Abstract
Objectives
Short interpregnancy intervals (IPI) have been linked to multiple adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, but less is known about prolonged IPI, including its relationship with labor progression. The objective of the study was to investigate whether prolonged IPIs are associated with longer second stages of labor.
Methods
A perinatal database from Kaiser Permanente Hawaii was used to identify 442 women with a prolonged IPI ≥60 months. Four hundred forty two nulliparous and 442 multiparous women with an IPI 18–59 months were selected as comparison groups. The primary outcome was second stage of labor duration. Perinatal outcomes were compared between these groups.
Results
The median (IQR) second stage of labor duration was 76 (38–141) min in nulliparous women, 15 (9–28) min in multiparous women, and 18 (10–38) min in women with a prolonged IPI (p<0.0001). Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly different second stage duration in the nulliparous group compared to both the multiparous and prolonged IPI groups, but no difference between the multiparous and prolonged IPI groups. There was a significant association with the length of the IPI; median duration 30 (12–61) min for IPI ≥120 months vs. 15 (9–27) min for IPI 18–59 months and 16 (9–31) min for IPI 60–119 months (p=0.0014).
Conclusions
The second stage of labor did not differ in women with a prolonged IPI compared to normal multiparous women. Women with an IPI ≥120 months had a significantly longer second stage vs. those with a shorter IPI. These findings provide a better understanding of labor progression in pregnancies with a prolonged IPI.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: Approval for this study was obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Institutional Review Board.
References
1. Conde-Agudelo, A, Belizan, JM. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study. BMJ 2000;321:1255–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7271.1255.Search in Google Scholar
2. Basso, O, Olsen, J, Knudesen, LB, Christensen, K. Low birth weight and preterm birth after short interpregnancy intervals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:259–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(98)80010-0.Search in Google Scholar
3. Hsieh, TT, Chen, SF, Shau, WY, Hsieh, CC, Hsu, JJ, Hung, TH. The impact of interpregnancy interval and previous preterm birth on the subsequent risk of preterm birth. J Soc Gynecol Invest 2005;12:202–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsgi.2004.12.004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Mignini, LE, Carroli, G, Betran, AP, Fescina, R, Cuesta, C, Campodonico, L, et al. Interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcomes across Latin America from 1990 to 2009: a large multi-country study. BJOG 2016;123:730–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13625.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Zhu, BP, Rolfs, RT, Nangle, BE, Horan, JM. Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 1999;340:589–94. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199902253400801.Search in Google Scholar
6. Zhu, BP, Grigorescu, V, Le, T, Lin, M, Copeland, G, Barone, M, et al. Labor dystocia and its association with interpregnancy interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:121–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Yee, LM, Truong, YN, Caughey, AB, Cheng, YW. The association between interdelivery interval and adverse perinatal outcomes in a diverse US population. J Perinatol 2016;36:593–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.54.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Kilpatrick, SJ, Laros, RKJr. Characteristics of normal labor. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:85–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00132582-199004000-00007.Search in Google Scholar
9. Cheng, YW, Hopkins, LM, Laros, RKJr Caughey, AB. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:585 e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.021.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Grisaru-Granovsky, S, Gordon, ES, Haklai, Z, Samueloff, A, Schimmel, MM. Effect of interpregnancy interval on adverse perinatal—a national study. Contraception 2009;80:512–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.06.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. DeFranco, EA, Seske, LM, Greenberg, JM, Muglia, LJ. Influence of interpregnancy interval on neonatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:386 e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Friedman, EA. Labor: clinical evaluation and management, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1978.Search in Google Scholar
13. Spong, CY, Berghella, V, Wenstrom, KD, Mercer, BM, Saade, GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver national institute of child health and human development, society for maternal-fetal medicine, and American college of obstetricians and gynecologists workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1181–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3182704880.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000444441.04111.1d.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0171).
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
