Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar;129(3):408-415.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001891.

Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies

Gillian E Hanley  1 , Jennifer A Hutcheon, Brooke A Kinniburgh, Lily Lee
Affiliations

Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies

Gillian E Hanley et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the association between interpregnancy interval and maternal-neonate health when matching women to their successive pregnancies to control for differences in maternal risk factors and compare these results with traditional unmatched designs.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 38,178 women with three or more deliveries (two or greater interpregnancy intervals) between 2000 and 2015 in British Columbia, Canada. We examined interpregnancy interval (0-5, 6-11, 12-17, 18-23 [reference], 24-59, and 60 months or greater) in relation to neonatal outcomes (preterm birth [less than 37 weeks of gestation], small-for-gestational-age birth [less than the 10th centile], use of neonatal intensive care, low birth weight [less than 2,500 g]) and maternal outcomes (gestational diabetes, beginning the subsequent pregnancy obese [body mass index 30 or greater], and preeclampsia-eclampsia). We used conditional logistic regression to compare interpregnancy intervals within the same mother and unconditional (unmatched) logistic regression to enable comparison with prior research.

Results: Analyses using the traditional unmatched design showed significantly increased risks associated with short interpregnancy intervals (eg, there were 232 preterm births [12.8%] in 0-5 months compared with 501 [8.2%] in the 18-23 months reference group; adjusted odds ratio [OR] for preterm birth 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.73). However, these risks were eliminated in within-woman matched analyses (adjusted OR for preterm birth 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.02). Matched results indicated that short interpregnancy intervals were significantly associated with increased risk of gestational diabetes (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.02-1.80 for 0-5 months) and beginning the subsequent pregnancy obese (adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.05-2.45 for 0-5 months and adjusted OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.87 for 6-11 months).

Conclusion: Previously reported associations between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse neonatal outcomes may not be causal. However, short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risk of gestational diabetes and beginning a subsequent pregnancy obese.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Marston C. Report of a WHO technical consultation on birth spacing. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2005.
    1. Chen I, Jhangri GS, Chandra S. Relationship between interpregnancy interval and congenital anomalies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:564 e1–8.
    1. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2006;295:1809–23.
    1. Fuentes-Afflick E, Hessol NA. Interpregnancy interval and the risk of premature infants. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:383–90.
    1. King JC. The risk of maternal nutritional depletion and poor outcomes increases in early or closely spaced pregnancies. J Nutr 2003;133(suppl 2):1732–6S.