Association between long interpregnancy intervals and cesarean delivery due to arrest disorders

Inconsistent definitions of prolonged labor in international literature: a scoping review

Objective

Prolonged labor is the commonest indication for intrapartum cesarean section, but definitions are inconsistent and some common definitions were recently found to overestimate the speed of physiological labor. The objective of this review is to establish an overview of synonyms and definitions used in the literature for prolonged labor, separated into first and second stages, and establish types of definitions used.

Data sources

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier.

Study eligibility criteria

All articles in English that (1) attempted to define prolonged labor, (2) included a definition of prolonged labor, or (3) included any synonym for prolonged labor, were included.

Methods

Data on study design, year of publication, country or region of origin, synonyms used, definition of prolonged first and/or second stage, and origin of provided definition (if not primarily established by the study) were collected into a database.

Results

In total, 3402 abstracts and 536 full-text papers were screened, and 232 papers were included. Our search established 53 synonyms for prolonged labor. Forty-three studies defined prolonged labor and 189 studies adopted a definition of prolonged labor. Definitions for prolonged first stage of labor were categorized into: time-based (n=14), progress-based (n=12), clinician-based (n=5), or outcome-based (n=4). For the 33 studies defining prolonged second stage, the majority of definitions (n=25) were time-based, either based on total duration or duration of no descent of the presenting part.

Conclusions

Despite efforts to arrive at uniform labor curves, there is still little uniformity in definitions of prolonged labor. Consensus on which definition to use is called for, in order to safely and respectfully allow physiological labor progress, ensure timely management, and assess and compare incidence of prolonged labor between settings.

Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and the dose-response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08-1.56; p < 0.05). The dose-response analyses further confirmed these J-shaped relationships (pnon-linear  < 0.001-0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (pnon-linear  < 0.005 and pnon-linear  < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (pnon-linear  < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose-response analyses (pnon-linear  = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76-1.21; p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Extreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.

Association between inter-pregnancy interval and risk of adverse birth outcomes in subsequent pregnancy: A retrospective study from Jordan

BACKGROUND

Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight (LBW), are leading causes of neonatal morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to estimate the association between inter-pregnancy interval (IPI) and the risks of adverse birth outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis involving 630 mothers who delivered a singleton live infant at a leading tertiary hospital in northern Jordan from March to August 2021. Outcome variables were preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation) and LBW (<2.5 kg). Using multivariable logistic regression, the association between IPI and these two adverse birth outcomes was investigated.

RESULTS

The rates of preterm birth and LBW were 12.4% and 16.8%, respectively. Compared with an optimal IPI (24-36 months), a short IPI (<24 months) was positively associated with preterm birth (aOR: 4.09; 95% CI: 1.48-6.55) and LBW (aOR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.57-5.15). Infants conceived after a long IPI (≥ 60 months) had increased odds of preterm birth (aOR: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.12-5.78) and LBW (aOR: 2.65; 95% CI: 1.67-4.03). Preterm delivery was also significantly associated with the mother's age (aOR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04-1.17), history of multiple cesarean births (aOR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.14-4.29), prolonged rupture of membranes (aOR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.10-5.52), and perinatal death (aOR: 3.42; 95% CI: 1.10-5.49). A mother's history of prior LBW (aOR: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.08-6.80), hypertensive disorders (aOR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.03-3.89), and multiple cesarean births (aOR: 4.35; 95% CI: 2.10-6.99) was associated with LBW.

CONCLUSIONS

Both short and long IPIs were related to preterm delivery and LBW. Optimal birth spacing is recommended to improve birth outcomes and must be considered when designing effective family planning programs.

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

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.

Interconception Health: Improving Equitable Access to Pregnancy Planning

Challenges remain with the implementation of preconception care, as many women do not plan their pregnancies and clinicians do not initiate preconception consultations. However, the interconception period may present a more opportune time to address health issues that impact on pregnancy outcomes and may influence future conceptions. It is also an important time to focus on pregnancy complications that may influence a person's health trajectory. This review discusses the evidence pointing to a need for greater attention on interconception health and focuses on five areas of care that may be particularly important in affecting equitable access to good care before a subsequent pregnancy: interpregnancy intervals, contraception, weight, nutrition, and gestational diabetes follow-up. Several programs internationally have developed models of care for interconception health and this review presents one such model developed in the United States that explicitly seeks to reach vulnerable populations of women who may otherwise not receive preconception care.