Pregnancy · Early Pregnancy

Interpregnancy Interval After Pregnancy Loss and Risk of Repeat Miscarriage

Sundermann AC, Hartmann KE, Jones SH, Torstenson ES, Velez Edwards DR

Published December 2017 Obstetrics and gynecology, 130(6), 1312-1318
DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002318 PMID 29112656 PMC PMC5709156

RRM Academy Synopsis

Pregnancy within 3 months of miscarriage had the lowest repeat risk

A cohort of 514 pregnant women with a prior miscarriage found that women who conceived within 3 months had the lowest chance of miscarrying again. About 7 out of 100 lost the pregnancy, against about 22 out of 100 after a gap of 6 to 18 months.

Key Findings

  • Among 514 women whose last pregnancy before enrollment was a miscarriage, 81 (15.7%) miscarried in the study pregnancy.
  • Under 3 months (n=124), 7.3% miscarried again, versus 22.1% at 6 to 18 months (n=136). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.33 (95% CI 0.16-0.71).
  • Race and parity did not change the association.
  • Live birth odds were twice as high after gaps under 3 months (adjusted OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.08).

Interpretation

The Right from the Start study followed women prospectively, so the result shows association and cannot show cause. Women enrolled in early pregnancy across three states, and none used assisted reproductive technologies. A short gap belongs by definition to a woman who conceived quickly. The authors report that these women had high fecundity and were less often obese, and that this may drive the low risk in the group. Emotional preparedness went unmeasured. The authors judge that telling women to postpone pregnancy may be unwarranted.

RRM Context

Restorative reproductive medicine treats a miscarriage as a clinical question about cause. The authors link quick conception to higher underlying fertility. That fits the restorative view that a woman's health shapes the outcome alongside timing.

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether interpregnancy interval length after a pregnancy loss is associated with risk of repeat miscarriage.

Methods

This analysis includes pregnant women participating in the Right From the Start (2000-2012) community-based prospective cohort study whose most recent pregnancy before enrollment ended in miscarriage. Interpregnancy interval was defined as the time between a prior miscarriage and the last menstrual period of the study pregnancy. Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate crude and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between different interpregnancy interval lengths and miscarriage in the study pregnancy. Adjusted models included maternal age, race, parity, body mass index, and education.

Results

Among the 514 study participants who reported miscarriage as their most recent pregnancy outcome, 15.7% had a repeat miscarriage in the study pregnancy (n=81). Median maternal age was 30 years (interquartile range 27-34) and 55.6% of participants had at least one previous livebirth (n=286). When compared with women with interpregnancy intervals of 6-18 months (n=136), women with intervals of less than 3 months (n=124) had the lowest risk of repeat miscarriage (7.3% compared with 22.1%; adjusted hazard ratio 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.71). Neither maternal race nor parity modified the association. Attempting to conceive immediately was not associated with increased risk of miscarriage in the next pregnancy.

Conclusion

An interpregnancy interval after pregnancy loss of less than 3 months is associated with the lowest risk of subsequent miscarriage. This implies counseling women to delay conception to reduce risk of miscarriage may not be warranted.

Topics

Related research

Pregnancy › Early Pregnancy › Miscarriage
Alexandra C Sundermann, Katherine E Hartmann, Sarah H Jones, Eric S Torstenson, Digna R Velez Edwards
Alex Sundermann, A Sundermann, Kathy Hartmann, Kate Hartmann, Katie Hartmann, K Hartmann, S Jones, E Torstenson, D Edwards
PMID 29112656 29112656 DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002318 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002318 Sundermann et al. 2017, Sundermann 2017