Effect Of Interpregnancy Interval Research Articles

Effect of interpregnancy interval on adverse perinatal outcomes — a national study

Background The interpregnancy interval (IPI) has been reported to influence the outcome of pregnancy and birth. We performed a national study in Israel to determine the impact of IPI on multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Study Design This longitudinal cohort study used birth certificates of siblings born to the same biological mother, with at least one previous birth and a subsequent singleton pregnancy. Adverse pregnancy outcomes included preterm delivery, very preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), very SGA (VSGA), early neonatal death and major congenital malformations. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for each outcome. Results The study included 440,838 of a total of 846,845 reported live births in Israel over 5 years; excluded were primiparas (32%), multifetal births (4.9%) and those with incomplete data (10.9%). For IPIs shorter than 6 months, there were significantly increased risks for preterm birth (OR=1.23), SGA (OR=1.14), VSGA (OR=1.15), early neonatal death (OR=1.62) and congenital malformations (OR=1.14). Intervals of 60 months or longer had higher risks for preterm birth (OR=1.39) and VSGA (OR=1.16). Conclusion Optimal IPI recommendation of >11 months is an accessible and low-cost means to improve multiple adverse perinatal outcomes.

662: Effect of inter-pregnancy interval (IPI) on adverse perinatal outcomes (APOs) - A national study

662: Effect of inter-pregnancy interval (IPI) on adverse perinatal outcomes (APOs) - A national study

Effects of interpregnancy interval and outcome of the preceding pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes in Matlab, Bangladesh

ObjectiveTo estimate the effects on pregnancy outcomes of the duration of the preceding interpregnancy interval (IPI) and type of pregnancy outcome that began the interval.DesignObservational population-based study.SettingThe Maternal Child Health–Family Planning (MCH–FP) area of Matlab, Bangladesh.PopulationA total of 66 759 pregnancy outcomes that occurred between 1982 and 2002.MethodsBivariate tabulations and multinomial logistic regression analysis.Main outcome measuresPregnancy outcomes (live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage [spontaneous fetal loss prior to 28 weeks], and induced abortion).ResultsWhen socio-economic and demographic covariates are controlled, of the IPIs that began with a live birth, those <6 months in duration were associated with a 7.5-fold increase in the odds of an induced abortion (95% CI 6.0–9.4), a 3.3-fold increase in the odds of a miscarriage (95% CI 2.8–3.9), and a 1.6-fold increase in the odds of a stillbirth (95% CI 1.2–2.1) compared with 27- to 50-month IPIs. IPIs of 6–14 months were associated with increased odds of induced abortion (2.0, 95% CI 1.5–2.6). IPIs ≥ 75 months were associated with increased odds of all three types of non-live-birth (NLB) outcomes but were not as risky as very short intervals. IPIs that began with a NLB were generally more likely to end with the same type of NLB.ConclusionsWomen whose pregnancies are between 15 and 75 months after a preceding pregnancy outcome (regardless of its type) have a lower likelihood of fetal loss than those with shorter or longer IPIs. Those with a preceding NLB outcome deserve special attention in counselling and monitoring.Please cite this paper as: DaVanzo J, Hale L, Razzaque A, Rahman M. Effects of interpregnancy interval and outcome of the preceding pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes in Matlab, Bangladesh. BJOG 2007;114:1079–1087.

Effect of interpregnancy interval on birth outcomes: findings from three recent US studies

The relationship between interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes (i.e., low birth weight, preterm birth, and small size for gestational age) was examined in three recent studies conducted in Utah and Michigan of the United States. These studies were conducted among different populations, used different study designs (i.e., cross-sectional and retrospective cohort designs), and addressed several other methodological limitations in the previously published literature. In addition, the data were stratified by, and controlled for, several maternal reproductive risk factors. A J-shaped relationship between interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes was observed in all three studies. The risk for adverse birth outcomes is lowest when the interpregnancy interval was 18–23 months and increased when the interval departed from 18–23 months. This J-shaped relationship existed at levels of maternal reproductive risk factors and after these risk factors were controlled for using logistic regression. Based on the consistency of the findings from all three studies, it appears that the J-shaped relationship between interpregnancy interval and adverse birth outcomes is causal. This information can be used by health care providers and public health programs to counsel and educate women who recently gave births on reducing the risk for adverse birth outcomes by means of appropriate pregnancy spacing.

The Effect of Short Inter Pregnancy Interval on Preterm Labour and Small Gestational Age Infant

The effect of interpregnancy interval (I.PI) on birth weight and gestational age of infant was investigated in this prospective study among 250 post delivery women at Basrah Maternity and Child Hospital from the period of 1st December 1999 to 1st September 2000. Seventy five (30%) were found to have I.P.I. < 6 months, 84 (33.6%) of 6-12 months and 91 (36.4%) were found to have >12 months. Preterm rate in study group was 18/250(7.2%) with a high incidence among women with short I.P.I (16%) in comparison to other two groups, this difference was statistically significant. Small for gestational age (S.G.A) were 15/250 (6%) with a significant association among short I.P.I (12%). Women with short I.P.I were younger (21-30) years (56%), of low parity (p1-2) (56%) while high parity group (p5-6) have long I.P.I (17.5%). Women with short I.P.I were of low social class, (40%) of women with

Effect of interpregnancy interval on risk of spontaneous preterm birth in Emirati women, United Arab Emirates.

To investigate whether a short interpregnancy interval is a risk factor for preterm birth in Emirati women, where there is a wide range of interpregnancy intervals and uniformity in potentially confounding factors. A case-control design based on medical records was used. A case was defined as a healthy multiparous Emirati woman delivering a healthy singleton spontaneously before 37 weeks of gestation between 1997 and 2000, and a control was defined as the next eligible similar woman delivering after 37 weeks of gestation. Women were excluded if there was no information available about their most recent previous pregnancy or if it had resulted in a multiple or preterm birth. Data collected from charts and delivery room records were analysed using the STATA statistical package. All variables found to be valid, stable and significant by univariate analysis were included in multivariate logistic regression analysis. There were 128 cases who met the eligibility criteria; 128 controls were selected. Short interpregnancy intervals were significantly associated with case status (P<0.05). The multivariate adjusted odds ratios for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th quartiles of interpregnancy interval compared with the lowest-risk 3rd quartile were 8.2, 5.4, and 2.0 (95% confidence intervals: 3.5-19.2, 2.4-12.6, and 0.9- 4.5 respectively). A short interpregnancy interval is a risk factor for spontaneous preterm birth in Emirati women. The magnitude of the risk and the risk gradient between exposure quartiles suggest that the risk factor is causal and that its modification would reduce the risk of preterm birth.

Effect of interpregnancy interval on risk of spontaneous preterm birth

Effect of interpregnancy interval on risk of spontaneous preterm birth

INTERPREGNANCY INTERVAL AND RISK OF PRETERM LABOR

In 1977-1980, over 12,000 pregnant women being followed at the Boston Hospital for Women were interviewed and had their medical records reviewed. The effect of interpregnancy interval on the risk of preterm labor was estimated in 4,467 of these women whose previous pregnancy had resulted in a full-term live birth. The rate of preterm birth after the spontaneous onset of labor in this cohort was 3.8 percent. While the possibility of an increased risk of preterm labor for interpregnancy intervals of 3 months or less cannot be definitely excluded (adjusted odds ratio = 2.0, 95 percent confidence interval 0.7-5.4), no relation was found between other interpregnancy intervals and the risk of preterm labor. Earlier work from this same cohort showed a strong negative association between interpregnancy interval and small-for-gestational-age birth. Combining this with the results from the present study reinforces the importance of differentiating low birth weight due to preterm birth from that due to intrauterine growth retardation.

Birth weight outcomes for repeat teenage pregnancy

To investigate the outcomes for repeat teenage pregnancy and the effect of interpregnancy interval on birth weight, birth certificate data were reviewed from all mothers under 26 years delivering their second baby during 1981–1983 at an urban teaching hospital. Initially, 409 mothers who had delivered their first baby at the same hospital were identified. Mothers were divided into three groups: mothers under 20 years for both births; mothers under 20 years for the first birth, with the second birth delayed until 20 to 25 years; and mothers 20–25 years for both births. Group 1 mothers had high but identical rates of low birth weight (17.5%) for both parities, high rates of very low birth weight infants (<1501 g), and no change in mean birth weight between the two pregnancies. Group 2 mothers were older at first birth and had better outcomes for first and second births than group 1 mothers. For group 1 mothers, the initiation of prenatal care was delayed at second pregnancy compared to first pregnancy (46% receiving first trimester care versus 59% at first delivery). In contrast, groups 2 and 3 showed improvement in accessing prenatal care for the second pregnancy. Interpregnancy interval had no influence on the birth weight of the second infant in any group.

The Effect of Interpregnancy Interval on Birth Weight

The effect of interpregnancy interval on birthweight of the subsequent child was investigated for the 1,347 womens of 25 to 40 years old age who visited OBGY and Pediatric department of the general hospital in Taegu city. Questions in designed questionnaire were asked by student interviewers who were trained in nursing school. Mean birth weight by interpregnancy intervals were compared by the intervals of 6 months. Mean birth weight increased from 3,250 grams for intervals of 6 months to 3,357 grams for intervals of 25-30 months, hut the difference was not statistically significant(=0.47). Correlations between the continuous variables which were suspected as con founders and interpregnancy interval and birth weight were investigated. The coefficient of correlation between maternal age and interpregnancy interval was 0.39, between gestational period and birth weight 0.30 and between prepregnant weight and birth weight 0.16 and between birth weight of first baby and birth weight(of second baby) 0.44. But maternal age, gestational period and prepregnant weight were not considered as confounder, because they were not correlated simultaneously with birth interval and birth weight. Associations between the discrete variables which were suspected as confounders, and interpregnancy interval were investigated by Chi-square test. Associations between interpregnancy interval and educational level of mothers, types of husband's occupation, types of medical security, sex were not significant(P-values were 0.59, 0.75, 0.75, 0.82 respectively), so we did not considered these variables as confounding variables. In multiple regression analysis of birth weight, significant variables were birth weight of first baby, gestational period, sex of neonate and prepregnancy body weight of mother. Of the 1,347 births, the rate of low birth weight was 2% (27 birth). The rate for interpregnancy interval 7-12 months was highest as 3.6% and that for 13-18 months was lowest as 0.6%, but there was no regular tendency related with interpregnancy interval.

Short interpregnancy interval and the risk of low birthweight.

The effect of interpregnancy interval on the birthweight of the subsequent child was investigated in a cohort of 5,938 women who registered for two consecutive pregnancies in the Collaborative Perinatal Project. Mean birthweight increased from 3,101 grams for intervals of less than 3 months to 3,193 grams for intervals of 15-17.9 months and remained stable thereafter (p for trend = 0.006). However, women with shorter intervals were younger, lighter weight, and less educated at the beginning of the first pregnancy than were women with longer intervals; the birthweight of their previous child was lower, and they were of marginally lower socioeconomic status. Adjustment for confounders reduced the maximum difference in mean birthweight by interval length from 92 to 39 grams, and blunted the trend for lower birthweights with shorter intervals (p = 0.45). Similarly, adjustment reduced the increased risk of low birthweight among women with the shortest intervals from 52 per cent to 12 per cent. We conclude that a short interpregnancy interval is primarily a marker for a woman who is otherwise at high risk, and that modification of this interval alone may be unlikely to have a major impact on low birthweight.