Innie Chen1, Gian S Jhangri2, Sujata Chandra3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, and School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between interpregnancy intervals and congenital anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study on women who had 2 consecutive singleton births from 1999-2007 was conducted using a linked dataset from the Alberta Perinatal Health Program, the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and the Alberta Health and Wellness Database. Interpregnancy interval was calculated as the interval between 2 consecutive deliveries minus the gestational age of the second infant. The primary outcome of congenital anomaly was defined using the International Classification of Diseases. Maternal demographic and obstetric characteristics and interpregnancy intervals were included in multivariable logistic regression models for congenital anomalies. RESULTS: The study included 46,243 women, and the overall rate of congenital anomalies was 2.2%. Both short and long interpregnancy intervals were associated with congenital anomalies. The lowest rate was for the 12-17 months category (1.9%, reference category), and increased rates were seen for both short intervals (2.5% for 0-5 months; adjusted odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.72) and long intervals (2.3% for 24-35 months; adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.52). Statistically significant associations were also observed for folate independent anomalies, but not for folate dependent anomalies. CONCLUSION: The risk of congenital anomalies appears to increase with both short and long interpregnancy intervals. This study supports the limited existing studies in the literature, further explores the types of anomalies affected, and has implications for further research and prenatal risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between interpregnancy intervals and congenital anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study on women who had 2 consecutive singleton births from 1999-2007 was conducted using a linked dataset from the Alberta Perinatal Health Program, the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and the Alberta Health and Wellness Database. Interpregnancy interval was calculated as the interval between 2 consecutive deliveries minus the gestational age of the second infant. The primary outcome of congenital anomaly was defined using the International Classification of Diseases. Maternal demographic and obstetric characteristics and interpregnancy intervals were included in multivariable logistic regression models for congenital anomalies. RESULTS: The study included 46,243 women, and the overall rate of congenital anomalies was 2.2%. Both short and long interpregnancy intervals were associated with congenital anomalies. The lowest rate was for the 12-17 months category (1.9%, reference category), and increased rates were seen for both short intervals (2.5% for 0-5 months; adjusted odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.72) and long intervals (2.3% for 24-35 months; adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.52). Statistically significant associations were also observed for folate independent anomalies, but not for folate dependent anomalies. CONCLUSION: The risk of congenital anomalies appears to increase with both short and long interpregnancy intervals. This study supports the limited existing studies in the literature, further explores the types of anomalies affected, and has implications for further research and prenatal risk assessment.
Authors: Yanqing Wu; E Albert Reece; Jianxiang Zhong; Daoyin Dong; Wei-Bin Shen; Christopher R Harman; Peixin Yang Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Julie M Petersen; Mahsa M Yazdy; Kelly D Getz; Marlene T Anderka; Martha M Werler Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Bareng A S Nonyane; Maureen Norton; Nazma Begum; Rasheduzzaman M Shah; Dipak K Mitra; Gary L Darmstadt; Abdullah H Baqui Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2019-02-09 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Katherine A Ahrens; Heidi Nelson; Reva L Stidd; Susan Moskosky; Jennifer A Hutcheon Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.980