Association Between Advanced Maternal Age and Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity: A Cross-Sectional Study on a Spanish Population

Background and objective: Over recent decades, a progressive increase in the maternal age at childbirth has been observed in developed countries, posing a health risk for both women and infants. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between advanced maternal age (AMA) and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study of 3,315 births was conducted in the north of Spain in 2014. We compared childbirth between women aged 35 years or older, with a reference group of women aged between 24 and 27 years. AMA was categorized based on ordinal ranking into 35-38 years, 39-42 years, and >42 years to estimate a dose-response pattern (the older the age, the greater the risk). As an association measure, crude and adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) were estimated by non-conditional logistic regression and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were calculated. Results: Repeated abortions were more common among women of AMA in comparison to pregnant women aged 24-27 years (reference group): adjusted OR = 2.68; 95%CI (1.52-4.73). A higher prevalence of gestational diabetes was also observed among women of AMA, reaching statistical significance when restricted to first time mothers: adjusted OR = 8.55; 95%CI (1.12-65.43). In addition, the possibility of an instrumental delivery was multiplied by 1.6 and the possibility of a cesarean by 1.5 among women of AMA, with these results reaching statistical significance, and observing a dose-response pattern. Lastly, there were associations between preeclampsia, preterm birth (<37 weeks) and low birthweight, however without reaching statistical significance. Conclusion: Our results support the association between AMA and suffering repeated abortions. Likewise, being of AMA was associated with a greater risk of suffering from gestational diabetes, especially among primiparous women, as well as being associated with both instrumental deliveries and cesareans among both primiparous and multiparous women

Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference

Background: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour. Methods: As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Results: The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present]. Conclusions:Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications