Literature DB >> 35984489

Impact of the interpregnancy interval after cesarean delivery on subsequent perinatal risks: a retrospective study.

Yumi Nakamura1, Hiroyuki Tsuda2, Yoshiki Masahashi1, Takuto Nakamura1, Miho Suzuki1, Nobuhiko Fukuhara1, Yumiko Ito1, Atsuko Tezuka1, Tomoko Ando1, Kimio Mizuno1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the interpregnancy interval (IPI) after cesarean delivery on the risks of adverse perinatal events during subsequent pregnancies.
METHODS: We retrospectively examined perinatal outcomes of subsequent pregnancies of women whose most recent birth experience involved cesarean delivery at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. IPI was defined as the time between live birth and subsequent conception. Three IPI groups: < 18 months, 18-60 months, and > 60 months, were assessed. The risks of preterm birth, preeclampsia, placenta previa, placental abruption, fetal growth restriction, and successful vaginal birth were compared among the three IPI groups using uni- and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: We registered 592 births after cesarean delivery: 178, 288, and 126 in the IPI < 18 months, 18-60 months, and > 60 months groups, respectively. The groups did not differ significantly regarding perinatal outcomes. The multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of adverse perinatal outcomes among all groups. The odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth at < 37 weeks of gestation were 1.24 and 1.64 for those in the < 18 months and > 60 months groups, respectively (P = 0.362 and P = 0.055, respectively). The groups did not differ significantly regarding vaginal birth success rate (ORs 1.72 for the < 18 months group, 0.49 for the > 60 months group; P = 0.486 and P = 0.446, respectively).
CONCLUSION: After cesarean delivery, IPIs shorter than 18 months and longer than 60 months do not significantly impact the risks of adverse perinatal outcomes or successful vaginal birth compared with IPIs of 18-60 months.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean delivery; Interpregnancy interval; Preeclampsia; Preterm birth; Vaginal birth after cesarean

Year:  2022        PMID: 35984489     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06651-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.493


  18 in total

1.  Labor dystocia and its association with interpregnancy interval.

Authors:  Bao-Ping Zhu; Violanda Grigorescu; Thu Le; Mei Lin; Glenn Copeland; Maurice Barone; George Turabelidze
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04-25       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Agustin Conde-Agudelo; Anyeli Rosas-Bermúdez; Ana Cecilia Kafury-Goeta
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review.

Authors:  Agustin Conde-Agudelo; Anyeli Rosas-Bermúdez; Ana C Kafury-Goeta
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Short interpregnancy interval: risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

Authors:  David M Stamilio; Emily DeFranco; Emmanuelle Paré; Anthony O Odibo; Jeffrey F Peipert; Jenifer E Allsworth; Erika Stevens; George A Macones
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Interpregnancy Intervals in the United States: Data From the Birth Certificate and the National Survey of Family Growth.

Authors:  Casey E Copen; Marie E Thoma; Sharon Kirmeyer
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2015-04-16

6.  Interpregnancy Interval and Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Register-Based Study of 328,577 Pregnancies in Denmark 1994-2010.

Authors:  Emilie Rune Hegelund; Stine Kjaer Urhoj; Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen; Laust Hvas Mortensen
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2018-07

7.  Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture.

Authors:  T D Shipp; C M Zelop; J T Repke; A Cohen; E Lieberman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study.

Authors:  A Conde-Agudelo; J M Belizán
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-18

Review 9.  The risk of maternal nutritional depletion and poor outcomes increases in early or closely spaced pregnancies.

Authors:  Janet C King
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.798

10.  Interpregnancy Interval and Subsequent Severe Maternal Morbidity: A 16-Year Population-Based Study From California.

Authors:  Can Liu; Jonathan M Snowden; Deirdre J Lyell; Elizabeth Wall-Wieler; Barbara Abrams; Peiyi Kan; Olof Stephansson; Audrey Lyndon; Suzan L Carmichael
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.