PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10468064

Delayed interval delivery in multiple pregnancies. Is optimism justified?

H C van Doorn·G van Wezel-Meijler·H P van Geijn·G A Dekker
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the success of delayed interval delivery in multiple pregnancies. METHOD: Retrospective analyses of all multiple pregnancies with the birth of one child at a gestational age of 16-31 weeks (n=80). Three groups were defined: group I, unsuccessful attempt to temporize delivery, group II, interval between the first child and the other child or children 3 hours or more, with delivery of the remaining children before 28 weeks and group III, prolongation of pregnancy beyond 28 weeks. RESULTS: In 15 multiple pregnancies (ten sets of twins, five sets of triplets), the aim was to postpone the delivery of the second (and third) child. The mean gestational age at admittance was 25 weeks. Delay of the delivery of the second child was achieved in ten cases, five in group II and five in group III. In groups II and III, the mean interval of delivery was 12 days; the gestational age at the delivery of the remaining children in these ten patients was 27 5/7 weeks. No relation could be found between the reason for admittance and the interval in delivery between the first and the other children. The only severe maternal complication was blood loss exceeding 2 liters. In the neonatal outcome of first and second children (with a gestational age of 28 weeks or more) no striking differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Delayed delivery in multiple pregnancies after the birth of the first child is only successful in a minority of patients and should be considered prior to the birth of the first child.

Explore related subjects

Birth IntervalsBirth WeightDelivery, ObstetricFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornMaleObstetric Labor, PrematurePregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy, MultipleRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H C van Doorn, G van Wezel-Meijler, H P van Geijn, G A Dekker. 1999. Delayed interval delivery in multiple pregnancies. Is optimism justified?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10468064/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Schizophrenia and neural tube defects: comparisons from an epidemiological perspective.

In this review, we examine and compare epidemiological studies of schizophrenia and neural tube defects (NTDs). Although there is no apparent link between these 2 disparate disorders in terms of clinical manifestation or phenotypes, overlapping patterns in the variation of incidence of schizophrenia with that of NTDs indicate the existence of one or more shared etiological risk factors. Evidence in support of such a phenomenon may enhance our understanding of underlying pathological mechanisms and may guide future studies of etiology and prevention. The similarities that occur in a number of epidemiological observations for these disorders are in keeping with a hypothesis of nutritional deficiencies in utero acting as a risk factor for both schizophrenia and NTDs. Programes of periconceptual folate and multivitamin supplementation aimed to reduce the risk of NTDs are already in place in many countries. Nevertheless, evidence of additional effects of specific maternal micronutrient deficiency on risk of schizophrenia may not only increase enthusiasm for expansion of such programes but also enhance understanding of etiology of this disorder and offer the potential for targeted interventions in high-risk groups.

Birth Intervals↗
PubMed2006

Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Both short and long interpregnancy intervals have been associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. However, whether this possible association is confounded by maternal characteristics or socioeconomic status is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between birth spacing and relative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Studies published in any language were retrieved by searching MEDLINE (1966 through January 2006), EMBASE, ECLA, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS, proceedings of meetings on birth spacing, and bibliographies of retrieved articles, and by contact with relevant researchers in the field. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies with results adjusted for at least maternal age and socioeconomic status, reporting risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals (or data to calculate them) of birth spacing and perinatal outcomes. Of 130 articles identified in the search, 67 (52%) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, participant characteristics, measure of birth spacing used, measures of outcome, control for potential confounding factors, and risk estimates was abstracted independently by 2 investigators using a standardized protocol. DATA SYNTHESIS: A random-effects model and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies. Compared with interpregnancy intervals of 18 to 23 months, interpregnancy intervals shorter than 6 months were associated with increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age (pooled adjusted odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 1.40 [1.24-1.58], 1.61 [1.39-1.86], and 1.26 [1.18-1.33], respectively). Intervals of 6 to 17 months and longer than 59 months were also associated with a significantly greater risk for the 3 adverse perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interpregnancy intervals shorter than 18 months and longer than 59 months are significantly associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. These data suggest that spacing pregnancies appropriately could help prevent such adverse perinatal outcomes.

Birth Intervals↗