Risks rise for babies born close together

[pegasus]

Found this in the West Australian today...

Couples who delay starting a family, then have their children in quick succession are being warned that they could be increasing the risk of complications such as premature birth.

The findings are seen as a wake-up call for career-driven parents who try to have their children over the shortest possible period to limit the time women are out of the workforce.

Doctors have known for several years that having births too close together can affect the health of the mother and second baby, but the latest study by Colombian researchers is considered one of the most detailed.

Their review of 67 studies found that having children too close in age - less than 18 months between pregnancies - put the second baby at significantly more risk of being born too early or of low weight.

But writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers warned the opposite was also true - that having a gap of more than five years between pregnancies boosted the likelihood of later children being premature or small.

Pregnancies with the shortest gaps - only six months between the birth of the first baby and the second baby being conceived - were 40% more likely to result in a premature birth and the baby was 61% more likely to be small.

Though women who left a gap of 5 1/2 years between children also faced a higher risk of problems with the second baby, it was not as marked.

The researchers said the reasons for the greater risk of complications was not known but it wa thought that having too short a gap might not give the mother's body enough time to recover, particularly if she breastfed the first baby.

However, if women had long delays between pregnancies they faced a possible decline in their body's ability to handle the demands of pregnancy.

Fertility experts recently predicted a grwoing trend in siblings being born close in age because more women are delaying having children, then wanting to have them 12-18months apart.

But the Colombian researchers said the ideal time to start trying to conceive a second baby was 18 months after the first birth, making the births about 2 1/4 years apart.

"Pregnancy intervals shorter than 18months and longer than 59months are significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal conditions," they said.

Just wondering about anyone's thoughts on this:detective:

[♥Heaven Sent♥]

hmm that dosnt sound too good:( .But in saying that my friend had her three bubs under 12 months apart and all three were overdue and good size bubs:thumbsup:

[pegasus]

I'd not heard anything about it either...

I don't get why waiting longer than 5years between bubs would be a problem - wouldn't it just be like getting pregnant for the first time?

[Ana Gram]

Lucky I am never having another one then!

[Ange&Seth]

I've never heard anything about this either, other than a woman's body should have 12 months rest between pregnancies - but I don't see how waiting longer than 5 years could be a problem ?????

Just wait about 12 months and the ppl who are mentioned in that article will probably change their minds :laughing: Isn't that the way with kids and pregnancy? What our parents did when we were kids is so different to what we're told to do now, and the next generation will probably be told to do different things again!!!

[reAllytee]

It possibly is more the fact that the woman's age is increasing because we all know there are the associate risks of being older & carrying a baby etc let alone trying to conceive past your late 20's. I also remember there was something on the news a few months back with doctors saying how because women were "older" so to speak & having babies after their careers a lot were opting for c-sections even when there was no reason for them to which associated even more risks so they were saying that they are wanting to turn this around & stop it while its becoming a problem rather than being a problem. Ok i think i need to go to bed as im not even sure if any of that makes sense excuse me if it doesnt :o

[Ange&Seth]

I think it made sense Ally, and you make a good point about the real issue is the woman's age. I didn't even think of that one, but now i think you've hit the nail on the head

[SixtiesChild]

My second child was born 5 3/4 years after my first child and she weighed significantly less than the first.
DD # 1 was 8lb 12oz & DD # 2 was 6lb 13oz.
The first baby, I had at age 34 & the second at age 40.
The first pregnancy was smooth sailing apart from some usual minor pregnancy ailments and with the second pregnancy I was unlucky and had a grade 4 placenta previa, where the placenta totally covers the exit and I also developed pre-eclampsia. My little girl was perfect otherwise. Both were c-sections.
Perhaps the body is in its prime about 18 months after having a baby because it has a chance to fully recover but yet is still in baby making mode, so it knows what to do more efficiently.:confused:

[pegasus]

Thanks for sharing your story Nadia

I think there's generally more stories of bubbas born close together than far apart, and I don't think I've heard any negative ones about weights of bubs etc with regards to that - guess that's why I poste this. There always seems to be a thread about "When is a good time" and here is something supposedly backed up by research. I based the difference between my children on the fact that I loved being two years different to my sister and thought 2 -3 years seemed great. I always thought the body wouldn't let you keep a bubba to term if it wasn't supposed to?

[MrsMiggins]

My mum had 3 kids. Her first (my older brother) was born when she was 28. I was born only 17 months later & was about 4 weeks early & quite small but very robust & healthy. My other brother was born 6 years after me and he was early, big and very healthy also.

So my mum had pregnancies both less than 18 months apart & more than 5 years apart & we are all fine.

We're planning bub #2 definitely within 18 months of #1.

[Supermum]

Hmmmm - I delayed having my babies not because I was career driven ... but because I didn't meet my husband AKA sperm donor until later in life.

I had my first at 33 and then second 15 months later. My second was two weeks early (induction not premature) and weighed slightly less than my first. Had she gone full-term she would have been heavier.

[Elijahsmama]

My mum had 3 kids within 4yrs weighing 6lbs-8lbs, the third had complications weighing 6lb and a few wks prem then me 8yrs after the last weighing almost 9lb so it didnt work with me but did with 3 close togeather but im playing on having the next in about 5 yrs and having my 1st weighing 10lb 11oz i hope for my sake that it works for me!!!
But i do wonder on the ages of the parents they used in this study. Because the 'prime age' for childbirth is meant to be 20 approx. so if you have your first at 25 then ur next at even 30 than the risk has gone up. And i have always heard that studies have proved it takes 2 years for your body to return to 'normal' after pregnancy so if thats true than the risk is also higher.
so i do agree but wonder what the ages were!!!! :ecomcity:
Not sure if that makes any sense.:confused:

[moonblossom]

If it isn't one thing its another...It NEVER ends...

[MariaO]

Exactly Moonblossom - there is always some bl**** study telling people that they are in the wrong - I really wonder at the validity of half these findings......

[amandaw]

I'd love to tell my mum that!! She had 4 in just under 5 years...including a miscarrage at 12 weeks. We all came at 38 weeks and were at least 9 pounds (up to nearly 11!) ...doesn't make it look so good for me though??!?!?!

[MummyCharmzy]

I have 2.5 yrs between 1 and 2 and will have 10.5ish months between 2 and 3...

1 was 9 weeks early and 2lb 12
2 was 5 weeks early and 5lb 12
and 3 is already beating 2 going by the numerous growth scans ive had and would be 3.5lbs+ already.

I do think there are more health risks though having them close together. I havent had easy pregnancys but this one is by far my most problematic.

With DS I had pre-eclampsia but it wasnt diagnosed until 30 weeks and he was born 3 days later. With DD I had pregnancy induced hypertension which was diagnosed around 24 weeks officially but wasnt severe until 32 weeks and she wasnt delivered until 35 weeks. I had Symphis pubis dysfunction with DD as well.

This time by 19 weeks I was diagnosed with PIH, by 21 weeks they'd changed that diagnosis to pre-eclampsia and yesterday at 29 weeks i was diagnosed with Gestational diabetes as well. I've had numerous hospital stays and every single test result comes back a 'little bit' worse each time... never stable. I think thats a LOT to do with my body not having a chance to recover properly before concieving again.

The only positive is this baby is growing the best so far.

[uptheduff]

Well, it didn't work for me either! My first son was 8lb10oz and a day early....the second was born 12 months, 10 days later....6 days late, and 9lb6! My youngest will be 14 months when the next will be born, we'll just have to wait and see!

[JaYdEn&CaYLeE'sMuMmY]

my 2 r only 13 months apart i fell pregnant when my son was only 4 months he was 10pound 1 and he was a late baby..and my daughter was 8p10 and she was also late but i was induced coz they didnt want her to get any bigger... they r both happy & healthy babies...i dont see anything wrong with having them closer together, my second pregnancy was alot easier than the 1.. i guess she wasnt as big..she was only a cm shorter than my son aswell!but jayden was sooo chubby when i gave birth to him..hes still a big boy.. hes 2 now and im daughter is 14months.:yelclap:

[pegasus]

I should really send these great stories to the people who did the study!!!

[Amy1978]

you're not wrong! my two are 16.5 months apart and Alex was 10 days late and weighed 10.8 pounds!

[mytwolilprinces]

My two boys are almost 21 months apart. I conceived DS2 on DS1's 1st birthday, my first pregnancy went without a hitch ( apart from severe MS in early pregnancy ) he was born right on his due date weighing 7 pounds. Second pregnancy I went into premature labour at 31 weeks, with a lot of drugs and 3 days in hospital the labour was held off and I carried to term and DS2 was born on due date (again!) weighing almost 8 pounds. So maybe the research could be touching on something valid? I was told my 2nd son was very small throughout pregnancy but I was given a LOAD of steriods whilst in hospital which may account for the slight increase in size (just under 1 pound heavier ) by the time he was born????

I also noticed the research doesn't mention anything about the sex of the baby - don't they take that into account? - aren't female babies usually smaller on average? I know a lot of people who had a big first baby boy and then a smaller 2nd baby girl .......

[pegasus]

Not sure about the weight of bubs based on their sex JR's mum - as far as I know - birth weight differences are totally coincidental if based upon sex. I'm pretty sure both my sister and I were bigger babies than my brother - and he was first). I think the difference is in the rate that they gain weight once they are born...

[mytwolilprinces]

I just checked my numerous pregnancy books and they all say that "on average" boys tend to be slightly larger than girls at birth. But of course this is just an average - I think you're right there are so many factors determining birth weight and pregnancy problems - how could they put it down to having babies closer together increasing the risk - it could be age, it could be the mothers lifestyle or numerous other factors!

[pegasus]

Exactly my thoughts JR's mum!!!

In something like this there are too many variables. (Mind you - it's the same in any area of babies' development). It's really hard to get a clear cut study that really does research what it proclaims.

[meags]

well i will have 17 months between my children so i may just be lucky lol.... there are so many other reasons these things can happen... how can they be sure it is the age gap between causing it?

[ellie&miasmum]

When I had my first DD we wanted to go back straight away and have another one. We loved her so much and loved being a mummy and a daddy. We spoke to our doctor first, as I had to have a C-Section first time around. DR told us to wait 6months after DD was born to start TTC. I had a fantastic pregnancy with both and no complications, apart from having to have another C-Section. Both were over 8 pound and both DD's were healthy. They are 17 months apart and am thinking about doing it again!!!:eek:

[angel_one]

my current 2 are about 28 months apart, with the 2nd baby being born just under 2 weeks early ( bloody water broke before labour even started) and he was 8lb 6.5oz (was a little sick in incubator for about 24 hours ) and #1 was a perfect delivery, weighing 8lb, 3oz - all i got to say is thank god the boy didnt stay put till he was due! he would have killed me!

[Sarie]

My boys are 23 months apart both healthy. But I had heard that you need a good 8 months or more for your body to recover after giving birth.

[jessgray]

the miniumin recomdended gap is 1 year. my DS will be 18 months when #2 is born we thought TTC would have taken longer:laughing:
i dont really pay much attention to studies not from australia they dont seem very relevant IMO:laughing: