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
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
101425Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.