To describe the relationship between pregnancy complications and fetal outcome in first and second pregnancies, focusing on idiopathic and indicated preterm birth of singleton infants in either pregnancy.
Methods
Included in the study were 13,967 women in Denmark who gave birth to their first singleton infant in 1982 and a second infant in 1982-1987. Information on pregnancy and birth was obtained by linking the National Medical Birth Register and the National Register of Hospital Discharges, based on personal identification numbers.
Results
The risk of a preterm second birth in women with idiopathic and indicated preterm first birth did not differ significantly (15.2 and 12.8%, respectively). However, women with idiopathic preterm birth in the first pregnancy tended to repeat idiopathic preterm birth twice as often as women with indicated preterm birth repeated indicated preterm birth (11.3 versus 6.4%). Adjustment by logistic regression analysis for other risk factors for preterm birth did not influence the relative risk (6.0 before 32 weeks and 4.8 for 32-36 weeks) of a second preterm birth after a first preterm birth. Women with idiopathic preterm delivery in their first and second pregnancies gave birth to infants with lower birth weight than in previous or subsequent pregnancies. Emergency cesarean delivery in a first term pregnancy was a risk factor for subsequent idiopathic preterm birth.
Conclusion
Idiopathic preterm birth is associated with emergency cesarean delivery at term in previous pregnancies and infants with lower birth weight in previous and subsequent pregnancies.
PMID 7566852 7566852 DOI 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00275-V 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00275-V
Cite this article
Kristensen, J., Langhoff-Roos, J., & Kristensen, F. B. (1995). Implications of idiopathic preterm delivery for previous and subsequent pregnancies. Obstetrics and gynecology, 86(5), 800-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00275-V
Kristensen J, Langhoff-Roos J, Kristensen FB. Implications of idiopathic preterm delivery for previous and subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(5):800-804. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(95)00275-V
Kristensen, J., et al. "Implications of idiopathic preterm delivery for previous and subsequent pregnancies." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 86, no. 5, 1995, pp. 800-804.
The likelihood of repetition of preterm birth after spontaneous onset of labour has been studied in 6572 reproductive careers after excluding stillbirths, multiple births, all careers in which any labour had been induced, and all careers in which the gestation length in any pregnancy was not certain. The analysis was controlled not only for pregnancy number, but for the nature of the reproductive outcomes. In most reproductive sequences there was a weak correlation between the gestation in one pregnancy and subsequent ones. The risk of preterm birth was tripled after one previous preterm birth with or without a preceding abortion, and increased six-fold after two previous preterm births. However, the attributable risk was low, and most multiparae with preterm births did not have a previous history.
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.