Effect of interpregnancy interval after a first pregnancy complicated by placental abruption, on adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in a second pregnancy

Rohde, Rebecca L.; Luong, Lan; Boakye, Eric Adjei; Chang, Jen Jen

doi:10.1080/14767058.2019.1586878

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study differs from Ananth and Cnattingius 31 who found that smoking in women who had abruptions in their first pregnancies was associated with an increased risk of abruption in a second birth. Like our study, Rohde et al 32 did not find an association between interpregnancy interval and risk for abruption recurrence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…There are few studies into the recurrence of abruption. 14,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] To our knowledge, no prior large population-based studies have examined abruption recurrence risk in the United States. Almost all previous sizeable studies that have examined the recurrence of abruption were performed in European populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are few studies into the recurrence of abruption 14,25–32 . To our knowledge, no prior large population‐based studies have examined abruption recurrence risk in the United States.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Placental abruption: Incidence and risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies

Oyelese,

Peltier,

Donovan

et al. 2024

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo estimate the incidence of abruption in first births and recurrence in the subsequent birth in patients of a large US‐based integrated health care system.MethodsRetrospective population‐based cohort study of patients with first two consecutive singleton births using data from the Kaiser‐Permanente South California health care system who delivered over a period of 30 years (1991–2021), using longitudinally linked electronic health records. ICD‐9/ICD‐10 codes “641.20” and “O45.x” identified placental abruption. We calculated the incidence and rates of abruption in first and second pregnancies. We used logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for abruption in second pregnancies in patients with and without abruptions in their first pregnancies.ResultsOf the 126 264 patients with first two consecutive singleton births over the period, 805 had abruptions in their first births, and 861 in their second births. Rates of abruption in first and second births were 0.63% and 0.68%, respectively. Twenty‐seven patients had abruptions in both first and second births. Rates of abruption in the second birth among individuals with and without previous placental abruption were 3.35% and 0.66%, respectively, giving an approximately five‐fold increased odds of abruption in a second pregnancy in individuals who had abruption in their first birth when compared with those who did not have placental abruption in their first birth (aOR: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 3.35–7.31, p < 0.00001). Interpregnancy interval had no statistically significant association with recurrence.ConclusionAbruption in a first birth is associated with an approximately five‐fold increased odds of abruption in a second birth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Placental abruption: Incidence and risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies

Oyelese,

Peltier,

Donovan

et al. 2024

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, articles were further excluded because of lack of risk estimates ( n = 89), having two or fewer birth spacing strata ( n = 80), birth spacing not measured ( n = 36), irrelevant or nonspecific outcomes ( n = 53), reviews or conference abstracts ( n = 15), short birth spacing ( n = 6), and overlapping population ( n = 4). With additional manual search, 129 studies comprising 46 874 843 participants were ultimately included in the systematic review (Figure S1), including 90 cohort studies, 11‐14,17‐19,34‐116 23 cross‐sectional studies, 10,117‐138 15 case–control studies, 8,139‐152 and 1 cluster‐randomized trial 153 . The baseline characteristics of the eligible studies are presented in Table S2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis

Ni,

Gao,

et al. 2023

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing.Material and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random‐effects model, and the dose–response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation.ResultsA total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18–23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08–1.56; p < 0.05). The dose–response analyses further confirmed these J‐shaped relationships (pnon‐linear < 0.001–0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (pnon‐linear < 0.005 and pnon‐linear < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (pnon‐linear < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04–2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose–response analyses (pnon‐linear = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76–1.21; p > 0.05).ConclusionsExtreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18–23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.

show abstract

Effect of interpregnancy interval after a first pregnancy complicated by placental abruption, on adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in a second pregnancy

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Placental abruption: Incidence and risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies

Placental abruption: Incidence and risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies

Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About