Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The association between interdelivery interval and adverse perinatal outcomes in a diverse US population

Journal of Perinatology volume 36, pages 593–597 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between interdelivery interval (IDI) and subsequent perinatal outcomes in a large population-based cohort.

Study Design:

Retrospective cohort study of primiparous women with singleton gestations giving birth in the US in 2011 to 2012. IDI was defined as the time between last live birth and index live birth. IDI was categorized as 4 to 17 months, 18 to 36 months (referent), 37 to 60 months and >60 months. Statistical comparisons were made using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression models to control for confounding. Covariates included maternal age, prior preterm birth, prior cesarean and medical comorbidities.

Results:

Of the 1 964 523 women meeting study criteria, 9.0% had an IDI of 4 to 17 months, 39.7% 18 to 36 months, 26.8% 37 to 60 months and 24.5% >60 months. Short IDI was associated with preterm delivery (<37 weeks; 13.8 vs 8.8%, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 1.53)) and adverse perinatal outcomes including low 5-min Apgar, small for gestational age (SGA) status and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Women with long IDI had a higher risk of induction of labor, cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, maternal ICU admission, preterm delivery and SGA status, 5-min Apgar score <4, and NICU admission.

Conclusions:

Compared with women with 18 to 36 month IDIs, women with either shorter or very long IDIs were at an increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Copen CE, Thoma M, Kimeyer S . Interpregnancy intervals in the United States: Data from the Birth Certificate and the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (3):1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shachar B, Lyell D . Interpregnancy interval and obstetrical complications. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2012; 67 (9): 584–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Kafury-Goeta A . Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295 (15): 1809–1823.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Kafury-Goeta A . Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196 (4): 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhu B, Rolfs R, Nangle B, Horan J . Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (8): 589–594.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. de Weger F, Hukkelhoven C, Serroyen J, te Velde E, Smits L . Advanced maternal age, short interpregnancy interval, and perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (5): 421.e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. DeFranco EA, Seske LM, Greenberg JM, Muglia LJ . Influence of interpregnancy interval on neonatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (386): e1–e9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. User Guide to the 2011 Natality Public Use File. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm.

  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. User Guide to the 2008 Natality Public Use File. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm.

  10. Executive summary: neonatal encephalopathy and neurologic outcome, second edition. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (4): 896–901.

  11. Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan J . Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study. BMJ 2000; 321 (7271): 1255–1259.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogaerts A, Van den Bergh B, Ameye L, Witters I, Martens E, Timmerman D et al. Interpregnancy weight change and risk for adverse perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (5): 999–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Whiteman V, McIntosh C, Rao K, Mbah A, Salihu H . Interpregnancy BMI change and risk of primary caesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 31 (7):589–593.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Thiel de Bocanegra H, Chang R, Howell M, Darney P . Interpregnancy intervals: impact of postpartum contraceptive effectiveness and coverage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (4): 311.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. White K, Teal S, Potter J . Contraception after delivery and short interpregnancy intervals among women in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (6): 1471–1477.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Secura G, Madden T, McNicholas C, Mullersman J, Buckel C, Zhao Q et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2014; 371 (14): 1316–1323.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Peipert J, Madden T, Allsworth J, Secura G . Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (6): 1291–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    L M Yee

  2. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Y N Truong & Y W Cheng

  3. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    A B Caughey

Authors
  1. L M Yee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y N Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A B Caughey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y W Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L M Yee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This abstract was presented as a poster presentation at the 2015 Society of Reproductive Investigation 62nd Annual Scientific Meeting in San Francisco, CA, USA (25–28 March 2015).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yee, L., Truong, Y., Caughey, A. et al. The association between interdelivery interval and adverse perinatal outcomes in a diverse US population. J Perinatol 36, 593–597 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.54

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.54

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links