A retrospective comparison of waterbirth outcomes in two United States hospital settings

BackgroundWater immersion during labor is an effective comfort measure; however, outcomes for waterbirth in the hospital setting have not been well documented. Our objective was to report the outcomes from two nurse‐midwifery services that provide waterbirth within a tertiary care hospital setting in the United States.MethodsThis study is a retrospective, observational, matched comparison design. Data were collected from two large midwifery practices in tertiary care centers using information recorded at the time of birth for quality assurance purposes. Land birth cases were excluded if events would have precluded them from waterbirth (epidural, meconium stained fluid, chorioamnionitis, estimated gestational age  40). Neonatal outcomes included Apgar score and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Maternal outcomes included perineal lacerations and postpartum hemorrhage.ResultsA total of 397 waterbirths and 2025 land births were included in the analysis. There were no differences in outcomes between waterbirth and land birth for Apgar scores or neonatal intensive care admissions (1.8% vs 2.5%). Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to sustain a first‐ or second‐degree laceration. Postpartum hemorrhage rates were similar for both groups. Similar results were obtained using a land birth subset matched on insurance, hospital location, and parity using propensity scores.DiscussionIn this study, waterbirth was not associated with increased risk to neonates, extensive perineal lacerations, or postpartum hemorrhage. Fewer women in the waterbirth group sustained first‐ or second‐degree lacerations requiring sutures.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154290/1/birt12473.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154290/2/birt12473_am.pd

Role of prophylactic oxytocin in the third stage of labor : Physiologic versus pharmacologically influenced labor and birth

Introduction Maternity care providers administer oxytocin prophylactically to prevent postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Prophylactic oxytocin is generally considered effective and safe and is promoted by national organizations for standardized use. In this article, the evidence supporting prophylactic oxytocin administration for women undergoing spontaneous labor and birth compared with women whose labors included administration of exogenous oxytocin for induction or augmentation is explored. Methods Using data from randomized controlled trials included in 2 recent Cochrane meta-analyses papers, only studies with women in spontaneous labor were selected for inclusion (N = 4 studies). Outcomes of immediate postpartum bleeding volumes (≥ 500 mL or 1000 mL), risk for blood transfusion, and risk for administration of more uterotonic medication were pooled from these 4 studies. Focused random effects meta-analytics were used. Results Compared to women without prophylactic oxytocin, women who received prophylactic oxytocin had a lower risk of having a 500 mL or higher blood loss. However, prophylactic oxytocin did not lower risk of PPH (≥ 1000 mL), blood transfusion, or need for additional uterotonic treatment. Discussion Prophylactic oxytocin may not confer the same benefits to women undergoing spontaneous labor and birth compared to women laboring with oxytocin infusion. Reasons for this difference are explored from a pharmacologic perspective. In addition, the value of prophylactic oxytocin given recent changes in the definition of PPH from greater than or equal to 500 mL to 1000 mL or more after birth is discussed. Finally, gaps in research on adverse effects of prophylactic oxytocin are presented. More research is needed on reducing risk of PPH for women in spontaneous labor

Oxytocin, Vasopressin and Prolactin in New Breastfeeding Mothers: Relationship to Clinical Characteristics and Infant Weight Loss

BackgroundMaternal milk production requires the neuropeptide oxytocin. Individual variation in oxytocin function is a compelling target for understanding low milk production, a leading cause of breastfeeding attrition. Complicating the understanding of oxytocin pathways is that vasopressin may interact with oxytocin receptors, yet little is known about the role of vasopressin in lactation.Research aimsThe aims of this study were (1) to describe maternal plasma oxytocin, vasopressin, and prolactin patterns during breastfeeding following low-risk spontaneous labor and birth in healthy first-time mothers and (2) to relate hormone patterns to maternal characteristics and breastfeeding measures.MethodsEligible women were recruited before hospital discharge. Forty-six participants enrolled and 35 attended the study visit. Participants kept a journal of breastfeeding frequency, symptoms of lactogenesis, and infant weight. Plasma samples were obtained at breastfeeding onset on Day 4-5 postpartum, and repeated after 20 min. Hormones were measured with immunoassays. Infant weight change, milk transfer, and onset of lactogenesis were also measured.ResultsBaseline oxytocin and vasopressin were inversely related to one another. Oxytocin and prolactin increased significantly across the 20-min sampling period while vasopressin decreased. Higher oxytocin was associated with higher maternal age, lower BMI, shorter active labor, physiologic labor progression, and less weight loss in the newborn. Higher vasopressin correlated with younger maternal age, higher BMI, and greater newborn weight loss.ConclusionsOxytocin and vasopressin have contrasting relationships with maternal clinical characteristics and newborn weight gain in early breastfeeding infants. Further study is needed to understand how oxytocin and vasopressin influence lactation outcomes

The effect of childbirth self-efficacy on perinatal outcomes

Objective To synthesize and critique the quantitative literature on measuring childbirth self-efficacy and the effect of childbirth self-efficacy on perinatal outcomes. Data Sources Eligible studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Study Selection Published research articles that used a tool explicitly intended to measure childbirth self-efficacy and that examined outcomes within the perinatal period were included. All articles were in English and were published in peer-reviewed journals. Data Extraction First author, country, year of publication, reference and definition of childbirth self-efficacy, measurement of childbirth self-efficacy, sample recruitment and retention, sample characteristics, study design, interventions (with experimental and quasiexperimental studies), and perinatal outcomes were extracted and summarized. Data Synthesis Of 619 publications, 23 studies published between 1983 and 2015 met inclusion criteria and were critiqued and synthesized in this review. Conclusion There is overall consistency in how childbirth self-efficacy is defined and measured among studies, which facilitates comparison and synthesis. Our findings suggest that increased childbirth self-efficacy is associated with a wide variety of improved perinatal outcomes. Moreover, there is evidence that childbirth self-efficacy is a psychosocial factor that can be modified through various efficacy-enhancing interventions. Future researchers will be able to build knowledge in this area through (a) use of experimental and quasiexperimental design, (b) recruitment and retention of more diverse samples, (c) explicit reporting of definitions of terms (e.g., high risk), (d) investigation of interventions that increase childbirth self-efficacy during pregnancy, and (e) investigation about how childbirth self-efficacy–enhancing interventions might lead to decreased active labor pain and suffering. Exploratory research should continue to examine the potential association between higher prenatal childbirth self-efficacy and improved early parenting outcomes

The influence of group versus individual prenatal care on phase of labor at hospital admission

Introduction Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. Methods A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. Results Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P = .049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P = .005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. Discussion Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity

Trial of labor and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence on trial of labor (TOL) and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean and to understand the characteristics of women offered a trial of labor. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, DARE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles evaluating mode of delivery for women with a prior cesarean delivery published between 1980 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they involved human participants, were in English, conducted in the United States or in developed countries, and if they were rated fair or good base on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The search yielded 3,134 abstracts: 69 full-text papers on TOL and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates and 10 on predictors of TOL. The TOL rate in U.S. studies was 58% (95% CI [52, 65]) compared with 64% (95% CI [59, 70]) in non U.S. STUDIES: The TOL rate in the U.S. was 62% (95% CI [57, 66]) for studies completed prior to 1996 and dropped to 44% (95% CI [34, 53]) in studies launched after 1996, p = .016. In U.S. studies, 74% (95% CI [72, 76]) of women who had a TOL delivered vaginally. Women who had a prior vaginal birth or delivered at a large teaching hospital were more likely to be offered a TOL. CONCLUSIONS: Although the TOL rate has dropped since 1996, the rate of vaginal delivery after a TOL has remained constant. Efforts to increase rates of TOL will depend on patients understanding the risks and benefits of both options. Maternity providers are well positioned to provide key education and counseling when patients are not informed of their options