Risk of Preterm Birth and Peripartal Complications After First Trimester Termination of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 35,897 Singleton Births

Risk of Preterm Birth and Peripartal Complications After First Trimester Termination of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 35,897 Singleton Births | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Risk of Preterm Birth and Peripartal Complications After First Trimester Termination of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 35,897 Singleton Births Caroline Helena Gabrysch, Livia Schirru, Wolfgang Henrich, Silke Wegener This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose The objective of this study was to explore whether a history of termination of pregnancy (TOP) in births after 2015 in a high income setting is still linked to preterm birth (PTB) and peripartal complications. Methods 35 897 singleton births from a perinatal center with approximately 5,000 births per year between 2015–2022 were analysed. Patients with a history of first trimester TOP (TOP < 15 weeks) were compared to those who had never had a TOP. A two-step statistical approach using chi-squared analysis and forward-step multiple logistic regression was used to explore the relationship. Results 4 132 individuals (11.51%) had a history of first trimester TOP. Our findings suggest an association between past TOP and a higher risk for PTB (OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.25–1.67], p < 0.001). This increases with the number of TOP, six or more TOP was associated with the highest odds ratio for spontaneous PTB (OR = 5.21, 95% CI [1.88–14.46], p = 0.002). The risk for PTB did not differ between methods. Furthermore, our data suggests an association between past TOP and placental retention (OR = 1.25, 95% CI [1.03–1.52] p = 0.022). Conclusion These findings underscore the importance of still recognizing prior TOP as a risk factor in obstetric care. The results may inform targeted counseling and the development of preventative strategies to mitigate maternal and fetal morbidity. termination of pregnancy preterm birth reproductive counseling peripartal hemorraghe Figures Figure 1 What does this study adds to the clinical work This study covers a gap in research that has not been investigated systematically in Germany since 2009 – even though changes in TOP practice habits have taken place. Results indicate that TOP still increases the risk of PTB and peripartal complications in subsequent pregnancies. Introduction Termination of pregnancy (TOP) is a common gynaecological procedure among women of reproductive age (1). Possible long-term effects are uncertain, especially in relation to the risks for future pregnancies. In Germany, the rate of preterm births (PTB) is approximately 8 %, in addition many women require hospitalisation or treatment to prolong the pregnancy due to the risk of PTB (2). Approximately 100,000 TOP (including vacuum aspiration (VA), dilation and curettage (D&C), and medical abortion (MA)) are performed every year in Germany, of which about 96 % are in the first-trimester (3). Globally, there has been an increased use of MA in recent years (4). In Germany in 2022, MA made up 35.1 % of all TOP, in contrast to 3.1 % in 2000 (3, 5). Furthermore, the increasing recognition of the risks associated with D&C, including damage to the endometrium or myometrium, has led to its decreased use as a primary method for TOP globally. PTB, defined as delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, remains a major cause of infant morbidity and mortality worldwide, accounting for 18 % of deaths in children under the age five in 2019 (ages 2-4). Risk factors include smoking, low socioeconomic status, low BMI, maternal age below 18 years or older than 35 years, short cervical length, infertility treatments, and obstetric complications such as preeclampsia and cervical dilation associated with miscarriage or TOP (2, 5, 6). Research on TOP and PTB has produced mixed results. Many studies have demonstrated a correlation between prematurity and previous induced or spontaneous abortion while several find none. Some studies have found a link between TOP and an increased risk of prematurity (6-11), while others report no correlation (12-16). D&C has been associated with complications, and systematic reviews have identified it as a significant risk factor for PTB (17-19). In contrast, studies focusing on medical abortion suggest that it may carry fewer risks for future pregnancies (20-22). Other studies report no differences between methods (23). Adverse outcomes such as low birthweight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) have been associated with D&C and multiple terminations (16, 24). Also, data on increased risks with short intervals between TOP and next pregnancy has been described (25). Current studies yield conflicting results regarding preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Holmlund et al. found no increased risk of PPROM following TOP (26). Comparatively , Ancel et al . conducted the EUROPOP survey of 17 European countries and found that women with a history of TOP had an increased risk of PTB following PPROM (27). Placental disorders, including placenta praevia and accreta, linked to D&C or multiple TOP, may contribute to complications such as bleeding, PTB, and placental retention (28, 29). However, conflicting findings exist, suggesting weak associations, possibly influenced by confounding factors (30). Our study aims to investigate the clinical implications, exploring PTB risk, the need for preventative interventions as well as peri- and postpartum complications. Provision of this data, contributes to understanding of the long-term obstetric consequences of TOP in Germany. Methods Sample 35,897 singleton births that took place between 2015 and 2022 at a perinatal center were included in the study and were analysed in a retrospective cohort analysis. Peripartal outcome of patients with a history of first-trimester TOP (TOP 18 years at delivery. Exclusion criteria were a history of a documented second or third trimester abortions. Furthermore, during the period of the analysis, several people gave birth multiple times. We inferred that including multiple births in the study would produce collinear and heteroscedastic results, therefore only the first birth of each woman within the timeframe was included in the analysis. The study was approved by the Charité ethics committee (application number EA1/151/23), following the Helsinki declaration. Instruments Data was extracted from clinical and sonographic documentation software Viewpoint 5 and 6 (GE HealthCare, Boston). Age, gestational history, pregnancy risks and pre-existing conditions, previous TOP, previous miscarriages, and previous uterine surgeries were retrieved. In case of multiparity, data on the previous births was obtained. The details on previous miscarriages and TOP were looked at when available, including the method used (curettage, vacuum aspiration or medical), gestational age at the time of the procedure, and the year in which the procedure was performed. Weight gain, BMI as well as data on the index birth including preterm delivery, reason for preterm delivery, mode of delivery, foetal position, obstetric interventions, peripartal complications (bleeding, placental retention) was retrieved. Furthermore, data on attempts to prevent premature birth (tocolysis, cervical cerclage, and antenatal steroid prophylaxis) was assessed. Neonatal outcome data was gathered, including the APGAR-Scores, size and gestational age at birth, intensive care treatment, laboratory results, and details on fetal lung maturation with antenatal steroids (ANS). Analyses Demographic and medical characteristics were categorised and calculated as mean with standard deviation (SD). Chi-squared tests were administered to identify variables associated with PTB. For categories with 30 patients or less, Fisher’s exact test was performed. For analyses with larger sample sizes, Pearson’s chi-squared test was conducted. For both types of test the exact 2-sided significance was considered. Subsequently, to discern the individual effects of various predictors, and to control for confounding variables, a multiple logistic regression (MLR) with a forward selection approach (fstep) analysis to explore the influence multiple predictor variables on the single binary outcome of PTB was conducted. The predictor variables included maternal age, BMI, weight gain, gravida, para, as well as TOP and miscarriage history. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) of 95 % are reported. In secondary analyses, the risk for spontaneous PTB based on method of TOP and the relationship between TOP and preventative measures for PTB were explored using a chi-squared analysis followed by forward stepwise multiple logistic regression. p -values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical data analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 27; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R (R Core Team, 2023) with RStudio (Posit PBC, Boston, MA, USA). Results Demographic characteristics and medical history The demographic data of the cohort showed the mean age (31.46 years), mean BMI (24.43), mean number of previous pregnancies (gravida) (2.53), number of previous births (para) (1.97), and mean weight gain (13.61 kg) for the duration of the pregnancy. The descriptive statistics amongst the TOP and the control group were consistent, except for the mean gravida, which was notably higher in the TOP group, at 4.09 ± 2.10 pregnancies, compared to 2.39 ± 1.55 pregnancies for the control group. Primary analysis of previous TOP and preterm birth When comparing the TOP and control groups, 7.8 % of the TOP group had a spontaneous PTB, as opposed to 5.9 % of the control group table 1. For the analysis on PTB, the data was filtered for spontaneous PTB iatrogenic PTBs were discounted from the analysis. After this, a sample size of 3,903 individuals remained in the TOP group and 28,877 in the control group. Pearson’s chi-squared analysis on previous TOP and spontaneous PTB, showed a significant result ( p -value < 0.001). Therefore, multiple logistic regression with spontaneous PTB as dependent variable was performed. Amongst other noise, previous TOP as a binary variable remained statistically significant (OR 1.44 (95 % CI [1.25-1.67], p -value < 0.001). Higher parity was found to have a statistically lower risk for PTB as compared to primiparity. Underweight individuals had a significantly higher risk for PTB, as well as those who gained little weight or lost weight during pregnancy (Table 2). Number of TOP and PTB Within the TOP group 72.8 % had undergone one TOP, 23.6 % two to three TOP, 2.9 % four to five TOP, and 0.8 % had six or more TOP prior to the index pregnancy. This is illustrated in Figure 1. To deepen the analysis, the relationship between the number of previous TOP and spontaneous PTB was explored. Cross-tabulation of number of previous TOP and spontaneous PTBs was performed and showed, that the proportion of spontaneous PTB increased with the number of abortions. This was analysed with Pearson’s chi-squared tests and was found to be statistically significant ( p -value < 0.001). Logistic regression considering clinical parameters was performed and showed a rising OR for PTB with the highest OR at six or more TOP (OR = 5.21, 95 % CI [1.88–14.46, p = 0.002). Method of TOP and PTB Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to explore the relationship between the method of TOP (surgical (curettage and vacuum aspiration) and medical (mifepristone with misoprostol)), as well as those where the method of abortion was not documented. This analysis showed a higher proportion of spontaneous PTB across all methods, but no statistical significance was found. Previous TOP and intervention for PTB Risk of interventions to prevent PTB in the TOP and the control group was explored. While statistical analysis suggested potential associations of ANS, oral tocolysis and cerclage with TOP, no robust association was identified. Previous TOP and placental disorders Chi-squared test indicated an increased risk of placental retention ( p -value = 0.005) and placenta previa ( p -value = 0.013) amongst the TOP group when compared to the control group; this is demonstrated in table 3. The logistic regression analysis for placental retention showed that a previous TOP was significantly associated (OR 1.25 (95 % CI [1.03-1.52], p -value = 0.022). Furthermore, age, (moderate) parity, and a history of miscarriage or previous caesarean section were significantly associated with placental retention. Placenta praevia was no longer significantly associated with TOP in logistic regression. Previous TOP and peripartum bleeding Overall, previous termination of pregnancy (TOP) was not associated with a significant increase in peripartum blood loss—except in those cesarean deliveries complicated by specific placental pathologies, where prior TOP further amplified the risk. The threshold for increased peripartal bleeding was set at ≥ 500 mL for vaginal deliveries and ≥ 1,000 mL for caesarean births. Multiple regression for cesarean sections showed a significantly elevated OR for blood loss in deliveries with placental abruption (OR 11.24 (95 % CI [4.28-29.51], p -value < 0.001), placental retention (OR 11.58 (95 % CI [3.83-35.03], p -value < 0.001) and placenta praevia (OR 22.45 (95 % CI [3.09-163], p -value = 0.002). Results are demonstrated in table 1S of the supplementary material. Discussion Main findings 4,132 individuals (11.51 %) had a history of first trimester TOP. Results indicated that a past TOP increased the risk for spontaneous PTB in future pregnancy (OR = 1.44, 95 % CI [1.25-1.67], p < 0.001).. This association increased with the number of TOP, with six or more past TOP being most strongly associated with an increased risk of PTB (OR = 5.21, 95 % CI [1.88-14.46], p = 0.002). The risk for PTB did not differ between TOP methods. Furthermore, our data indicates that past TOP elevates the risk for placental retention (OR = 1.25, 95 % CI [1.03-1.52], p = 0.022). Of the other peripartum complications examined, none were significantly linked to previous TOP. Strengths and limitations This study demonstrates several notable strengths. First, the large sample size of over 35,000 singleton births enhances statistical power and contributes to the robustness of the findings. Second, the use of multiple logistic regression allowed for detailed analysis of predictor variables while controlling for important confounders such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and gestational weight gain. Third, the study focused on clinically relevant outcomes: in addition to assessing the risk of PTB, it also examined associated complications, including placental retention and the need for tocolysis. Lastly, the analysis is based on contemporary data from 2015 to 2022, reflecting current clinical practices and advancements in obstetric care. Despite these strengths, several limitations should be considered. Within a retrospective observational study, causal relationships cannot be established. Data quality depends on the completeness and accuracy of existing clinical documentation. While many important variables were controlled for, residual confounding remains possible. Factors such as socioeconomic status, healthcare access, and detailed obstetric history were not extensively analysed and may have influenced outcomes. Furthermore, although the overall sample size was large, the study may still be underpowered to detect significant associations with rare complications, limiting the interpretability of findings in those subgroups. Comparison with the literature Our research highlights that patients with a history of first trimester TOP had an increased risk of spontaneous PTB in subsequent pregnancies. This finding is in line with the literature, that highlights the elevated risk especially for pregnancies following D&C (7, 17, 18). As stated, the available retrospective data was not available on every possible factor contributing to PTB, so interpregnancy interval, prior unsafe abortions or underreporting might have influenced the outcome of our sample (25, 31). In our sample, this risk rose with the number of previous TOP, though it did not differ between methods of TOP. Two studies from Finland found similar risk-profiles for both medical and surgical TOP (16, 23), while Saccone et al. found that medical TOP results in the same risk profile as primi gravidas while surgical TOP leads to an increased risk of PTB (17). While no difference between medical and surgical procedures was found in a study by Kc et al., an elevated risk for PTB after later abortions (second trimester or higher) was identified (32). In a systematic review Gan et al. interestingly describe no difference for the risk of PTB between the methods of TOP, but an increased risk for miscarriage and postpartum hemorrhage in the group of surgical TOP (20). Another factor that must be considered is that the methods of TOP have been evolving over the last decades. Not only a shift towards more medical abortions, that will result in longterm data, has been described (21), but it also might be misleading to compare risks of surgical procedures performed 20 years apart. A Scottish study found increased rates of PTB in a cohort from 1980 to 1990, a result that could not be reproduced in 2008, suggesting that modernized methods of TOP contribute to the decreased rates of PTB (22). The same question must be kept in mind when addressing medical TOP, on which German data from 1998 to 2000 suggests an elevated risk for PTB after medical TOP (24). We aimed to analyse whether the need for medical intervention such as tocolysis, cerclage and steroids to prevent or prepare for PTB was elevated in women with a history of TOP, even if the procedure had been successful and PTB could be prevented. Although our data suggest an increased level of interventions in pregnancies with a history of TOP, limitations in our data set do not allow to draw clinical conclusions. Given the extent of these interventions and their impact on maternal stress and hospitalisation, including associated side effects and costs, further research on this aspect is warranted. In our sample, an increased risk of placental retention was found in the TOP group, but no other peripartal complications were significantly associated with prior TOP. Our observation of placental retention is in line with data published by Zhou et al. (28). No association between TOP and placental abruption was observed. Data on a possible association of placental abruption and TOP is inconclusive. Several studies report an association (19, 29), while others did not find a significant link (33). An increased risk of placenta praevia in women with a history of TOP has been described (33, 34). After correcting for other influential variables our data did not show a significant correlation between a history of TOP and subsequent placenta praevia. Our data did not indicate a direct association between previous TOP and increased peripartum blood loss in either vaginal or caesarean deliveries. However, given the observed association between prior TOP and placental retention – a known risk factor for increased intrapartum and postpartum bleeding – an elevated risk of peripartum haemorrhage in women with a history of TOP should be considered. Clinical implications Key clinical implications emphasise the necessity for adequate patient counseling and informed consent. It is crucial that healthcare providers offer comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with TOP, especially in women with prior PTB. The study underscores the importance of thorough documentation and careful consideration in patient management, given the stigmatised nature of the topic and the potential for underreporting previous TOP procedures. Conclusion Preterm birth remains a significant etiology of neonatal morbidity and mortality, and induced pregnancy termination in the first trimester one of the most frequent gynecological procedures among reproductive-aged people. Familiarization with potential late obstetric complications is therefore necessary to enable optimization of patient care and adequate informed consent. This study tries to cover a gap in research that has not been investigated systematically in Germany since 2009 – even though changes in TOP practice habits have taken place. Yet, the range of the research can be enhanced through inclusion of wider recognitions of key variables such as the method of TOP used, specific gestational age at the time of the procedure and complication or follow-up information. Having a wider recognition of such factors would improve the ability to predict complications. Improvement and standardization of both clinical and preclinical documentation should be prioritized. Terminations of pregnancy are medically safe procedures with a low risk of complications, particularly with modern methods; however, reduction of unintended pregnancies and comprehensive counseling remain essential, especially regarding potential implications for future pregnancies. Declarations The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Author Contributions CHG and SW were responsible for the concept of the paper. SW obtained the patients’ data from the medical documentation software, while the main analysis was conducted by LS. The initial draft of the manuscript was authored by CHG and SW. All co-authors read the final manuscript and made suggestions on its content. All authors have accepted responsibility for the content of this manuscript in its entirety and have approved its submission. Data Availability Statement All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. References Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, Bankole A, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Rossier C, Gerdts C, Tunçalp Ö, Johnson BR, Jr., Johnston HB, Alkema L. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. Lancet . 2016;388(10041):258-67. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30380-4 (IQTIG) IfQuTiG. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2020. Katharina-Heinroth-Ufer 1 10787 Berlin: Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen (IQTIG) 2021 10.08.2021. Available from: 10.08.2021 accessed: 07.02.2023 Fachserie Schwangerschaftsabbrüche. Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2022 26/01/2023. Contract No.: 2120300217004. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Schwangerschaftsabbrueche/_inhalt.html#_3wp4jklfz; 26/01/2023 accessed: Popinchalk A, Sedgh G. Trends in the method and gestational age of abortion in high-income countries. BMJ Sex Reprod Health . 2019;45(2):95-103. doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200149 Schwangerschaftsabbrüche 2000. Statistisches Bundesamt; 2007. Available from: https://www.statistischebibliothek.de/mir/receive/DEHeft_mods_00008540; accessed: 17/07/2025 Brown JS, Jr., Adera T, Masho SW. Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births. J Epidemiol Community Health . 2008;62(1):16-22. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.050369 Shah PS, Zao J, Knowledge Synthesis Group of Determinants of preterm LBWb. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BJOG . 2009;116(11):1425-42. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x Voigt M, Olbertz D, Fusch C, Krafczyk D, Briese V, Schneider KT. [The influence of previous pregnancy terminations, miscarriages and still-births on the incidence of babies with low birth weight and premature births as well as a somatic classification of newborns]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol . 2008;212(1):5-12. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1004690 Hardy G, Benjamin A, Abenhaim HA. Effect of induced abortions on early preterm births and adverse perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can . 2013;35(2):138-43. doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)31018-5 Zafran N, Musa M, Zuarez-Easton S, Garmi G, Romano S, Salim R. Risk of preterm birth and low birthweight following consecutive surgical and medical abortions. Arch Gynecol Obstet . 2017;296(4):763-9. doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4474-x Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, Thiriez G, Boulot P, Fresson J, Arnaud C, Subtil D, Marpeau L, Rozé JC, Maillard F, Larroque B. Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study. Bjog . 2005;112(4):430-7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x Parazzini F, Ricci E, Chiaffarino F, Cipriani S, Tozzi L, Fedele L. Does induced abortion increase the risk of preterm birth? Results from a case-control study. Gynecol Obstet Invest . 2010;69(1):40-5. doi:10.1159/000253848 Parazzini F, Cipriani S, Chiaffarino F, Sandretti F, Bortolus R, Chiantera V. Induced abortion and risk of small-for-gestational-age birth. BJOG . 2007;114(11):1414-8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01226.x Ke L, Lin W, Liu Y, Ou W, Lin Z. Association of induced abortion with preterm birth risk in first-time mothers. Sci Rep . 2018;8(1):5353. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23695-7 Woolner A, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. The effect of method and gestational age at termination of pregnancy on future obstetric and perinatal outcomes: a register-based cohort study in Aberdeen, Scotland. Bjog . 2014;121(3):309-18. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12455 Kc S, Hemminki E, Gissler M, Virtanen SM, Klemetti R. Perinatal outcomes after induced termination of pregnancy by methods: A nationwide register-based study of first births in Finland 1996-2013. PLoS One . 2017;12(9):e0184078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184078 Saccone G, Perriera L, Berghella V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2016;214(5):572-91. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.044 Lemmers M, Verschoor MA, Hooker AB, Opmeer BC, Limpens J, Huirne JA, Ankum WM, Mol BW. Dilatation and curettage increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod . 2016;31(1):34-45. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev274 McCarthy FP, Khashan AS, North RA, Rahma MB, Walker JJ, Baker PN, Dekker G, Poston L, McCowan LM, O'Donoghue K, Kenny LC. Pregnancy loss managed by cervical dilatation and curettage increases the risk of spontaneous preterm birth. Hum Reprod . 2013;28(12):3197-206. doi:10.1093/humrep/det332 Gan C, Zou Y, Wu S, Li Y, Liu Q. The influence of medical abortion compared with surgical abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2008;101(3):231-8. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.12.009 Magro Malosso ER, Saccone G, Simonetti B, Squillante M, Berghella V. US trends in abortion and preterm birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2018;31(18):2463-7. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1344963 Oliver-Williams C, Fleming M, Monteath K, Wood AM, Smith GC. Changes in association between previous therapeutic abortion and preterm birth in Scotland, 1980 to 2008: a historical cohort study. PLoS Med . 2013;10(7):e1001481. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001481 Männistö J, Mentula M, Bloigu A, Hemminki E, Gissler M, Heikinheimo O, Niinimäki M. Medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy in primigravid women--is the next delivery differently at risk? A population-based register study. Bjog . 2013;120(3):331-7. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12034 Voigt M, Henrich W, Zygmunt M, Friese K, Straube S, Briese V. Is induced abortion a risk factor in subsequent pregnancy? J Perinat Med . 2009;37(2):144-9. doi:10.1515/jpm.2009.001 Männistö J, Bloigu A, Mentula M, Gissler M, Heikinheimo O, Niinimäki M. Interpregnancy Interval After Termination of Pregnancy and the Risks of Adverse Outcomes in Subsequent Birth. Obstet Gynecol . 2017;129(2):347-54. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001836 Holmlund S, Kauko T, Matomäki J, Tuominen M, Mäkinen J, Rautava P. Induced abortion - impact on a subsequent pregnancy in first-time mothers: a registry-based study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth . 2016;16(1):325. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1109-3 Ancel PY, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Hum Reprod . 2004;19(3):734-40. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh107 Zhou W, Nielsen GL, Larsen H, Olsen J. Induced abortion and placenta complications in the subsequent pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand . 2001;80(12):1115-20. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.801207.x Scholten BL, Page-Christiaens GC, Franx A, Hukkelhoven CW, Koster MP. The influence of pregnancy termination on the outcome of subsequent pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open . 2013;3(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002803 Zhu QX, Gao ES, Chen AM, Luo L, Cheng YM, Yuan W. Mifepristone-induced abortion and placental complications in subsequent pregnancy. Hum Reprod . 2009;24(2):315-9. doi:10.1093/humrep/den426 Haddad LB, Nour NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstet Gynecol . 2009;2(2):122-6. PMC2709326 Kc S, Gissler M, Klemetti R. The duration of gestation at previous induced abortion and its impacts on subsequent births: A nationwide registry-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand . 2020;99(5):651-9. doi:10.1111/aogs.13788 Lowit A, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric performance following an induced abortion. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology . 2010;24(5):667-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.02.015 Jenabi E, Salimi Z, Bashirian S, Khazaei S, Ayubi E. The risk factors associated with placenta previa: An umbrella review. Placenta . 2022;117:21-7. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2021.10.009 Tables Table 1 Crosstabulation of number and proportion (%) of previous TOP (yes or no) and spontaneous preterm birth (yes or no). Previous TOP Term Birth Spontaneous PTB Total % n % n % n No 94.13 27,182 5.87 1,695 100.00 28,877 Yes 92.19 3,598 7.81 305 100.00 3,903 TOP = induced termination of pregnancy; PTB = preterm birth; n = sample size. Table 2 Multiple logistic regression for spontaneous preterm birth with TOP as a binary value. Variables OR with 95 % CI (lower-upper)* p -value Parity - Total** < 0.001 Primipara (0-1) - - Reference Moderate parity (2-3) - 0.66 (0.59-0.74) < 0.001 High parity (≥ 4) - 0.65 (0.54-0.78) < 0.001 BMI - Total** < 0.001 Normal BMI 18.5 < x < 25 kg/m² - Reference Underweight < 18.5 kg/m² 1.22 (0.99-1.51) n.s. Overweight 25 ≤ x < 30 kg/m² 0.85 (0.74-0.97) 0.017 Obese 30 ≤ x < 35 kg/m² 0.78 (0.647-0.96) 0.009 Morbidly obese ≥ 35 kg/m² 0.78 (0.61-0.99) 0.040 Previous miscarriage - 1.19 (1.06-1.33) 0.004 Previous TOP - 1.44 (1.25-1.67) < 0.001 Weight gain*** - Total** < 0.001 Normal weight gain 10 ≤ x < 16 kg - Reference Weight loss ≤ 0 kg 2.20 (1.40-3.44) < 0.001 Little weight gain 0 < x < 10 kg 2.52 (2.23-2.33) < 0.001 Moderate weight gain 16 < x < 20 kg 0.53 (0.44-0.64) < 0.001 Significant weight gain ≥ 20 kg 0.39 (0.31-0.49) < 0.001 * Odds ratio ( OR ) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (lower-upper); **Total p -value for the categorical variable; ***Weight gain during pregnancy, n.s. = not significant Table 3 Chi-square test on previous TOP and placental disorders. Variables Prior TOP No prior TOP p -value % n % n Placental retention 3.93 157 (N = 3,996) 3.08 894 (N = 29,037) **0.005 Placental abruption 0.34 14 (N = 4,132) 0.19 57 (N = 30,192) **n.s. Placental insufficiency 0.05 2 (N = 4,132) 0.06 19 (N = 30,192) *n.s. Placenta praevia 0.44 18 (N = 4,132) 0.22 67 (N = 30,192) **0.013 Placenta accreta spectrum 0.13 2 (N = 1,490) 0.28 29 (N = 10,524) **n.s. TOP = termination of pregnancy; n = sample size, * Fisher’s exact test; **chi-square test, n.s. = non significant. Percentages are shown as % and n/N, where n is the number of individuals with the variable, and N is the total number of individuals eligible within each group. The total number included (N) varies between variables due to missing data. Table 4 Chi-square tests for the association between previous TOP and hemorrhage, uterine rupture, and imminent uterine rupture. Variables Prior TOP No prior TOP p -value % n % n Blood loss ≥ 500 mL (vaginal deliveries) 12.01 288 (N = 2,398) 11.98 2,295 (N = 19,157) **n.s. Blood loss ≥ 1,000 mL (caesarean births) 5.91 96 (N = 1,624) 4.70 482 (N = 10,253) **0.040 Uterine rupture 0.02 1 (N = 4,131) 0.02 6 (N = 30,192) *n.s. Imminent uterine rupture 0.05 2 (N = 4,130) 0.02 7 (N = 30,192) *n.s. TOP = termination of pregnancy; *Fisher’s exact test; **chi-square ; Percentages are shown as % and n/N, where n is the number of individuals with the complication, and N is the total number of individuals eligible within each group. The total number included (N) varies between variables due to missing data. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 02 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 09 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 06 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8048303","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542439748,"identity":"0fc49e4e-9c49-4e23-9c1b-5f15bcd66fad","order_by":0,"name":"Caroline Helena Gabrysch","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Caroline","middleName":"Helena","lastName":"Gabrysch","suffix":""},{"id":542439749,"identity":"207dd9a8-4c45-4403-8040-7fb6626c9e49","order_by":1,"name":"Livia Schirru","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Livia","middleName":"","lastName":"Schirru","suffix":""},{"id":542439750,"identity":"fb9abc06-0406-4b90-b996-c6bde81dab9b","order_by":2,"name":"Wolfgang Henrich","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wolfgang","middleName":"","lastName":"Henrich","suffix":""},{"id":542439751,"identity":"24dd0746-55a7-48dd-ba93-ed3d262af229","order_by":3,"name":"Silke Wegener","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Silke","middleName":"","lastName":"Wegener","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-06 13:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-08242-w","type":"published","date":"2026-01-20T15:58:39+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96307127,"identity":"e300afb1-b997-435c-8eb0-11c75371bd47","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 15:36:16","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":48934,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0611RiskofPretermBirthandPeripartalComplicationsAfterFirstTrimester.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/0c722877d61e53dd925467c3.docx"},{"id":96307129,"identity":"7047b415-4af8-46db-be43-a756b1db36f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 15:36:16","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0611TablesRiskofPretermBirthandPeripartalComplicationsAfterFirstTrimesterTerminationofPregnancyARetrospectiveCohortStudyof.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/083e5858c6a8f22c817e0f1a.docx"},{"id":96365193,"identity":"af7c93a0-6f78-4af0-a100-c00d9b9c9ec8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 10:10:04","extension":"json","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0e356c367a2648208d0c5efe7383cedb.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/d54dc5500d893c6da9dc9fd6.json"},{"id":96365419,"identity":"5c49d8df-a6c1-41c6-952b-d9b9ae03b637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 10:10:21","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109960,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0e356c367a2648208d0c5efe7383cedb1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/76c6a4770aaa81723975a717.xml"},{"id":96307130,"identity":"c43c0b97-b9aa-4161-afb2-42b3fd66e0db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 15:36:16","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108191,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0e356c367a2648208d0c5efe7383cedb1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/ea1022246efa181a1a92ac12.xml"},{"id":96307133,"identity":"2791e2e9-ea7b-48df-8e15-d4880962f2a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 15:36:16","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":117234,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/5d86756616c1b575302359f9.html"},{"id":96307126,"identity":"b9213d06-0f15-4723-85de-f0867394a4a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 15:36:15","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35469,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNumber of induced terminations of pregnancy (TOPs) and incidence of spontaneous preterm birth (PTB).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTOP(s) = induced termination of pregnancy(-ies); PTB = preterm birth.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/526c33e2058f876624452d1c.png"},{"id":101153372,"identity":"0131c7a5-656c-42ec-ac63-4958c77f3b7b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-26 16:14:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":796469,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8048303/v1/73fe0553-d114-4f27-b89e-a25f6723e0a0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Risk of Preterm Birth and Peripartal Complications After First Trimester Termination of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 35,897 Singleton Births","fulltext":[{"header":"What does this study adds to the clinical work","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study covers a gap in research that has not been investigated systematically in Germany since 2009 \u0026ndash; even though changes in TOP practice habits have taken place. Results indicate that TOP still increases the risk of PTB and peripartal complications in subsequent pregnancies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTermination of pregnancy (TOP) is a common gynaecological procedure among women of reproductive age (1). Possible long-term effects are uncertain, especially in relation to the risks for future pregnancies. In Germany, the rate of preterm births (PTB) is approximately 8 %, in addition many women require hospitalisation or treatment to prolong the pregnancy due to the risk of PTB\u0026nbsp;(2). Approximately 100,000 TOP (including vacuum aspiration (VA), dilation and curettage (D\u0026amp;C), and medical abortion (MA)) are performed every year in Germany, of which about 96 % are in the first-trimester\u0026nbsp;(3). Globally, there has been an increased use of MA in recent years\u0026nbsp;(4). In Germany in 2022, MA made up 35.1 % of all TOP, in contrast to 3.1 % in 2000\u0026nbsp;(3, 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the increasing recognition of the risks associated with D\u0026amp;C, including damage to the endometrium or myometrium, has led to its decreased use as a primary method for TOP globally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePTB, defined as delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, remains a major cause of infant morbidity and mortality worldwide, accounting for 18 % of deaths in children under the age five in 2019 (ages 2-4). Risk factors include smoking, low socioeconomic status, low BMI, maternal age below 18 years or older than 35 years, short cervical length, infertility treatments, and obstetric complications such as preeclampsia and cervical dilation associated with miscarriage or TOP (2, 5, 6).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on TOP and PTB has produced mixed results. Many studies have demonstrated a correlation between prematurity and previous induced or spontaneous abortion while several find none. Some studies have found a link between TOP and an increased risk of prematurity (6-11), while others report no correlation (12-16). D\u0026amp;C has been associated with complications, and systematic reviews have identified it as a significant risk factor for PTB (17-19). In contrast, studies focusing on medical abortion suggest that it may carry fewer risks for future pregnancies (20-22). Other studies report no differences between methods (23). Adverse outcomes such as low birthweight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) have been associated with D\u0026amp;C and multiple terminations (16, 24). Also, data on increased risks with short intervals between TOP and next pregnancy has been described (25).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrent studies yield conflicting results regarding preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Holmlund et al. found no increased risk of PPROM following TOP (26). Comparatively\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAncel et al\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e conducted the EUROPOP survey of 17 European countries and found that women with a history of TOP had an increased risk of PTB following PPROM (27).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlacental disorders, including placenta praevia and accreta, linked to D\u0026amp;C or multiple TOP, may contribute to complications such as bleeding, PTB, and placental retention (28, 29). However, conflicting findings exist, suggesting weak associations, possibly influenced by confounding factors (30).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study aims to investigate the clinical implications, exploring PTB risk, the need for preventative interventions as well as peri- and postpartum complications. Provision of this data, contributes to understanding of the long-term obstetric consequences of TOP in Germany.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods ","content":"\u003ch3\u003eSample\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35,897 singleton births that took place between 2015 and 2022 at a perinatal center were included in the study and were analysed in a retrospective cohort analysis. Peripartal outcome of patients with a history of first-trimester TOP (TOP \u0026lt; 15 weeks) were compared to those who had never had an TOP (control group). Inclusion criteria were age \u0026gt; 18 years at delivery. Exclusion criteria were a history of a documented second or third trimester abortions. Furthermore, during the period of the analysis, several people gave birth multiple times. We inferred that including multiple births in the study would produce collinear and heteroscedastic results, therefore only the first birth of each woman within the timeframe was included in the analysis. The study was approved by the Charit\u0026eacute; ethics committee (application number EA1/151/23),\u0026nbsp;following the Helsinki declaration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstruments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData was extracted from clinical and sonographic documentation software Viewpoint 5 and 6 (GE HealthCare, Boston).\u0026nbsp;Age, gestational history, pregnancy risks and pre-existing conditions, previous TOP, previous miscarriages, and previous uterine surgeries were retrieved. In case of multiparity, data on the previous births was obtained. The details on previous miscarriages and TOP were looked at when available, including the method used (curettage, vacuum aspiration or medical), gestational age at the time of the procedure, and the year in which the procedure was performed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWeight gain, BMI as well as data on the index birth including preterm delivery, reason for preterm delivery, mode of delivery, foetal position, obstetric interventions, peripartal complications (bleeding, placental retention) was retrieved. Furthermore, data on attempts to prevent premature birth (tocolysis, cervical cerclage, and antenatal steroid prophylaxis) was assessed. Neonatal outcome data was gathered, including the APGAR-Scores, size and gestational age at birth, intensive care treatment, laboratory results, and details on fetal lung maturation with antenatal steroids (ANS).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalyses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemographic and medical characteristics were categorised and calculated as mean with standard deviation (SD). Chi-squared tests were administered to identify variables associated with PTB. For categories with 30 patients or less, Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test was performed. For analyses with larger sample sizes, Pearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared test was conducted. For both types of test the exact 2-sided significance was considered. Subsequently, to discern the individual effects of various predictors, and to control for confounding variables, a multiple logistic regression (MLR) with a forward selection approach (fstep) analysis to explore the influence multiple predictor variables on the single binary outcome of PTB was conducted. The predictor variables included maternal age, BMI, weight gain, gravida, para, as well as TOP and miscarriage history. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) of 95 % are reported.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn secondary analyses, the risk for spontaneous PTB based on method of TOP and the relationship between TOP and preventative measures for PTB were explored using a chi-squared analysis followed by forward stepwise multiple logistic regression.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values \u0026lt; 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical data analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 27; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R (R Core Team, 2023) with RStudio (Posit PBC, Boston, MA, USA).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic characteristics and medical history\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe demographic data of the cohort showed the mean age (31.46 years), mean BMI (24.43), mean number of previous pregnancies (gravida) (2.53), number of previous births (para) (1.97), and mean weight gain (13.61 kg) for the duration of the pregnancy. The descriptive statistics amongst the TOP and the control group were consistent, except for the mean gravida, which was notably higher in the TOP group, at\u0026nbsp;4.09\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026plusmn; 2.10\u0026nbsp;pregnancies, compared to 2.39\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.55 pregnancies for the control group.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc182151622\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary analysis of previous TOP and preterm birth\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen comparing the TOP and control groups, 7.8 % of the TOP group had a spontaneous PTB, as opposed to 5.9 % of the control group table 1. For the analysis on PTB, the data was filtered for spontaneous PTB iatrogenic PTBs were discounted from the analysis. After this, a sample size of 3,903 individuals remained in the TOP group and 28,877 in the control group. Pearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared analysis on previous TOP and spontaneous PTB, showed a significant result (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value \u0026lt; 0.001). Therefore, multiple logistic regression with spontaneous PTB as dependent variable was performed. Amongst other noise, previous TOP as a binary variable remained statistically significant (OR 1.44 (95 % CI [1.25-1.67], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value \u0026lt; 0.001). Higher parity was found to have a statistically lower risk for PTB as compared to primiparity. Underweight individuals had a significantly higher risk for PTB, as well as those who gained little weight or lost weight during pregnancy (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc182151623\"\u003eNumber of TOP and PTB\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the TOP group 72.8 % had undergone one TOP, 23.6 % two to three TOP, 2.9 % four to five TOP, and 0.8 % had six or more TOP prior to the index pregnancy. This is illustrated in Figure 1. To deepen the analysis, the relationship between the number of previous TOP and spontaneous PTB was explored. Cross-tabulation of number of previous TOP and spontaneous PTBs was performed and showed, that the proportion of spontaneous PTB increased with the number of abortions.\u0026nbsp;This was analysed with Pearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared tests and was found to be statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value \u0026lt; 0.001). Logistic regression considering clinical parameters was performed and showed a rising OR for PTB with the highest OR at six or more TOP\u0026nbsp;(OR = 5.21, 95 % CI [1.88\u0026ndash;14.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.002).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc182151624\"\u003eMethod of TOP and PTB\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s chi-squared test was used to explore the relationship between the method of TOP (surgical (curettage and vacuum aspiration) and medical (mifepristone with misoprostol)), as well as those where the method of abortion was not documented. This analysis showed a higher proportion of spontaneous PTB across all methods, but no statistical significance was found.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrevious TOP and intervention for\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePTB\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRisk of interventions to prevent PTB in the TOP and the control group was explored. While statistical analysis suggested potential associations of ANS, oral tocolysis and cerclage with TOP, no robust association was identified.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc182151628\"\u003ePrevious TOP and placental disorders\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChi-squared test indicated an increased risk of placental retention (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value = 0.005) and placenta previa (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value = 0.013) amongst the TOP group when compared to the control group; this is demonstrated in table 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe logistic regression analysis for placental retention showed that a previous TOP was significantly associated (OR 1.25 (95 % CI [1.03-1.52], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value = 0.022). Furthermore, age, (moderate) parity, and a history of miscarriage or previous caesarean section were significantly associated with placental retention. Placenta praevia was no longer significantly associated with TOP in logistic regression.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc182151629\"\u003ePrevious TOP and peripartum bleeding\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, previous termination of pregnancy (TOP) was not associated with a significant increase in peripartum blood loss\u0026mdash;except in those cesarean deliveries complicated by specific placental pathologies, where prior TOP further amplified the risk. The threshold for increased peripartal bleeding was set at \u0026ge; 500 mL for vaginal deliveries and \u0026ge; 1,000 mL for caesarean births. Multiple regression for cesarean sections showed a significantly elevated OR for blood loss in deliveries with placental abruption (OR 11.24 (95 % CI [4.28-29.51], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value \u0026lt; 0.001), placental retention (OR 11.58 (95 % CI [3.83-35.03], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value \u0026lt; 0.001) and placenta praevia (OR 22.45 (95 % CI [3.09-163], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value = 0.002). Results are demonstrated in table 1S of the supplementary material.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003ch3\u003eMain findings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4,132 individuals (11.51 %) had a history of first trimester TOP. Results indicated that a past TOP increased the risk for spontaneous PTB in future pregnancy\u0026nbsp;(OR = 1.44, 95 % CI [1.25-1.67], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001).. This association increased with the number of TOP, with six or more past TOP being most strongly associated with an increased risk of PTB\u0026nbsp;(OR = 5.21, 95 % CI [1.88-14.46], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.002). The risk for PTB did not differ between TOP methods.\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, our data indicates that past TOP elevates the risk for placental retention (OR = 1.25, 95 % CI [1.03-1.52], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.022).\u0026nbsp;Of the other peripartum complications examined, none were significantly linked to previous TOP.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStrengths and limitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates several notable strengths. First, the large sample size of over 35,000 singleton births enhances statistical power and contributes to the robustness of the findings. Second, the use of multiple logistic regression allowed for detailed analysis of predictor variables while controlling for important confounders such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and gestational weight gain. Third, the study focused on clinically relevant outcomes: in addition to assessing the risk of PTB, it also examined associated complications, including placental retention and the need for tocolysis. Lastly, the analysis is based on contemporary data from 2015 to 2022, reflecting current clinical practices and advancements in obstetric care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these strengths, several limitations should be considered. Within a retrospective observational study, causal relationships cannot be established. Data quality depends on the completeness and accuracy of existing clinical documentation. While many important variables were controlled for, residual confounding remains possible. Factors such as socioeconomic status, healthcare access, and detailed obstetric history were not extensively analysed and may have influenced outcomes. Furthermore, although the overall sample size was large, the study may still be underpowered to detect significant associations with rare complications, limiting the interpretability of findings in those subgroups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComparison with the literature\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur research highlights that patients with a history of first trimester TOP had an increased risk of spontaneous PTB in subsequent pregnancies. This finding is in line with the literature, that highlights the elevated risk especially for pregnancies following D\u0026amp;C (7, 17, 18). As stated, the available retrospective data was not available on every possible factor contributing to PTB, so interpregnancy interval, prior unsafe abortions or underreporting might have influenced the outcome of our sample (25, 31).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our sample, this risk rose with the number of previous TOP, though it did not differ between methods of TOP. Two studies from Finland found similar risk-profiles for both medical and surgical TOP (16, 23), while Saccone et al. found that medical TOP results in the same risk profile as primi gravidas while surgical TOP leads to an increased risk of PTB (17). While no difference between medical and surgical procedures was found in a study by Kc et al., an elevated risk for PTB after later abortions (second trimester or higher) was identified\u0026nbsp;(32). In a systematic review Gan et al. interestingly describe no difference for the risk of PTB between the methods of TOP, but an increased risk for miscarriage and postpartum hemorrhage in the group of surgical TOP\u0026nbsp;(20). Another factor that must be considered is that the methods of TOP have been evolving over the last decades. Not only a shift towards more medical abortions, that will result in longterm data, has been described\u0026nbsp;(21), but it also might be misleading to compare risks of surgical procedures performed 20 years apart. A Scottish study found increased rates of PTB in a cohort from 1980 to 1990, a result that could not be reproduced in 2008, suggesting that modernized methods of TOP contribute to the decreased rates of PTB\u0026nbsp;(22). The same question must be kept in mind when addressing medical TOP, on which German data from 1998 to 2000 suggests an elevated risk for PTB after medical TOP\u0026nbsp;(24). We aimed to analyse whether the need for medical intervention such as tocolysis, cerclage and steroids to prevent or prepare for PTB was elevated in women with a history of TOP, even if the procedure had been successful and PTB could be prevented. Although our data suggest an increased level of interventions in pregnancies with a history of TOP, limitations in our data set do not allow to draw clinical conclusions. Given the extent of these interventions and their impact on maternal stress and hospitalisation, including associated side effects and costs, further research on this aspect is warranted.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our sample, an increased risk of placental retention was found in the TOP group, but no other peripartal complications were significantly associated with prior TOP. Our observation of placental retention is in line with data published by Zhou et al. (28). No association between TOP and placental abruption was observed. Data on a possible association of placental abruption and TOP is inconclusive. Several studies report an association (19, 29), while others did not find a significant link (33).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn increased risk of placenta praevia in women with a history of TOP has been described (33, 34). After correcting for other influential variables our data did not show a significant correlation between a history of TOP and subsequent placenta praevia.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur data did not indicate a direct association between previous TOP and increased peripartum blood loss in either vaginal or caesarean deliveries. However, given the observed association between prior TOP and placental retention \u0026ndash; a known risk factor for increased intrapartum and postpartum bleeding \u0026ndash; an elevated risk of peripartum haemorrhage in women with a history of TOP should be considered.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eClinical implications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey clinical implications emphasise the necessity for adequate patient counseling and informed consent. It is crucial that healthcare providers offer comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with TOP, especially in women with prior PTB. The study underscores the importance of thorough documentation and careful consideration in patient management, given the stigmatised nature of the topic and the potential for underreporting previous TOP procedures.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePreterm birth remains a significant etiology of neonatal morbidity and mortality, and induced pregnancy termination in the first trimester one of the most frequent gynecological procedures among reproductive-aged people. Familiarization with potential late obstetric complications is therefore necessary to enable optimization of patient care and adequate informed consent. This study tries to cover a gap in research that has not been investigated systematically in Germany since 2009 \u0026ndash; even though changes in TOP practice habits have taken place. Yet, the range of the research can be enhanced through inclusion of wider recognitions of key variables such as the method of TOP used, specific gestational age at the time of the procedure and complication or follow-up information. Having a wider recognition of such factors would improve the ability to predict complications. Improvement and standardization of both clinical and preclinical documentation should be prioritized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerminations of pregnancy are medically safe procedures with a low risk of complications, particularly with modern methods; however, reduction of unintended pregnancies and comprehensive counseling remain essential, especially regarding potential implications for future pregnancies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCHG and SW were responsible for the concept of the paper. SW obtained the patients\u0026rsquo; data from the medical documentation software, while the main analysis was conducted by LS. The initial draft of the manuscript was authored by CHG and SW. All co-authors read the final manuscript and made suggestions on its content. All authors have accepted responsibility for the content of this manuscript in its entirety and have approved its submission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, Bankole A, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Rossier C, Gerdts C, Tun\u0026ccedil;alp \u0026Ouml;, Johnson BR, Jr., Johnston HB, Alkema L. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. \u003cem\u003eLancet\u003c/em\u003e. 2016;388(10041):258-67. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30380-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(IQTIG) IfQuTiG. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2020. Katharina-Heinroth-Ufer 1 10787 Berlin: Institut f\u0026uuml;r Qualit\u0026auml;tssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen (IQTIG) 2021 10.08.2021. Available from: 10.08.2021 accessed: 07.02.2023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFachserie Schwangerschaftsabbr\u0026uuml;che. Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2022 26/01/2023. Contract No.: 2120300217004. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Schwangerschaftsabbrueche/_inhalt.html#_3wp4jklfz; 26/01/2023 accessed: \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopinchalk A, Sedgh G. Trends in the method and gestational age of abortion in high-income countries. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Sex Reprod Health\u003c/em\u003e. 2019;45(2):95-103. doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200149\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwangerschaftsabbr\u0026uuml;che 2000. Statistisches Bundesamt; 2007. Available from: https://www.statistischebibliothek.de/mir/receive/DEHeft_mods_00008540; accessed: 17/07/2025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown JS, Jr., Adera T, Masho SW. Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births. \u003cem\u003eJ Epidemiol Community Health\u003c/em\u003e. 2008;62(1):16-22. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.050369\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShah PS, Zao J, Knowledge Synthesis Group of Determinants of preterm LBWb. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. \u003cem\u003eBJOG\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;116(11):1425-42. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoigt M, Olbertz D, Fusch C, Krafczyk D, Briese V, Schneider KT. [The influence of previous pregnancy terminations, miscarriages and still-births on the incidence of babies with low birth weight and premature births as well as a somatic classification of newborns]. \u003cem\u003eZ Geburtshilfe Neonatol\u003c/em\u003e. 2008;212(1):5-12. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1004690\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHardy G, Benjamin A, Abenhaim HA. Effect of induced abortions on early preterm births and adverse perinatal outcomes. \u003cem\u003eJ Obstet Gynaecol Can\u003c/em\u003e. 2013;35(2):138-43. doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)31018-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZafran N, Musa M, Zuarez-Easton S, Garmi G, Romano S, Salim R. Risk of preterm birth and low birthweight following consecutive surgical and medical abortions. \u003cem\u003eArch Gynecol Obstet\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;296(4):763-9. doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4474-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, Thiriez G, Boulot P, Fresson J, Arnaud C, Subtil D, Marpeau L, Roz\u0026eacute; JC, Maillard F, Larroque B. Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study. \u003cem\u003eBjog\u003c/em\u003e. 2005;112(4):430-7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParazzini F, Ricci E, Chiaffarino F, Cipriani S, Tozzi L, Fedele L. Does induced abortion increase the risk of preterm birth? Results from a case-control study. \u003cem\u003eGynecol Obstet Invest\u003c/em\u003e. 2010;69(1):40-5. doi:10.1159/000253848\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParazzini F, Cipriani S, Chiaffarino F, Sandretti F, Bortolus R, Chiantera V. Induced abortion and risk of small-for-gestational-age birth. \u003cem\u003eBJOG\u003c/em\u003e. 2007;114(11):1414-8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01226.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKe L, Lin W, Liu Y, Ou W, Lin Z. Association of induced abortion with preterm birth risk in first-time mothers. \u003cem\u003eSci Rep\u003c/em\u003e. 2018;8(1):5353. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23695-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoolner A, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. The effect of method and gestational age at termination of pregnancy on future obstetric and perinatal outcomes: a register-based cohort study in Aberdeen, Scotland. \u003cem\u003eBjog\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;121(3):309-18. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12455\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKc S, Hemminki E, Gissler M, Virtanen SM, Klemetti R. Perinatal outcomes after induced termination of pregnancy by methods: A nationwide register-based study of first births in Finland 1996-2013. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;12(9):e0184078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184078\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaccone G, Perriera L, Berghella V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. \u003cem\u003eAm J Obstet Gynecol\u003c/em\u003e. 2016;214(5):572-91. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.044\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLemmers M, Verschoor MA, Hooker AB, Opmeer BC, Limpens J, Huirne JA, Ankum WM, Mol BW. Dilatation and curettage increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod\u003c/em\u003e. 2016;31(1):34-45. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev274\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCarthy FP, Khashan AS, North RA, Rahma MB, Walker JJ, Baker PN, Dekker G, Poston L, McCowan LM, O\u0026apos;Donoghue K, Kenny LC. Pregnancy loss managed by cervical dilatation and curettage increases the risk of spontaneous preterm birth. \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod\u003c/em\u003e. 2013;28(12):3197-206. doi:10.1093/humrep/det332\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGan C, Zou Y, Wu S, Li Y, Liu Q. The influence of medical abortion compared with surgical abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcome. \u003cem\u003eInt J Gynaecol Obstet\u003c/em\u003e. 2008;101(3):231-8. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.12.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagro Malosso ER, Saccone G, Simonetti B, Squillante M, Berghella V. US trends in abortion and preterm birth. \u003cem\u003eJ Matern Fetal Neonatal Med\u003c/em\u003e. 2018;31(18):2463-7. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1344963\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliver-Williams C, Fleming M, Monteath K, Wood AM, Smith GC. Changes in association between previous therapeutic abortion and preterm birth in Scotland, 1980 to 2008: a historical cohort study. \u003cem\u003ePLoS Med\u003c/em\u003e. 2013;10(7):e1001481. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001481\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026auml;nnist\u0026ouml; J, Mentula M, Bloigu A, Hemminki E, Gissler M, Heikinheimo O, Niinim\u0026auml;ki M. Medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy in primigravid women--is the next delivery differently at risk? A population-based register study. \u003cem\u003eBjog\u003c/em\u003e. 2013;120(3):331-7. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoigt M, Henrich W, Zygmunt M, Friese K, Straube S, Briese V. Is induced abortion a risk factor in subsequent pregnancy? \u003cem\u003eJ Perinat Med\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;37(2):144-9. doi:10.1515/jpm.2009.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026auml;nnist\u0026ouml; J, Bloigu A, Mentula M, Gissler M, Heikinheimo O, Niinim\u0026auml;ki M. Interpregnancy Interval After Termination of Pregnancy and the Risks of Adverse Outcomes in Subsequent Birth. \u003cem\u003eObstet Gynecol\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;129(2):347-54. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001836\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmlund S, Kauko T, Matom\u0026auml;ki J, Tuominen M, M\u0026auml;kinen J, Rautava P. Induced abortion - impact on a subsequent pregnancy in first-time mothers: a registry-based study. \u003cem\u003eBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\u003c/em\u003e. 2016;16(1):325. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1109-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAncel PY, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod\u003c/em\u003e. 2004;19(3):734-40. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou W, Nielsen GL, Larsen H, Olsen J. Induced abortion and placenta complications in the subsequent pregnancy. \u003cem\u003eActa Obstet Gynecol Scand\u003c/em\u003e. 2001;80(12):1115-20. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.801207.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScholten BL, Page-Christiaens GC, Franx A, Hukkelhoven CW, Koster MP. The influence of pregnancy termination on the outcome of subsequent pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open\u003c/em\u003e. 2013;3(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002803\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu QX, Gao ES, Chen AM, Luo L, Cheng YM, Yuan W. Mifepristone-induced abortion and placental complications in subsequent pregnancy. \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;24(2):315-9. doi:10.1093/humrep/den426\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaddad LB, Nour NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. \u003cem\u003eRev Obstet Gynecol\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;2(2):122-6. PMC2709326\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKc S, Gissler M, Klemetti R. The duration of gestation at previous induced abortion and its impacts on subsequent births: A nationwide registry-based study. \u003cem\u003eActa Obstet Gynecol Scand\u003c/em\u003e. 2020;99(5):651-9. doi:10.1111/aogs.13788\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLowit A, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric performance following an induced abortion. \u003cem\u003eBest Practice \u0026amp; Research Clinical Obstetrics \u0026amp; Gynaecology\u003c/em\u003e. 2010;24(5):667-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.02.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenabi E, Salimi Z, Bashirian S, Khazaei S, Ayubi E. The risk factors associated with placenta previa: An umbrella review. \u003cem\u003ePlacenta\u003c/em\u003e. 2022;117:21-7. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2021.10.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Crosstabulation of number and proportion (%) of previous TOP (yes or no) and spontaneous preterm birth (yes or no).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"494\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrevious TOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTerm Birth\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpontaneous PTB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27,182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,695\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28,877\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,598\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e305\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,903\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;TOP = induced termination of pregnancy; PTB = preterm birth; n = sample size.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2 \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple logistic regression for spontaneous preterm birth with TOP as a binary value.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"604\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 305px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOR with 95 % CI\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(lower-upper)*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimipara (0-1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerate parity (2-3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66 (0.59-0.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh parity (\u0026ge; 4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65 (0.54-0.78)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormal BMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.5 \u0026lt; x \u0026lt; 25 kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderweight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 18.5 kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22 (0.99-1.51)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverweight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25 \u0026le; x \u0026lt; 30 kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85 (0.74-0.97)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObese\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 \u0026le; x \u0026lt; 35 kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78 (0.647-0.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMorbidly obese\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 35 kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78 (0.61-0.99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrevious miscarriage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19 (1.06-1.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrevious TOP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.44 (1.25-1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeight gain***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormal weight gain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 \u0026le; x \u0026lt; 16 kg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeight loss\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le; 0 kg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.20 (1.40-3.44)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLittle weight gain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 \u0026lt; x \u0026lt; 10 kg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.52 (2.23-2.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerate weight gain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 \u0026lt; x \u0026lt; 20 kg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53 (0.44-0.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant weight gain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 20 kg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 201px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39 (0.31-0.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e* Odds ratio (\u003cem\u003eOR\u003c/em\u003e) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (lower-upper); **Total \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value for the categorical variable; ***Weight gain during pregnancy, n.s. = not significant\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChi-square test on previous TOP and placental disorders.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"604\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior TOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo prior TOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlacental retention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e157 (N = 3,996)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e894 (N = 29,037)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlacental abruption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (N = 4,132)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57 (N = 30,192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlacental insufficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (N = 4,132)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (N = 30,192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlacenta praevia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (N = 4,132)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67 (N = 30,192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlacenta accreta spectrum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (N = 1,490)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29 (N = 10,524)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTOP = termination of pregnancy; n = sample size, * Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test; **chi-square test, n.s. = non significant. Percentages are shown as % and n/N, where n is the number of individuals with the variable, and N is the total number of individuals eligible within each group. The total number included (N) varies between variables due to missing data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChi-square tests for the association between previous TOP and hemorrhage, uterine rupture, and\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;imminent uterine rupture.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"622\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior TOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo prior TOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlood loss \u0026ge; 500 mL (vaginal deliveries)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e288 (N = 2,398)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,295 (N = 19,157)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlood loss \u0026ge; 1,000 mL (caesarean births)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96 (N = 1,624)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e482 (N = 10,253)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUterine rupture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (N = 4,131)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (N = 30,192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImminent uterine rupture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (N = 4,130)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (N = 30,192)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTOP = termination of pregnancy; *Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test; **chi-square ; Percentages are shown as % and n/N, where n is the number of individuals with the complication, and N is the total number of individuals eligible within each group. The total number included (N) varies between variables due to missing data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archives-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"arch","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics](https://www.springer.com/journal/404)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/arch/default.aspx","title":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"termination of pregnancy, preterm birth, reproductive counseling, peripartal hemorraghe","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003ePurpose\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe objective of this study was to explore whether a history of termination of pregnancy (TOP) in births after 2015 in a high income setting is still linked to preterm birth (PTB) and peripartal complications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e35 897 singleton births from a perinatal center with approximately 5,000 births per year between 2015\u0026ndash;2022 were analysed. Patients with a history of first trimester TOP (TOP\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;15 weeks) were compared to those who had never had a TOP. A two-step statistical approach using chi-squared analysis and forward-step multiple logistic regression was used to explore the relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 132 individuals (11.51%) had a history of first trimester TOP. Our findings suggest an association between past TOP and a higher risk for PTB (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.44, 95% CI [1.25\u0026ndash;1.67], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This increases with the number of TOP, six or more TOP was associated with the highest odds ratio for spontaneous PTB (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.21, 95% CI [1.88\u0026ndash;14.46], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002). The risk for PTB did not differ between methods. Furthermore, our data suggests an association between past TOP and placental retention (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25, 95% CI [1.03\u0026ndash;1.52] \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the importance of still recognizing prior TOP as a risk factor in obstetric care. The results may inform targeted counseling and the development of preventative strategies to mitigate maternal and fetal morbidity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Risk of Preterm Birth and Peripartal Complications After First Trimester Termination of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 35,897 Singleton Births","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-19 15:36:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8048303/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-02T21:20:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-02T20:15:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"242899974000694296058520713943155994785","date":"2025-11-10T06:43:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-09T18:07:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-09T18:01:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-08T05:26:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","date":"2025-11-06T12:54:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archives-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"arch","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics](https://www.springer.com/journal/404)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/arch/default.aspx","title":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"00edf93c-84bf-4a63-af5d-830affe60e4f","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-26T16:13:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8048303","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-08242-w","journal":{"identity":"archives-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-20 15:58:39","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 20th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-19 15:36:11","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00404-025-08242-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-08242-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8048303","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8048303","identity":"rs-8048303","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}