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 Nov;37(11):1192-1196.
doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.117. Epub 2017 Aug 31.

Effect of interpregnancy interval on the success rate of trial of labor after cesarean

Affiliations

Effect of interpregnancy interval on the success rate of trial of labor after cesarean

A L Rietveld et al. J Perinatol. 2017 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the association between interpregnancy interval and success of vaginal birth after cesarean.

Study design: Retrospective 10-year cohort study of pregnant women with one prior cesarean, who opted for trial of labor (n=36 653). Interpregnancy interval is the time between cesarean and next conception. Vaginal birth success rates were compared between six interval groups. Analysis was performed pooled as well as stratified for induction of labor. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated.

Results: Success rate in the reference group (12 to 24 months) was 72%. Success rates were similar among those with an interval of less than 24 months. Intervals of 24 months or more showed a decrease in success rate; 70% in 24- to 35-month intervals (adjusted odds ratio 0.92 (0.87 to 0.98)), 67% in 36- to 59-month intervals (adjusted odds ratio 0.87 (0.81 to 0.94)) and 62% in intervals of more than 60 months (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 (0.67 to 0.88)).

Conclusion: An interpregnancy interval of <24 months is not associated with a decreased success of vaginal birth after cesarean. Success rates decrease when interval increases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010 Mar;(191):1-397 - PubMed
    1. Clin Perinatol. 2011 Jun;38(2):179-92 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):883-91 - PubMed
    1. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015 Jun;64(6):1-19 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;115(2 Pt 1):338-43 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources