40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of maternal age and pregnancy history in risk of miscarriage: prospective register based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To estimate the burden of miscarriage in the Norwegian population and to evaluate the associations with maternal age and pregnancy history.

          Design

          Prospective register based study.

          Setting

          Medical Birth Register of Norway, the Norwegian Patient Register, and the induced abortion register.

          Participants

          All Norwegian women that were pregnant between 2009-13.

          Main outcome measure

          Risk of miscarriage according to the woman’s age and pregnancy history estimated by logistic regression.

          Results

          There were 421 201 pregnancies during the study period. The risk of miscarriage was lowest in women aged 25-29 (10%), and rose rapidly after age 30, reaching 53% in women aged 45 and over. There was a strong recurrence risk of miscarriage, with age adjusted odds ratios of 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.48 to 1.60) after one miscarriage, 2.21 (2.03 to 2.41) after two, and 3.97 (3.29 to 4.78) after three consecutive miscarriages. The risk of miscarriage was modestly increased if the previous birth ended in a preterm delivery (adjusted odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.29), stillbirth (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53), caesarean section (1.16, 1.12 to 1.21), or if the woman had gestational diabetes in the previous pregnancy (1.19, 1.05 to 1.36). The risk of miscarriage was slightly higher in women who themselves had been small for gestational age (1.08, 1.04 to 1.13).

          Conclusions

          The risk of miscarriage varies greatly with maternal age, shows a strong pattern of recurrence, and is also increased after some adverse pregnancy outcomes. Miscarriage and other pregnancy complications might share underlying causes, which could be biological conditions or unmeasured common risk factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study.

          To estimate the association between maternal age and fetal death (spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth), taking into account a woman's reproductive history. Prospective register linkage study. All women with a reproductive outcome (live birth, stillbirth, spontaneous abortion leading to admission to hospital, induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, or hydatidiform mole) in Denmark from 1978 to 1992; a total of 634 272 women and 1 221 546 pregnancy outcomes. Age related risk of fetal loss, ectopic pregnancy, and stillbirth, and age related risk of spontaneous abortion stratified according to parity and previous spontaneous abortions. Overall, 13.5% of the pregnancies intended to be carried to term ended with fetal loss. At age 42 years, more than half of such pregnancies resulted in fetal loss. The risk of a spontaneous abortion was 8.9% in women aged 20-24 years and 74.7% in those aged 45 years or more. High maternal age was a significant risk factor for spontaneous abortion irrespective of the number of previous miscarriages, parity, or calendar period. The risk of an ectopic pregnancy and stillbirth also increased with increasing maternal age. Fetal loss is high in women in their late 30s or older, irrespective of reproductive history. This should be taken into consideration in pregnancy planning and counselling.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical risk prediction for pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women: development of model in international prospective cohort

              Objectives To develop a predictive model for pre-eclampsia based on clinical risk factors for nulliparous women and to identify a subgroup at increased risk, in whom specialist referral might be indicated. Design Prospective multicentre cohort. Setting Five centres in Auckland, New Zealand; Adelaide, Australia; Manchester and London, United Kingdom; and Cork, Republic of Ireland. Participants 3572 “healthy” nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy from a large international study; data on pregnancy outcome were available for 3529 (99%). Main outcome measure Pre-eclampsia defined as ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg, or both, on at least two occasions four hours apart after 20 weeks’ gestation but before the onset of labour, or postpartum, with either proteinuria or any multisystem complication. Preterm pre-eclampsia was defined as women with pre-eclampsia delivered before 37+0 weeks’ gestation. In the stepwise logistic regression the comparison group was women without pre-eclampsia. Results Of the 3529 women, 186 (5.3%) developed pre-eclampsia, including 47 (1.3%) with preterm pre-eclampsia. Clinical risk factors at 14-16 weeks’ gestation were age, mean arterial blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), family history of pre-eclampsia, family history of coronary heart disease, maternal birth weight, and vaginal bleeding for at least five days. Factors associated with reduced risk were a previous single miscarriage with the same partner, taking at least 12 months to conceive, high intake of fruit, cigarette smoking, and alcohol use in the first trimester. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), under internal validation, was 0.71. Addition of uterine artery Doppler indices did not improve performance (internal validation AUC 0.71). A framework for specialist referral was developed based on a probability of pre-eclampsia generated by the model of at least 15% or an abnormal uterine artery Doppler waveform in a subset of women with single risk factors. Nine per cent of nulliparous women would be referred for a specialist opinion, of whom 21% would develop pre-eclampsia. The relative risk for developing pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia in women referred to a specialist compared with standard care was 5.5 and 12.2, respectively. Conclusions The ability to predict pre-eclampsia in healthy nulliparous women using clinical phenotype is modest and requires external validation in other populations. If validated, it could provide a personalised clinical risk profile for nulliparous women to which biomarkers could be added. Trial registration ACTRN12607000551493.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior investigator
                Role: senior consultant
                Role: senior investigator
                Role: deputy director
                Role: researcher
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                20 March 2019
                : 364
                : l869
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222 Skøyen, N-0213 Oslo, Norway
                [2 ]MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [3 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
                [4 ]Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
                [5 ]Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                [6 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
                [7 ]Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M C Magnus Maria.Christine.Magnus@ 123456fhi.no
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0568-3774
                Article
                magm048089
                10.1136/bmj.l869
                6425455
                30894356
                8fb80de2-14cd-46d1-8ad1-ef9578e83af9
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 February 2019
                Categories
                Research
                1332

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article