Skip to main content
Log in

Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval among women treated with in vitro fertilization

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 06 September 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate factors associated with interpregnancy interval (IPI) among women treated with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods

Women with at least two cycles of IVF between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the SART CORS database and grouped by age at first cycle, infertility diagnosis, IVF treatment parameters, and cycle 1 outcome (singleton or multiple live birth or no live birth, length of gestation, and birthweight). The distributions of IPIs (in months, 0–5, 6–11, 12–17, 18–23, and ≥ 24) were compared across these factors. IPI was fit as a function of these factors by a general linear model, separately for singleton and multiple live births and no live births at cycle 1.

Results

The study included 93,546 women with two consecutive IVF cycles where the first cycle resulted in a clinical intrauterine pregnancy or a live birth. Among women with a live birth in cycle 1, there was a general pattern of longer IPI for younger women compared to older women. Women with a multiple birth waited longer before initiating a second cycle than women with a singleton birth. For women with no live birth in the first cycle, nearly three fourths initiated cycle 2 within 6 months, regardless of their age. Short (0–5 months) IPI was associated with preterm delivery, older maternal age, and use of donor oocytes.

Conclusions

Age of the mother, outcome of the first pregnancy, and treatment factors affect the length of the interpregnancy interval. Because short IPI has been associated with poor outcomes, women who are at risk for short IPI should be counseled about these outcome risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 06 September 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The name of an investigator was incorrectly listed as M. B. Morton, instead of M. B. Brown.

References

  1. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(15):1809–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu BP, Rolfs RT, Nangle BE, Horan JM. Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(8):589–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegelund ER, Urhoj SK, Andersen AMN, Mortensen LH. Interpregnancy interval and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a register-based study of 328,577 pregnancies in Denmark in 1994–2010. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22:1008–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2480-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shree R, Caughey AB, Chandrasekaran S. Short interpregnancy interval increases the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes and early delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1362384.

  5. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.05.055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grundy E, Kravdal Ø. Do short birth intervals have long-term implications for parental health? Results from analyses of complete cohort Norwegian register data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(10):958–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204191.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Battacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(5):485–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang J, Baer RJ, Berghella V, Chung P, Coker T, Currier RJ, et al. Recurrence of preterm birth and early term birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):364–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001506.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank SART and all of its members for providing clinical information to the SART CORS database for use by patients and researchers. Without the efforts of their members, this research would not been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Amrane.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by Institutional Review Board of the Michigan State University.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: One of the author's name is incorrect, M. B. Morton, instead of M. B. Brown.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amrane, S., Brown, M.B., Lobo, R.A. et al. Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval among women treated with in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1595–1602 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1261-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1261-y

Keywords

Navigation