Risk of recurrence of small-for-gestational-age foetus after first pregnancy

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of and to analyse factors related to the recurrence of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates in the second pregnancy. A prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital in Granada, Spain. A total of 7896 women who delivered their first and second singleton pregnancies at the hospital from 2003-2013 were included and evaluated all birth weights. Women whose first pregnancy was complicated by a SGA birth had a fivefold increased risk of recurrence (23.6% vs. 5.7%, p < .001). Multivariate analyses revealed that only SGA at first birth retained a statistically significant relationship, revealing that the other variables (maternal age, gestational age, interdelivery interval, maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index, occupation of the mother, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus) were confounders. Prevention of SGA in subsequent pregnancies by modification of established risk factors could be of limited utility based on the present results, supporting a genetic contribution to SGA recurrence. Impact statement The results support a genetic contribution on recurrence of SGA.

Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes in high‐resource settings: An updated systematic review

“…We also excluded otherwise eligible studies that did not provide precision estimates for their measures of effect 24,26 and those that modelled interpregnancy interval as a continuous, linear variable. [75][76][77] In addition, since the publication end date, several relevant studies of interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes from high-resource settings have been published using data from Missouri, Canada and Denmark, [78][79][80] including a matched analysis study among births in Sweden 81 and a study using linked birth certificate and assisted reproductive technology surveillance data from the United States; 82 findings were generally in line with the evidence we present in this review. This is the first systematic review of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal outcomes restricted to studies from highresource settings, which enhances the applicability of our findings to women in the United States.…”

“…We opted against inclusion of such studies in order to maintain consistency with the previous review. We also excluded otherwise eligible studies that did not provide precision estimates for their measures of effect and those that modelled interpregnancy interval as a continuous, linear variable . In addition, since the publication end date, several relevant studies of interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes from high‐resource settings have been published using data from Missouri, Canada and Denmark, including a matched analysis study among births in Sweden and a study using linked birth certificate and assisted reproductive technology surveillance data from the United States; findings were generally in line with the evidence we present in this review.…”