TY - JOUR
T1 - Association between interpregnancy interval and the labor curve
AU - Burd, Julia
AU - Woolfolk, Candice
AU - Frolova, Antonina
AU - Zofkie, Amanda
AU - Odibo, Anthony
AU - Carter, Ebony
AU - Kelly, Jeannie
AU - Cahill, Alison
AU - Raghuraman, Nandini
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s)
PY - 2024/8
Y1 - 2024/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - advanced maternal age
KW - labor dystocia
KW - labor progression
KW - multiparity
KW - short interval pregnancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199329880&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101425
DO - 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101425
M3 - Article
C2 - 38996916
AN - SCOPUS:85199329880
SN - 2589-9333
VL - 6
JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM
JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM
IS - 8
M1 - 101425
ER -