A woman’s age can be a good indicator the risks she will face during pregnancy, researchers claimed today.
Rates of premature birth and caesarean section are both closely linked to the mother’s age, according to the new study.
The results could help obstetricians in developing care plans for mothers of different ages.
Professor Deirdre Murphy of Dublin University, Ireland, and her team gathered figures from 36,916 first-time mothers over 12 years. For this study they focused on those women at the extremes of maternal age, 17 or younger and 40 or older, and compared them against a comparison group aged 20 to 34 years.
Mothers in the over 40 group were the most likely to need a caesarean, having three times the rate of the comparison group. Their babies were more likely to need to stay in hospital during their first few days of life (24% versus 17% in the comparison group).
At the other end of the age range, mothers aged 17 and below had a higher risk of preterm birth (10% versus 6% for the comparison group). Full details are published today (12 June) in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
Professor Murphy said: "There was a marked difference in the rate of caesarean sections, increasing with maternal age, and more research is needed to explore the care provided to younger mothers and whether their enhanced ability to deliver naturally may suggest a reduction is possible for overall caesarean section rates."
She added: "Maternal age is an important risk factor to be considered when planning care for first-time mothers, particularly those at the extremes of maternal age."
Journal deputy editor, John Thorp, added that the findings "suggest other socio-demographic factors, associated with age, play an important role in delivery outcomes". Therefore, he states that obstetricians must plan care for pregnant women accordingly.
Denis, A. et al. Delivery outcomes for nulliparous women at the extremes of maternal age – a cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 12 June 2013 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12311
Leave a Reply