Cited by 79Maternal and fetal healthcareMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Previous prelabor or intrapartum cesarean delivery and risk of placenta previa

Open access
Downes, Katheryne L., Hinkle, Stefanie N., Sjaarda, Lindsey A., Albert, Paul S., Grantz, Katherine L.·2015·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the association between previous cesarean delivery and subsequent placenta previa while distinguishing cesarean delivery before the onset of labor from intrapartum cesarean delivery.Study design We conducted a retrospective cohort study of electronic medical records from 20 Utah hospitals (2002-2010) with restriction to the first 2 singleton deliveries of nulliparous women at study entry (n=26,987). First pregnancy delivery mode was classified as (1) vaginal (reference), (2) cesarean delivery before labor onset (prelabor), or (3) cesarean delivery after labor onset (intrapartum). Risk of second delivery previa was estimated by previous delivery mode with the use of logistic regression and was adjusted for maternal age, insurance, smoking, comorbidities, previous pregnancy loss, and history of previa.Results Most first deliveries were vaginal (82%; n=22,142), followed by intrapartum cesarean delivery (14.6%; n=3931), or prelabor cesarean delivery (3.4%; n=914). Incidence of second delivery previa was 0.29% (n=78) and differed by previous delivery mode: vaginal, 0.24%; prelabor cesarean delivery, 0.98%; intrapartum cesarean delivery, 0.38% (P<.001). Relative to vaginal delivery, previous prelabor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of second delivery previa (adjusted odds ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-5.56). There was no significant association between previous intrapartum cesarean delivery and previa (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-2.19).Conclusion Previous prelabor cesarean delivery was associated with a >2-fold significantly increased risk of previa in the second delivery, although the approximately 20% increased risk of previa that was associated with previous intrapartum cesarean delivery was not significant. Although rare, the increased risk of placenta previa after previous prelabor cesarean delivery may be important when considering nonmedically indicated prelabor cesarean delivery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.004

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Compared with vaginal birth, a previous prelabour caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of placenta praevia in the second delivery (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.24-5.56).

    “Compared with vaginal birth, a previous prelabour caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of placenta praevia in the second delivery (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.62, 95% CI 1.24-5.56).27”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Downes, K. L., Hinkle, S. N., Sjaarda, L. A., Albert, P. S., & Grantz, K. L.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Grantz, Katherine L.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
212
Issue
5
Pages
669.e1-669.e6
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007718181
Cited by
79
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
6.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99HD999999)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSN27500004)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HHSN275200800002C, HHSN275200800002I)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
placenta previa, intrapartum cesarean delivery, previous cesarean section, second pregnancy, nulliparous women, risk factors, vaginal delivery, singleton pregnancy, maternal age, smoking, insurance status, comorbidities, previous pregnancy loss, uterine scar
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Maternal Age, Middle Aged, Placenta Previa, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Utah, Cohort Studies, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Delivery, Obstetric, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review