4.2 Article

Late preterm birth and previous cesarean section: a population-based cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 14, 页码 2400-2407

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1438397

关键词

Late preterm birth; previous cesarean section; emergency cesarean section

资金

  1. Physician Services Incorporated Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Late preterm birth (LPB) is increasingly common and associated with higher morbidity and mortality than term birth. Yet, little is known about the influence of previous cesarean section (PCS) and the occurrence of LPB in subsequent pregnancies. We aim to evaluate this association along with the potential mediation by cesarean sections in the current pregnancy. Methods: We use population-based birth registry data (2005-2012) to establish a cohort of live born singleton infants born between 34 and 41 gestational weeks to multiparous mothers. PCS was the primary exposure, LPB (34-36 weeks) was the primary outcome, and an unplanned or emergency cesarean section in the current pregnancy was the potential mediator. Associations were quantified using propensity weighted multivariable Poisson regression, and mediating associations were explored using the Baron-Kenny approach. Results: The cohort included 481,531 births, 21,893 (4.5%) were LPB, and 119,983 (24.9%) were predated by at least one PCS. Among mothers with at least one PCS, 6307 (5.26%) were LPB. There was increased risk of LPB among women with at least one PCS (adjusted Relative Risk (aRR): 1.20 (95%CI [1.16, 1.23]). Unplanned or emergency cesarean section in the current pregnancy was identified as a strong mediator to this relationship (mediation ratio = 97%). Conclusions: PCS was associated with higher risk of LPB in subsequent pregnancies. This may be due to an increased risk of subsequent unplanned or emergency preterm cesarean sections. Efforts to minimize index cesarean sections may reduce the risk of LPB in subsequent pregnancies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据