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
. 2023 Apr 25;23(1):284.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05600-x.

Association between interpregnancy interval and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in women with a cesarean delivery: a population-based study

Affiliations

Association between interpregnancy interval and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in women with a cesarean delivery: a population-based study

Hong Dong et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: Interpregnancy interval (IPI) has been linked with several maternal and neonatal adverse events in the general population. However, the association between IPI and maternal and neonatal outcomes in women whose first delivery was by cesarean delivery is unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between IPI after cesarean delivery and the risk of maternal and neonatal adverse events.

Methods: Women (aged ≥ 18 years) whose first delivery was cesarean delivery with 2 consecutive singleton pregnancies from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) database between 2017 and 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. In this post-hoc analysis, logistic regression analyses were used to examine IPI (≤ 11, 12-17, 18-23 [reference], 24-35, 36-59, and ≥ 60 months) in relation to the risk of repeat cesarean delivery, maternal adverse events (maternal transfusion, ruptured uterus, unplanned hysterectomy, and admission to an intensive care unit), and neonatal adverse events (low birthweight, premature birth, Apgar score at 5 min < 7, and abnormal conditions of the newborn). Stratified analysis based on age (< 35 and ≥ 35 years) and previous preterm birth.

Results: We included 792,094 maternities, 704,244 (88.91%) of which underwent a repeat cesarean delivery, 5,246 (0.66%) women had adverse events, and 144,423 (18.23%) neonates had adverse events. After adjusting for confounders, compared to an IPI of 18-23 months, the IPI of ≤ 11 months [odds ratio (OR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-1.66], 12-17 months (OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.33-1.43), 36-59 months (OR = 1.12, 95%CI: 1.10-1.15), and ≥ 60 months (OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.16-1.22) were associated with an increased risk of repeat cesarean delivery. In terms of maternal adverse events, only IPI of ≥ 60 months (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.76-0.95) was observed to be associated with decreased risk of maternal adverse events in women aged < 35 years. In analysis of neonatal adverse events, IPI of ≤ 11 months (OR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.07-1.21), 12-17 months (OR = 1.07, 95%CI: 1.03-1.10), and ≥ 60 months (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.02-1.08) were related to an increased risk of neonatal adverse events.

Conclusion: Both short and long IPI were associated with an increased risk of repeat cesarean delivery and neonatal adverse events, and women < 35 years may benefit from a longer IPI.

Keywords: Cesarean delivery; Interpregnancy interval; Maternal outcome; Neonatal events.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart showing the selection of the study population
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The proportions of repeat cesarean delivery, maternal adverse events, and neonatal adverse events by interpregnancy interval (IPI). A distribution of repeat cesarean delivery; B distribution of maternal adverse events; C distribution of neonatal adverse events

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shachar BZ, Mayo JA, Lyell DJ, Baer RJ, Jeliffe-Pawlowski LL, Stevenson DK, et al. Interpregnancy interval after live birth or pregnancy termination and estimated risk of preterm birth: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2016;123:2009–2017. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14165. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kangatharan C, Labram S, Bhattacharya S. Interpregnancy interval following miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:221–231. - PubMed
    1. De Silva DA, Thoma ME. The association between interpregnancy interval and severe maternal morbidities using revised national birth certificate data: A probabilistic bias analysis. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020;34:469–480. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12560. - DOI - PubMed
    1. DeFranco EA, Seske LM, Greenberg JM, Muglia LJ. Influence of interpregnancy interval on neonatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(386):e1–9. - PubMed
    1. Hanley GE, Hutcheon JA, Kinniburgh BA, Lee L. Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:408–415. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001891. - DOI - PubMed