and educational status for those who reported going to sleep in a supine position compared with those who went to sleep in a nonsupine position. Women who were not cohabiting were more likely to report going to sleep in a supine position, as were women who had a parity of 1. Gestation at interview was on average 1 week earlier for those who reported supine going-to-sleep position (mean [SD], 35.5 [3.9] vs 36.5 [3.5] weeks’ gestation; difference, −1.01 weeks; 95% CI, −1.94 to −0.08 weeks; P = .03), but mean (SD) gestation at birth was 40.0 (1.4) weeks for both groups (Table 1).

    After adjustment for potential confounding factors, participants who reported they usually went to sleep in a supine position gave birth to infants with an adjusted mean (SE) weight of 3410 (112) g vs 3554 (98) g for participants who reported they usually went to sleep in a nonsupine position, an adjusted mean difference (aMD) of −144 g (95% CI, −253 to −36 g; P = .009) (Table 2). Supine going-to-sleep position was also associated with a mean (SE) INTERGROWTH-21st centile of 48.5 (7.1) vs 58.6 (6.2) for nonsupine position (aMD, −10.1; 95% CI, −17.1 to −3.1) and a mean (SE) customized centile of 40.7 (7.6) vs 49.7 (6.7) for nonsupine (aMD, −9.0; 95% CI, −16.6 to −1.4) (Table 2). Supine position was associated with twice the odds of birth weight less than the 50th customized centile (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.20-3.76). The increase in odds of birth weight less than the 50th INTERGROWTH-21st centile for supine position was not significant (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.83-4.34) (Table 2). Supine position was associated with a 3-fold increase in odds of SGA by INTERGROWTH-21st centiles (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.37-7.59), but there was no significant increase in odds of SGA by customized centiles (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.77-3.44) (Table 2). There was no significant difference in rates of LGA by either birth weight standard between women who went to sleep supine vs nonsupine in the last 1 to 4 weeks of pregnancy.

    Analysis of all 4 going-to-sleep positions (left side, right side, other, and supine) are shown in Table 3. Birth weight, birth weight centiles, and SGA rates were similar for left, right, and other going-to-sleep positions.

    Within the subset of women who had going-to-sleep position data for both last night and last month (1019 participants), 999 (98.0%) did not change going-to-sleep position between the 2 points. Of the 20 (2.0%) who did change their position, a similar proportion changed from supine to nonsupine (11 women [1.1%]) and from nonsupine to supine (9 women [0.9%]).

    Discussion

    In this analysis of women in their third trimester of pregnancy who participated in the control group of CRIBSS, maternal supine going-to-sleep position over the last 1 to 4 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in mean birth weight of 144 g and a 10-percentile reduction in mean INTERGROWTH-21st and customized birth weight centiles. A 3-fold increase in the adjusted odds of SGA by INTERGROWTH-21st centiles was also observed among those who reported they usually went to sleep supine. These reductions in birth weight were independent of variables known to be associated with birth size.

    Our finding of similar birth weight and birth weight centiles in all 3 nonsupine going-to-sleep positions (left side, right side, other) is consistent with our previous findings suggesting no difference in stillbirth risk between left side and other nonsupine going-to-sleep positions.2

    Supine maternal position is associated with a reduction in maternal cardiac output and subsequent fetal blood supply,1,10 so it is biologically plausible that supine maternal going-to-sleep position could contribute to reduced birth size. Our finding of an independent mean reduction in birth weight associated with supine going-to-sleep position is clinically relevant. Rates of LGA did not differ between supine and nonsupine groups, but our study may be underpowered to detect a difference. However, rates of LGA in the nonsupine group (22.6% by INTERGROWTH-21st and 9.3% by customized centile) were similar to those reported in general populations.28

    This is the first study, to our knowledge, to describe the association between supine maternal going-to-sleep position and reduced birth weight in a general obstetric population of women with ongoing pregnancies from a high-income setting. A small observational study29 from Ghana reported an increased odds of low–birth weight infants (<2500 g) among maternal supine sleepers but did not report birth weight or birth weight centiles. The study speculated that the association between stillbirth and supine sleep may be mediated by fetal growth restriction.

    There is currently no international consensus on the most appropriate way to define normal birth weight; therefore, we elected to investigate 2 commonly used birth weight centiles. For the same infant, customized centiles tend to be lower than INTERGROWTH-21st centiles. This phenomenon has previously been noted28,30 and relates to conceptual differences between the birth weight references: INTERGROWTH-21st is a birth weight standard derived from low-risk pregnancies, while customization is a fetal growth standard adjusted for maternal characteristics that influence birth weight. In this study, this is demonstrated by lower mean customized centile and greater numbers of infants with birth weight less than the 10th centile using customized compared with INTERGROWTH-21st centiles. Among nonsupine sleepers, 4.5% of infants were SGA and 22.6% were LGA by the INTERGROWTH-21st standard, compared with 11.0% and 9.3%, respectively, by customized centiles. Despite low numbers of SGA infants in this study, there was a 3-fold increase in odds of SGA by INTERGROWTH-21st centiles in women who reported they usually went to sleep supine (<10th centile: aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.37-7.59) and a nonsignificant increase in SGA by customized centiles. We postulate that the differences in aORs between INTERGROWTH-21st and customized centiles relate to the different location of the distribution of birth weight by each criteria.

    Strengths of this study include that it was a prespecified analysis with objective and standardized sleep data and birth weight measurements. In the original case-control studies, sleep position data were collected blinded to the hypothesis, so any bias would be nondifferential. To our knowledge, this is the largest data set assembled with robust data on maternal going-to-sleep position and birth weight.

    Limitations

    We acknowledge some limitations with the study. Only a small number of women reported supine sleeping position in late pregnancy, thus limiting power to investigate outcomes in smaller groups such as SGA and LGA. The going-to-sleep position was self-reported; however, it has been demonstrated that there is good correlation between maternal short-term recall of going-to-sleep position and going-to-sleep position recorded by video technology.16 Although sleep position changes several times during the night, women spend the longest duration in the position in which they first go to sleep.31 Therefore, going-to-sleep position is likely to have the greatest association with fetal blood flow and subsequent associations with birth weight.

    The subgroup analysis of women who had going-to-sleep data at 2 points (last night and last month) suggests that the majority of women (97.8%) maintained the same going-to sleep position over the 2 periods, signifying consistency in their exposure. It is also biologically plausible that the association of decreased maternal blood flow on birth size with supine maternal position is cumulative over time. Consequently, increased duration of supine sleeping may lead to greater reduction in birth size. We were not able to investigate this question.

    Changing from a supine to a side-lying going-to-sleep position in late pregnancy is a simple intervention that can be easily adopted without known harm32 and is applicable to all pregnant women.2 Public health campaigns such as those recently launched in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand to encourage women in the third trimester to settle to sleep on their side have potential to optimize birth weight.33,34 As the public health message to go to sleep on the side in the third trimester of pregnancy is adopted, further research into the effect of supine maternal going-to-sleep position and birth size is likely to be more difficult to undertake.

    Conclusions

    This study found that supine maternal going-to-sleep position is associated with reduced birth size in late pregnancy. Women who reported going to sleep on their back had a clinically relevant and independent reduction in mean birth weight of 144 g, or an adjusted mean reduction of 10% in birth weight centile (customized or INTERGROWTH-21st). Public health campaigns to encourage women to go to sleep lying on their side have potential to increase birth size.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: August 14, 2019.

    Published: October 2, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12614

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Anderson NH et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Lesley M. E. McCowan, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand (l.mccowan@auckland.ac.nz).

    Author Contributions: Dr McCowan had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Anderson, Gordon, Cronin, Thompson, Raynes-Greenow, Heazell, Stacey, Culling, McCowan.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Anderson, Gordon, Li, Cronin, Thompson, Heazell, Stacey, Wilson, Askie, Mitchell, McCowan.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Anderson, Raynes-Greenow, Culling, Mitchell, McCowan.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Gordon, Li, Cronin, Thompson, Raynes-Greenow, Heazell, Stacey, Wilson, Askie, Mitchell, McCowan.

    Statistical analysis: Anderson, Cronin, Thompson, Raynes-Greenow, Wilson, Askie, Mitchell.

    Obtained funding: Li, Heazell, Askie, Mitchell, McCowan.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Anderson, Gordon, Li, Cronin, Raynes-Greenow, McCowan.

    Supervision: Gordon, Thompson, Raynes-Greenow, McCowan.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Gordon reported receiving grants from Stillbirth Foundation Australia during the conduct of the study; and support from a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship outside the submitted work. Dr Li reported receiving grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand, Cure Kids, Mercia Barnes Trust, Nurture Foundation, and University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund during the conduct of the study. Mrs Cronin reported receiving grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand, Cure Kids, Mercia Barnes Trust, Nurture Foundation, University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund, and the Sir John Logan Campbell Medical Trust during the conduct of the study. Dr Thompson reported receiving grants from Cure Kids, Nurture Foundation, Auckland District Health Board Charitable Trust, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Mercia Barnes Trust, Nurture Foundation, and University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund during the conduct of the study. Dr Raynes-Greenow reported receiving grants from Stillbirth Foundation Australia during the conduct of the study; and support from a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship outside the submitted work. Dr Heazell reported receiving grants from Action Medical Research during the conduct of the study; and grants from Tommy's and the National Institute for Health Research outside the submitted work. Dr Stacey reported receiving grants from Cure Kids, Nurture Foundation, Auckland District Health Board Charitable Trust, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Mercia Barnes Trust, and University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund during the conduct of the study. Dr McCowan reported receiving grants from Cure Kids, Nurture Foundation, Auckland District Health Board Trust, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Mercia Barnes Trust, and University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: Funding for this research was provided by a Trans-Tasman Research Funding Grant by Cure Kids and Red Nose Australia in 2016 (grant 6601).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Information: All applications for data sharing will be considered by the Collaborative Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Sleep and Stillbirth (CRIBSS) collaboration. We will endeavor to establish research collaborations with those interested in using the data.

    References
    1.
    Humphries  A, Mirjalili  SA, Tarr  GP, Thompson  JMD, Stone  P.  The effect of supine positioning on maternal hemodynamics during late pregnancy  [published online June 3, 2018].  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1478958PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Cronin  RS, Li  M, Thompson  JMD,  et al.  An individual participant data meta-analysis of maternal going-to-sleep position, interactions with fetal vulnerability, and the risk of late stillbirth.  EClinicalMedicine. 2019;10:49-57. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Gordon  A, Raynes-Greenow  C, Bond  D, Morris  J, Rawlinson  W, Jeffery  H.  Sleep position, fetal growth restriction, and late-pregnancy stillbirth: the Sydney stillbirth study.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):347-355. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000627PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Heazell  A, Li  M, Budd  J,  et al.  Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth—findings from a stillbirth case-control study.  BJOG. 2018;125(2):254-262. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14967PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    McCowan  LME, Thompson  JMD, Cronin  RS,  et al.  Going to sleep in the supine position is a modifiable risk factor for late pregnancy stillbirth: findings from the New Zealand multicentre stillbirth case-control study.  PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179396. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Stacey  T, Thompson  JM, Mitchell  EA, Ekeroma  AJ, Zuccollo  JM, McCowan  LM.  Association between maternal sleep practices and risk of late stillbirth: a case-control study.  BMJ. 2011;342:d3403. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Milsom  I, Forssman  L.  Factors influencing aortocaval compression in late pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;148(6):764-771. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(84)90563-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Higuchi  H, Takagi  S, Zhang  K, Furui  I, Ozaki  M.  Effect of lateral tilt angle on the volume of the abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava in pregnant and nonpregnant women determined by magnetic resonance imaging.  Anesthesiology. 2015;122(2):286-293. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000553PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Rossi  A, Cornette  J, Johnson  MR,  et al.  Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pregnant women: cross-sectional analysis of physiological parameters throughout pregnancy and the impact of the supine position.  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:31. doi:10.1186/1532-429X-13-31PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Jeffreys  RM, Stepanchak  W, Lopez  B, Hardis  J, Clapp  JF  III.  Uterine blood flow during supine rest and exercise after 28 weeks of gestation.  BJOG. 2006;113(11):1239-1247. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01056.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Kauppila  A, Koskinen  M, Puolakka  J, Tuimala  R, Kuikka  J.  Decreased intervillous and unchanged myometrial blood flow in supine recumbency.  Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55(2):203-205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    12.
    Silva  KP, Hamamoto  TENK, Nomura  RMY.  Transient fetal blood redistribution associated with maternal supine position.  J Perinat Med. 2017;45(3):343-347. doi:10.1515/jpm-2016-0288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Khatib  N, Weiner  Z, Beloosesky  R, Vitner  D, Thaler  I.  The effect of maternal supine position on umbilical and cerebral blood flow indices.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;175:112-114. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.043PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Stone  PR, Burgess  W, McIntyre  JP,  et al; Maternal Sleep In Pregnancy Research Group, University of Auckland.  Effect of maternal position on fetal behavioural state and heart rate variability in healthy late gestation pregnancy.  J Physiol. 2017;595(4):1213-1221. doi:10.1113/JP273201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Konje  JC, Howarth  ES, Kaufmann  P, Taylor  DJ.  Longitudinal quantification of uterine artery blood volume flow changes during gestation in pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction.  BJOG. 2003;110(3):301-305. doi:10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.t01-1-02163.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    McIntyre  JP, Ingham  CM, Hutchinson  BL,  et al.  A description of sleep behaviour in healthy late pregnancy, and the accuracy of self-reports.  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):115. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0905-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Li  M, Thompson  JMD, Cronin  RS,  et al.  The Collaborative IPD of Sleep and Stillbirth (CRIBSS): is maternal going-to-sleep position a risk factor for late stillbirth and does maternal sleep position interact with fetal vulnerability? an individual participant data meta-analysis study protocol.  BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020323. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Li  M, McCowan  LME, Cronin  RS,  et al. Collaborative IPD analysis of maternal sleep position and late stillbirth (greater than or equal to 28 weeks of gestation). http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017047703. Accessed September 4, 2018.
    19.
    O’Brien  LM, Warland  J, Stacey  T, Heazell  AEP, Mitchell  EA; STARS Consortium.  Maternal sleep practices and stillbirth: findings from an international case-control study.  Birth. 2019;46(2):344-354. doi:10.1111/birt.12416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Villar  J, Cheikh Ismail  L, Victora  CG,  et al; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st).  International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.  Lancet. 2014;384(9946):857-868. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60932-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Freni-Sterrantino  A, Afoakwah  P, Smith  RB, Ghosh  RE, Hansell  A.  Birth weight centiles and small for gestational age by sex and ethnicity for England and Wales.  Arch Dis Child. 2019;13:13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.
    Mikolajczyk  RT, Zhang  J, Betran  AP,  et al.  A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles.  Lancet. 2011;377(9780):1855-1861. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60364-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Buck Louis  GM, Grewal  J, Albert  PS,  et al.  Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):449.e1-449.e41. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    International Standards for Size at Birth [computer program]. Version v1.0.6257.25111. INTERGROWTH-21st Project; 2018.
    25.
    Gardosi  J, Francis  A. Customised centile calculator: GROW version 8.0.1. http://www.gestation.net. Accessed September 10, 2018.
    26.
    Gardosi  J, Mongelli  M, Wilcox  M, Chang  A.  An adjustable fetal weight standard.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6(3):168-174. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06030168.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Vasak  B, Koenen  SV, Koster  MP,  et al.  Human fetal growth is constrained below optimal for perinatal survival.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(2):162-167. doi:10.1002/uog.14644PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Francis  A, Hugh  O, Gardosi  J.  Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S692-S699. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Owusu  JT, Anderson  FJ, Coleman  J,  et al.  Association of maternal sleep practices with pre-eclampsia, low birth weight, and stillbirth among Ghanaian women.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(3):261-265. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.01.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Anderson  NH, Sadler  LC, McKinlay  CJD, McCowan  LME.  INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):509.e1-509.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    McIntyre  J. The Physiology of Maternal Sleep (and Sleep Position) in Healthy Late Pregnancy. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland; 2017. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/33462. Accessed December 12, 2018.
    32.
    Cronin  RS, Chelimo  C, Mitchell  EA,  et al.  Survey of maternal sleep practices in late pregnancy in a multi-ethnic sample in South Auckland, New Zealand.  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):190. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1378-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Tommy’s. Sleep on Side—a pregnancy campaign. https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/sleep-side-pregnancy-campaign. Published November 20, 2017. Accessed September 21, 2018.
    34.
    Cure Kids. Sleep on Side: stillbirth prevention campaign. https://www.sleeponside.org.nz/. Accessed September 21, 2018.
    ×