MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101425

Медицинская библиотека · American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2024

Association between interpregnancy interval and the labor curve.

Burd Julia, Woolfolk Candice, Frolova Antonina, Zofkie Amanda, Odibo Anthony, Carter Ebony B, Kelly Jeannie C, Cahill Alison G, Raghuraman Nandini

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

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

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

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

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

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.

Для цитирования: Burd Julia, Woolfolk Candice, Frolova Antonina, Zofkie Amanda, Odibo Anthony, Carter Ebony B, Kelly Jeannie C, Cahill Alison G, Raghuraman Nandini. Association between interpregnancy interval and the labor curve.. American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101425.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.