Prior cesarean section is associated with increased preeclampsia risk in a subsequent pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of a prior cesarean section on preeclampsia risk in a subsequent pregnancy. METHODS: Study data were collected from the Korea National Health Insurance Claims Database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for 2006-2010. Patients who had their first delivery in 2006 and subsequent delivery between 2007 and 2010 in Korea were enrolled. The overall incidence of preeclampsia during the second pregnancy was estimated and to evaluate the risk of preeclampsia in the second pregnancy, a model of multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with preeclampsia as the final outcome RESULTS: The risk of preeclampsia in any pregnancy was 2.17%; the risk in the first pregnancy was 2.76%, and that in the second pregnancy was 1.15%. During the second pregnancy, the risk of preeclampsia was 13.30% for women who had developed preeclampsia in their first pregnancy and 0.85% for those who had not. In the entire population, prior cesarean section was associated with preeclampsia risk in their subsequent pregnancy (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.41). Among women with and without preeclampsia in their first pregnancy, a prior cesarean section was associated with preeclampsia risk in their second pregnancy (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.09-1.67; OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.40, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that cesarean section in a first pregnancy was associated with increased preeclampsia risk in the second pregnancy. These results provide physicians with a preeclampsia risk evaluation method for a second pregnancy that they may aid counseling in patients.

Secular Trends of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Changes in Its Risk Factors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the secular trends of incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and insulin treatment for GDM in a Korean population and to determine the factors that contribute to the trends in the incidence of GDM. STUDY DESIGN: We used data collected by the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service of Korea and analyzed data from women who had given birth from 2006 to 2010. We evaluated the trends in the incidence of GDM and GDM requiring insulin treatment and the changes in risk factors. RESULTS: There were 1,824,913 births during the study period, which included 129,666 cases of GDM, an incidence of 7.11% over this period. The incidence of GDM increased from 3.86% in 2007 to 11.83% in 2010, with a continuous increase after adjustment for age. However, the number of GDM cases that required insulin treatment decreased significantly from 13.87% in 2007 to 5.94% in 2010. The proportion of patients who were at an older age and multiparity, 2 GDM risk factors, increased during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In Korea, the incidence of GDM, especially mild GDM, increased dramatically during the period from 2006 to 2010. Further efforts are needed to monitor this trend and to identify associated factors.