News

No ‘wait’ needed after early pregnancy loss


 

FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

References

Couples who try to conceive shortly after an early pregnancy loss have a higher likelihood of a subsequent live birth than those who wait 3 months or longer to try again, according to a report published online Jan. 11 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Our results indicate that there is no physiological basis for delaying pregnancy attempt after a nonectopic, nonmolar, less-than-20-week gestational age pregnancy loss. Recommendations to delay pregnancy attempts for at least 3-6 months among couples who are psychologically ready to begin trying may be unwarranted and should be revisited,” wrote Karen C. Schliep, Ph.D., of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and her associates.

©Sunlight19/thinkstockphotos.com

Couples who experience an early pregnancy loss often seek counseling about how long to wait before attempting to conceive again. Even though the optimal timing after a pregnancy loss that was nonectopic, nonmolar, and less than 20 weeks’ gestation has never been well studied, “many clinicians recommend waiting at least 3 months, with the World Health Organization recommending a minimum of 6 months,” the researchers wrote.

To assess pregnancy outcomes after a variety of such time intervals, they performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized trial involving women with a history of pregnancy loss. For their analysis, the investigators focused on 1,083 women who had experienced pregnancy loss at 20 weeks or earlier.

Most women in the study (76.6%) tried again to conceive within 0-3 months, while 23.4% waited more than 3 months.

Compared with women who waited longer than 3 months to attempt to conceive again, those who didn’t wait were more likely to achieve pregnancy (68.6% vs 51.1%) and more likely to have a live birth (53.2% vs. 36.1%). Yet they were no more likely to develop pregnancy complications, including pregnancy loss, preterm birth, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:205-13. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001159).

While the study finds no physiological reason for couples to delay attempting to conceive after early pregnancy loss, emotional readiness is another matter. However, the researchers noted that previous studies have shown that “a speedy new pregnancy and birth of a living child lessens grief among couples who are suffering from a pregnancy loss.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Schliep and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Recommended Reading

Should you adopt the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery?
MDedge ObGyn
Cell-free DNA screening for women at low risk for fetal aneuploidy
MDedge ObGyn
2016 Update on obstetrics
MDedge ObGyn
Can transabdominal ultrasound exclude short cervix?
MDedge ObGyn
Twice as many adverse events with planned out-of-hospital births
MDedge ObGyn
Oral fluconazole raises miscarriage risk
MDedge ObGyn
ACR: Etanercept during pregnancy doubles the odds of major malformations
MDedge ObGyn
sFlt-1:PlGF assay ratio shows promise in ruling out preeclampsia
MDedge ObGyn
Subtly elevated maternal glucose linked to increased risk of tetralogy of Fallot
MDedge ObGyn
Does poverty predetermine pediatric obesity?
MDedge ObGyn