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
. 2022 Nov 22;19(11):e1004129.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004129. eCollection 2022 Nov.

Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study

Affiliations

Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study

Gizachew A Tessema et al. PLoS Med. .

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends to wait at least 6 months after miscarriage and induced abortion before becoming pregnant again to avoid complications in the next pregnancy, although the evidence-based underlying this recommendation is scarce. We aimed to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes-preterm birth (PTB), spontaneous PTB, small for gestational age (SGA) birth, large for gestational age (LGA) birth, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)-by interpregnancy interval (IPI) for births following a previous miscarriage or induced abortion.

Methods and findings: We conducted a cohort study using a total of 49,058 births following a previous miscarriage and 23,707 births following a previous induced abortion in Norway between 2008 and 2016. We modeled the relationship between IPI and 6 adverse pregnancy outcomes separately for births after miscarriages and births after induced abortions. We used log-binomial regression to estimate unadjusted and adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the adjusted model, we included maternal age, gravidity, and year of birth measured at the time of the index (after interval) births. In a sensitivity analysis, we further adjusted for smoking during pregnancy and prepregnancy body mass index. Compared to births with an IPI of 6 to 11 months after miscarriages (10.1%), there were lower risks of SGA births among births with an IPI of <3 months (8.6%) (aRR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.92, p < 0.01) and 3 to 5 months (9.0%) (aRR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97, p = 0.01). An IPI of <3 months after a miscarriage (3.3%) was also associated with lower risk of GDM (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.96, p = 0.01) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%). For births following an induced abortion, an IPI <3 months (11.5%) was associated with a nonsignificant but increased risk of SGA (aRR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.36, p = 0.07) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (10.0%), while the risk of LGA was lower among those with an IPI 3 to 5 months (8.0%) (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.98, p = 0.03) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (9.4%). There was no observed association between adverse pregnancy outcomes with an IPI >12 months after either a miscarriage or induced abortion (p > 0.05), with the exception of an increased risk of GDM among women with an IPI of 12 to 17 months (5.8%) (aRR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.40, p = 0.02), 18 to 23 months (6.2%) (aRR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.50, p = 0.03), and ≥24 months (6.4%) (aRR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.34, p = 0.10) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%) after a miscarriage. Inherent to retrospective registry-based studies, we did not have information on potential confounders such as pregnancy intention and health-seeking bahaviour. Furthermore, we only had information on miscarriages that resulted in contact with the healthcare system.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that conceiving within 3 months after a miscarriage or an induced abortion is not associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In combination with previous research, these results suggest that women could attempt pregnancy soon after a previous miscarriage or induced abortion without increasing perinatal health risks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow chart for selection of births following miscarriages and induced abortions between 2008 and 2016 in Norway.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Kernel density distributions of interpregnancy interval after miscarriages and induced abortions for births between 2008 and 2016 in Norway.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Magnus MC, Wilcox AJ, Morken N-H, Weinberg CR, Håberg SE. Role of maternal age and pregnancy history in risk of miscarriage: prospective register based study. BMJ. 2019;364:l869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l869 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adolfsson A, Larsson P-G. Cumulative incidence of previous spontaneous abortion in Sweden in 1983–2003: a register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(6):741–747. doi: 10.1080/00016340600627022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andersen A-MN, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ. 2000;320(7251):1708–1712. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guttmacher Institute. Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion Worldwide: Guttmacher Institute; New York, NY; 2020. [2021 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide.
    1. Toffol E, Koponen P, Partonen T. Miscarriage and mental health: results of two population-based studies. Psychiatry Res. 2013;205(1–2):151–158. Epub 2012/09/19. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.08.029 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types