Objectives: Our objectives were to analyze how pregnancy outcomes varied by cesarean birth as compared to vaginal birth across varying interpregnancy intervals (IPI).Methods: This secondary analysis used data from a prospective registry of home and hospital births in Chimaltenango, Guatemala from January 2017 through April 2020, through the Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health Research. Bivariate comparisons and multivariable modeling was used to answer our study question, and the data was analyzed with STATA software v.15.1.Results: Of 26,465 Guatemalan women enrolled in the registry, 3,170 (12.0%) had a history of prior cesarean. 560 (20.1%) women delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean with the remaining 2,233 (79.9%) delivered by repeat cesarean. Repeat cesarean reduced the risk of needing a dilation and curettage compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, but this association did not vary by IPI (AOR 0.01 – 0.03, p < 0.001). Repeat cesarean delivery, as compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, significantly reduced the likelihood a woman breastfeeding within one hour of birth (AOR 0.009 – 0.10, p < 0.001), but IPI was not associated with the outcome. Regarding stillbirth, repeat cesarean birth reduced the likelihood of stillbirth as compared to vaginal birth (AOR 0.2, p = 0.001 – 0.002), but again IPI was not associated with the outcome.Conclusion: Outcomes by mode of delivery among a Guatemalan cohort of women with a history of prior cesarean birth do not vary by IPI.

Design: Our objectives were to analyze how interpregnancy interval (IPI) was associated with delivery mode and how outcomes varied by these characteristics.Methods: This secondary analysis used data from a prospective study conducted in Chimaltenango, Guatemala from January 2017 through April 2020.Results: Of 26,465 Guatemalan women, 3,170 (12.0%) had a history of prior cesarean. 560 (20.1%) women delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean with the remaining 2,233 (79.9%) delivered by repeat cesarean delivery. Repeat cesarean reduced the risk of needing a dilation and curettage compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, but this association did not vary by IPI (AOR 0.01 – 0.03, p < 0.001). Repeat cesarean delivery, as compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, significantly reduced the likelihood a woman breastfeeding within one hour of birth (AOR 0.009 – 0.10, p < 0.001), but IPI was not associated with the outcome. Regarding stillbirth, repeat cesarean birth reduced the likelihood of stillbirth as compared to vaginal birth (AOR 0.2, p = 0.001 – 0.002), but again IPI was not associated with the outcome.Conclusion: Outcomes by mode of delivery among a Guatemalan cohort of women with a history of prior cesarean birth do not vary by IPI.