How Soon After Giving Birth Is It Safe to Get Pregnant Again

For older mothers, information technology tin can experience similar there'southward piffling fourth dimension to waste before trying for another child. But there are real risks linked to getting significant once again besides soon. Lauren Bates/Getty Images hibernate caption

toggle caption

Lauren Bates/Getty Images

For older mothers, information technology tin can feel similar there's little time to waste before trying for another child. But there are existent risks linked to getting pregnant once more too presently.

Lauren Bates/Getty Images

Sign up for the CommonHealth newsletter to receive a weekly assimilate of WBUR's best health, medicine and science coverage.

Many older first-fourth dimension moms face a dilemma when it comes to baby No. 2. The clock is ticking louder than ever. But doctors propose waiting at to the lowest degree a year and a half after giving birth earlier conceiving again.

This is the standard advice, based on multiple studies and public health guidelines. But deciding when to try again can be a difficult decision — weighing medical gamble against infertility gamble. Now there are some new data points to factor in. A paper published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine analyzed medical records from about 150,000 Canadian pregnancies to tease out how a mother's historic period influences the effects of a shorter-than-recommended interval between pregnancies.

For older moms in a hurry, the bad news is that the study adds evidence that conceiving within 12 months of a nativity does mean heightened health risks for both mother and child. But epidemiologist Laura Schummers, who led the research while at Harvard and is now a mail-doctoral young man at the University of British Columbia, says at that place's good news for you lot here as well:

"The optimal spacing window that we plant was one to two years after the commitment of i child until the conception of the next pregnancy," she says. "That's when nosotros constitute the lowest risk for both mothers and babies." And, she adds, that'due south curt compared to some previous studies that had suggested the optimal expect was between 18 months and up to five years.

Past inquiry has found a clear link between short "interpregnancy intervals" and increased risk of health issues for female parent and baby, including premature birth. But why? The debate, Schummers says, revolves around whether the short interval is a direct biological cause of the risks, or whether it it is itself a result of other forces at piece of work in the mother'southward life — for example, a lack of access to wellness care and unintended pregnancies.

Because older women are likelier to plan their pregnancies and take better access to care, Schummers and colleagues hypothesized that those mothers would not incur every bit much run a risk as younger women practise if they had babies close together.

They found out they were wrong.

"In fact," Schummers says, "nosotros constitute that there were risks of adverse babe outcomes for women of all ages.

"The risks to the babies were college amongst younger women, which was consistent with the team'southward hypothesis. But risks to the mothers were higher amid older women — indeed, only older mothers incurred higher risks to their own wellness past getting pregnant once again so soon.

Later on accounting for other factors that could drive these numbers, Schummers says, the stats shake out like this:

• For women 35 years or older who conceived merely vi months later on a nascence, six.2 per thousand experienced serious illness or injury, including expiry. Look 18 months and that risk dropped to 2.half dozen per per thousand. So, minor accented numbers but a dramatic departure.

• A "severe adverse infant effect" includes stillbirth and being born very early on or very minor. Among women ages twenty to 34, those who conceived after merely six months had 20 babies per thousand with those severe outcomes; the risk drops to 14 per one thousand amongst those who waited xviii months.

• Among women 35 years or older, there were 21 severe infant outcomes per grand among those who waited just half-dozen months; the run a risk drops to 18 per m amongst those who waited 18 months.

"This shows you both the human relationship between pregnancy spacing and the increased risk," Schummers says, "but also that older women tend to have a higher baseline risk of many of these outcomes at all pregnancy spacing lengths."

The research turned up a like design for premature birth: A short pregnancy interval raises the take a chance for all women, but particularly for younger women. The risk for them dropped from 53 per g at a half dozen-calendar month interval to 32 per k at an 18-calendar month interval. For women over 35, the risk dropped from l per g at six months to 36 per thousand after 18 months.

It seems like mutual sense that a adult female'south body may need more than 6 months to fully recover from building a baby and giving birth, merely the actual mechanism behind the risks of short pregnancy intervals is not fully clear.

The leading theory, Schummers says, is that nutrients similar iron or folate could exist depleted in the mother's body. Only more enquiry is needed to come across if that theory holds in developed countries like the United States and Canada, or if there are other mechanisms that have non yet been identified.

For now, she says, her team hopes these new findings tin can help women make decisions inside their ain personal contexts, and in consultation with their medical teams. The data may be particularly helpful for older women, she says, considering they more often decide to have brusque pregnancy intervals on purpose.

"And so if you're making that kind of conclusion on purpose," she says, "it's easier to say, 'Y'all know, permit'southward wait some other three months.' "

haleyafriallifuld.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/01/663181674/how-long-should-older-moms-wait-before-getting-pregnant-again

Share this post