Interpregnancy interval following miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:62
|
作者
Kangatharan, Chrishny [1 ]
Labram, Saffi [2 ]
Bhattacharya, Sohinee [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malta, Dept Med Educ, St Pauls St, VLT-1216 Valletta, Malta
[2] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Appl Hlth Sci, Foresterhill Hlth Campus, Aberdeen AB25 2ZL, Scotland
关键词
interpregnancy interval; miscarriage; recurrent miscarriage; pregnancy outcomes; preterm birth; live birth; stillbirth; low birthweight; pre-eclampsia; SPONTANEOUS-ABORTION; PERINATAL OUTCOMES; WOMEN; BIRTH; TIME; RISK;
D O I
10.1093/humupd/dmw043
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: A short interpregnancy interval (IPI) following a delivery is believed to be associated with adverse outcomes in the next pregnancy. The optimum IPI following miscarriage is controversial. Based on a single large-scale study in Latin and South America, the World Health Organization recommends delaying pregnancy for 6 months after a miscarriage to achieve optimal outcomes in the next pregnancy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Our aim was to determine if a short IPI (<6 months) following miscarriage is associated with adverse outcomes in the next pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Pubmed, with no time and language restrictions. The search strategy used a combination of Medical Subject Headings terms for miscarriage, IPI and adverse outcomes. Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were also searched by hand. All studies including women with at least one miscarriage, comparing subsequent adverse pregnancy outcomes for IPIs of less than and more than 6 months were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for inclusion. Characteristics of the studies were extracted and quality assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare short (<6 months) versus long (>6 months) IPI following miscarriage in terms of risk of further miscarriage, preterm birth, stillbirth, pre-eclampsia and low birthweight babies in the subsequent pregnancy. Review Manager 5.3 was used for conducting meta-analyses. OUTCOMES: Sixteen studies including 1 043 840 women were included in the systematic review and data from 10 of these were included in one or more meta-analyses (977 972 women). With an IPI of less than 6 months, the overall risk of further miscarriage (Risk ratio (RR) 0.82 95% CI 0.78, 0.86) and preterm delivery (RR 0.79 95% CI 0.75, 0.83) were significantly reduced. The pooled risks of stillbirth (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.76, 1.02); low birthweight (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.48, 2.29) and pre-eclampsia (RR 0.95 95% CI 0.88, 1.02) were not affected by IPI. Similar findings were obtained in subgroup analyses when IPI of < 6 months was compared with IPI of 6-12 months and >12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis providing clear evidence that an IPI of less than 6 months following miscarriage is not associated with adverse outcomes in the next pregnancy. This information may be used to revise current guidance.
引用
收藏
页码:221 / 231
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Interpregnancy weight change and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Oteng-Ntim, E.
    Mononen, S.
    Sawicki, O.
    Seed, P.
    Bick, D.
    Poston, L.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2018, 125 : 88 - 88
  • [2] Interpregnancy weight change and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Oteng-Ntim, Eugene
    Mononen, Sofia
    Sawicki, Olga
    Seed, Paul T.
    Bick, Debra
    Poston, Lucilla
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (06):
  • [3] Short interpregnancy interval can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis
    Wang, Yumei
    Zeng, Can
    Chen, Yuhong
    Yang, Liu
    Tian, Di
    Liu, Xinghui
    Lin, Yonghong
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [4] Effects of interpregnancy interval on pregnancy complications: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gebremedhin, Amanuel Tesfay
    Regan, Annette K.
    Malacova, Eva
    Marinovich, M. Luke
    Ball, Stephen
    Foo, Damien
    Pereira, Gavin
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (08):
  • [5] Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies and Interpregnancy Interval and Pregnancy Outcomes: Causal or Not? Reply
    Klebanoff, Mark A.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 130 (02): : 463 - 464
  • [6] Prevalence of Short Interpregnancy Interval: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Hanif, Asif
    Ashraf, Tahira
    Naing, Nyi Nyi
    Wan-Arfah, Nadiah
    [J]. PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2020, 14 (04): : 1120 - 1124
  • [7] Pregnancy following miscarriage: what is the optimum interpregnancy interval?
    Bhattacharya, Sohinee
    Smith, Norman
    [J]. WOMENS HEALTH, 2011, 7 (02) : 139 - 141
  • [8] Endometriosis and adverse pregnancy outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Minebois, H.
    Callec, R.
    De Souza, A.
    Morel, O.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2017, 32 : 250 - 250
  • [9] Is there an ideal interpregnancy interval after a live birth, miscarriage or other adverse pregnancy outcomes?
    Sholapurkar, S. L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2010, 30 (02) : 107 - 110
  • [10] Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies
    Roberts, Christine L.
    Algert, Charles S.
    Nippita, Tanya A.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 130 (02): : 464 - 465