Association between interpregnancy interval and the labor curve.

advanced maternal age labor dystocia labor progression multiparity short interval pregnancy

Journal

American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM
ISSN: 2589-9333
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101746609

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 20 04 2024
revised: 23 06 2024
accepted: 01 07 2024
pubmed: 13 7 2024
medline: 13 7 2024
entrez: 12 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Both short and long interpregnancy intervals are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, the impact of interpregnancy intervals on labor progression is unknown. We examined the impact of interpregnancy intervals on the labor curve, hypothesizing that those with a longer interpregnancy intervals would have slower labor progression. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one prior vaginal delivery admitted for induction of labor or spontaneous labor with a singleton gestation ≥37 weeks at an academic medical center between 2004 and 2015. Repeated measures regression was used to construct labor curves, which were compared between patients with short interpregnancy intervals, defined as <3 years since the last delivery, and long interpregnancy intervals, defined as >3 years since the last delivery. We chose this interval as it approximates the median birth interval in the United States. Interval-censored regression was used to estimate the median duration of labor after 4 centimeters of dilation, stratified by type of labor (spontaneous vs induced). Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. Of the 1331 patients who were included in the analysis, 544 (41%) had a long interpregnancy interval. Among the entire cohort, there were no significant differences in first or second-stage progression between short and long interpregnancy interval groups. In the stratified analysis, first-stage progression varied between groups on the basis of labor type: long interpregnancy interval was associated with a slower active phase among those being induced and a quicker active phase among those in spontaneous labor. The second-stage duration was similar between cohorts regardless of labor type. Multiparas with an interpregnancy interval >3 years may have a slower active phase than those with a shorter interpregnancy interval when undergoing induction of labor. Interpregnancy interval does not demonstrate an effect on the length of the second stage.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Both short and long interpregnancy intervals are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, the impact of interpregnancy intervals on labor progression is unknown.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
We examined the impact of interpregnancy intervals on the labor curve, hypothesizing that those with a longer interpregnancy intervals would have slower labor progression.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one prior vaginal delivery admitted for induction of labor or spontaneous labor with a singleton gestation ≥37 weeks at an academic medical center between 2004 and 2015. Repeated measures regression was used to construct labor curves, which were compared between patients with short interpregnancy intervals, defined as <3 years since the last delivery, and long interpregnancy intervals, defined as >3 years since the last delivery. We chose this interval as it approximates the median birth interval in the United States. Interval-censored regression was used to estimate the median duration of labor after 4 centimeters of dilation, stratified by type of labor (spontaneous vs induced). Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 1331 patients who were included in the analysis, 544 (41%) had a long interpregnancy interval. Among the entire cohort, there were no significant differences in first or second-stage progression between short and long interpregnancy interval groups. In the stratified analysis, first-stage progression varied between groups on the basis of labor type: long interpregnancy interval was associated with a slower active phase among those being induced and a quicker active phase among those in spontaneous labor. The second-stage duration was similar between cohorts regardless of labor type.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Multiparas with an interpregnancy interval >3 years may have a slower active phase than those with a shorter interpregnancy interval when undergoing induction of labor. Interpregnancy interval does not demonstrate an effect on the length of the second stage.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38996916
pii: S2589-9333(24)00151-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101425
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101425

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Julia Burd (J)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman). Electronic address: burd.j@wustl.edu.

Candice Woolfolk (C)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Antonina Frolova (A)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Amanda Zofkie (A)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Anthony Odibo (A)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Ebony B Carter (EB)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Jeannie C Kelly (JC)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Alison G Cahill (AG)

Department of Women's Health, University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, TX (Cahill).

Nandini Raghuraman (N)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (Burd, Woolfolk, Frolova, Zofkie, Odibo, Carter, Kelly, and Raghuraman).

Classifications MeSH