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.

Effect of interpregnancy interval on the success rate of trial of labor after cesarean

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages1192–1196(2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study is to investigate the association between interpregnancy interval and success of vaginal birth after cesarean.

Study Design:

Retrospective 10-year cohort study of pregnant women with one prior cesarean, who opted for trial of labor (n=36 653). Interpregnancy interval is the time between cesarean and next conception. Vaginal birth success rates were compared between six interval groups. Analysis was performed pooled as well as stratified for induction of labor. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated.

Results:

Success rate in the reference group (12 to 24 months) was 72%. Success rates were similar among those with an interval of less than 24 months. Intervals of 24 months or more showed a decrease in success rate; 70% in 24- to 35-month intervals (adjusted odds ratio 0.92 (0.87 to 0.98)), 67% in 36- to 59-month intervals (adjusted odds ratio 0.87 (0.81 to 0.94)) and 62% in intervals of more than 60 months (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 (0.67 to 0.88)).

Conclusion:

An interpregnancy interval of <24 months is not associated with a decreased success of vaginal birth after cesarean. Success rates decrease when interval increases.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1

References

  1. 1

    Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Curtin SC . Births: Preliminary Data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64: 1–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK . Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 1187–1197.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, Fanaroff A, Hack M . Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 348–353.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Moody J ed. Caesarean Section, Clinical Guideline. RCOG Press: London, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu R et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2010; 191: 1–397.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY . Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 806–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Laroche L, Duperron L, Brassard N et al. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 338–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie. Zwangerschap en Bevalling na een Voorgaande Sectio Caesarea. (Guideline Pregnancy and Delivery after a Previous Cesarean Section of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) 2010, www.nvog.nl.

  10. 10

    Huang WH, Nakashima DK, Rumney PJ, Keegan KA Jr, Chan K . Interdelivery interval and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 41–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (Suppl 3): 1016–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Méray N, Reitsma JB, Ravelli ACJ, Bonsel GJ . Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 883–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Tromp M, Ravelli ACJ, Méray N, Reitsma JB, Bonsel GJ . An efficient validation method of probabilistic record linkage including readmissions and twins. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47: 356–363.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland Perinatale zorg in Nederland 2007 (Perinatal Care in the Netherlands 2007). Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland: Utrecht, 2009.

  15. 15

    Schaaf JM, Hof MHP, Mol BWJ, Abu-Hanna A, Ravelli ACJ . Recurrence risk of preterm birth in subsequent singleton pregnancy after preterm twin delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 279.e1–279.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JIP, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J . Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG 2009; 116: 1069–78-80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Al-Zirqi I, Kjersti Daltveit A, Forsén L, Stray-Pedersen B, Vangen S . Risk factors for complete uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216: 165.e1–165.e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F . Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Grimes DA, Schulz KF . False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 920–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Measuring the Netherlands. A monitoring study of risk factors in the general population, 2009–2010. 2011 www.rivm.nl.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all Dutch perinatal health-care professionals for registration of perinatal information. We thank the Foundation of the PRN (www.perinatreg.nl) for permission to use the registry data (registration number 15.41). No financial support or funding was received.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    A L Rietveld, P W Teunissen & C J M De Groot

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    B M Kazemier

  3. School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    P W Teunissen

Authors
  1. A L Rietveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P W Teunissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B M Kazemier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C J M De Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A L Rietveld.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Perinatology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rietveld, A., Teunissen, P., Kazemier, B. et al. Effect of interpregnancy interval on the success rate of trial of labor after cesarean. J Perinatol 37, 1192–1196 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.117

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links