Advanced maternal age

The average age of women at childbirth in industrialised nations has been increasing steadily for approximately 30 years. Women aged 35 years or over have an increased risk of gestational hypertensive disease, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia, placental abruption, perinatal death, preterm labour, fetal macrosomia and fetal growth restriction. Unsurprisingly, rates of obstetric intervention are higher among older women. Of particular concern is the increased risk of antepartum stillbirth at term in women of advanced maternal age. In all maternal age groups, the risk of stillbirth is higher among nulliparous women than among multiparous women. Women of advanced maternal age (more than 40 years) should be given low dose aspirin (in the presence of an additional risk factor for pre-eclampsia) and offered serial ultrasounds for fetal growth and wellbeing; given the increased risk of antepartum stillbirth, induction of labour from 39 weeks’ gestation should be discussed with the woman

Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

© 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Background: Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Objectives: To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia. Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible. We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified). Main results: We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain. The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position. Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I 2 = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I 2 = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I 2 = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I 2 = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence. The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I 2 = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects. In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence. Authors' conclusions: There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review

Timing and mode of delivery with advancing maternal age

In 2017, 23% of all live births in the United Kingdom were to women aged over 35 years. Decisions around the timing of delivery for such women must balance the risks of prolongation of the pregnancy and of iatrogenic harm from timed delivery. Women of advanced maternal age have a small age-related elevated risk of term stillbirth. Antenatal monitoring and the route of delivery should not differ from those for younger women. The induction of labour at 39 weeks for such women does not appear to increase the risk of emergency caesarean section or to have any short-term adverse effects on mother or baby. There have been no studies on the long-term effects of induction in this group. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to offer women of advanced maternal age, induction of labour at 39 weeks where resources are available to safely provide this

The challenges of randomised control trials in obstetrics and gynaecology

In this short article we explore some of the challenges faced by those conducting randomised trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. We discuss the current status of trials comparing induction of labour versus expectant management, so called ‘deliver or delay’ trials. We consider the benefits of utilising routine data for collecting trial outcome data. Although cluster trials can provide a useful methodology for answering difficult questions, we illustrate with an example that cluster trials are at risk of delivering a misleading result. We discuss the importance of long term outcomes in randomised trials

Universal Third Trimester Ultrasonic Screening Using Fetal Macrosomia in the Prediction of Adverse Perinatal Outcome, a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

Background: The effectiveness of screening for macrosomia is not well established. One of the critical elements of an effective screening program is the diagnostic accuracy of a test at predicting the condition. The objective of this study is to investigate the diagnostic effectiveness of universal ultrasonic fetal biometry in predicting the delivery of a macrosomic infant, shoulder dystocia, and associated neonatal morbidity in low- and mixed-risk populations. Methods and findings: We conducted a predefined literature search in Medline, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), the Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2020. No language restrictions were applied. We included studies where the ultrasound was performed as part of universal screening and those that included low- and mixed-risk pregnancies and excluded studies confined to high risk pregnancies. We used the estimated fetal weight (EFW) (multiple formulas and thresholds) and the abdominal circumference (AC) to define suspected large for gestational age (LGA). Adverse perinatal outcomes included macrosomia (multiple thresholds), shoulder dystocia, and other markers of neonatal morbidity. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the bivariate logit-normal (Reitsma) models. We identified 41 studies that met our inclusion criteria involving 112,034 patients in total. These included 11 prospective cohort studies (N = 9986), one randomized controlled trial (RCT) (N = 367), and 29 retrospective cohort studies (N = 101,681). The quality of the studies was variable, and only three studies blinded the ultrasound findings to the clinicians. Both EFW >4,000 g (or 90th centile for the gestational age) and AC >36 cm (or 90th centile) had >50% sensitivity for predicting macrosomia (birthweight above 4,000 g or 90th centile) at birth with positive likelihood ratios (LRs) of 8.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.84–11.17) and 7.56 (95% CI 5.85–9.77), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity at predicting macrosomia, which could reflect the different study designs, the characteristics of the included populations, and differences in the formulas used. An EFW >4,000 g (or 90th centile) had 22% sensitivity at predicting shoulder dystocia with a positive likelihood ratio of 2.12 (95% CI 1.34–3.35). There was insufficient data to analyze other markers of neonatal morbidity. Conclusions: In this study, we found that suspected LGA is strongly predictive of the risk of delivering a large infant in low- and mixed-risk populations. However, it is only weakly (albeit statistically significantly) predictive of the risk of shoulder dystocia. There was insufficient data to analyze other markers of neonatal morbidity

Impacted fetal head during second stage Caesarean birth: A prospective observational study

Objective: To determine the incidence of, and complication rates from, impacted fetal head at full dilatation Caesarean birth in the UK, and record what techniques were used.Design: Prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS).Setting: 159 (82%) of the 194 UK hospitals with obstetric units.Population: All women who underwent second stage Caesarean birth in the UK between 1st March and 31st August 2019. Further information was collected on cases where a dis-impaction technique was used, or the operating surgeon experienced ‘difficulty’ in delivering the head.Methods: Prospective observational study.Main outcome measures: Technique(s) used, maternal and neonatal outcomes.Results: 3,518 s stage Caesarean births reported. The surgeon used a dis-impaction technique or reported ‘difficulty’ in 564 (16%) of these. The most common dis-impaction techniques used were manual elevation of the head by an assistant through the vagina (n = 235) and a fetal “pillow” (n = 176).Thirteen babies (2%) died or sustained severe injury. Four babies died (two directly attributable to the impacted fetal head).Conclusions: Difficulty with delivery of the fetal head and the use of dis-impaction techniques during second stage Caesarean sections are common but there is no consensus as to the best method to achieve delivery and in what order

Perinatal death in a term fetal growth restriction randomized controlled trial:the paradox of prior risk and consent

BACKGROUND: The disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term was an intention to treat analysis and compared labor induction with expectant monitoring in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction at term and showed equivalence for neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trial participation bias and to examine the generalizability of the results of an obstetrical randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from participants and nonparticipants of a randomized controlled trial-the disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (n=1116) -to perform a secondary analysis. This study compared induction of labor and expectant management in women with term growth restriction. Data were collected in the same manner for both groups. Baseline characteristics and neonatal and maternal outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcomes were delivery by cesarean delivery and instrumental vaginal delivery; length of stay in the neonatal intensive care, neonatal ward, and the maternal hospital; and maternal morbidity. RESULTS: Nonparticipants were older, had a lower body mass index, had a higher level of education, smoked less, and preferred expectant management. The time between study inclusion and labor onset was shorter in participants than in nonparticipants. Notably, 4 perinatal deaths occurred among nonparticipants and none among participants. Among nonparticipants, there were more children born with a birthweight below the third centile. The nonparticipants who had expectant management were monitored less frequently than the participants in both the intervention and the expectant arm. CONCLUSION: We found less favorable outcomes and more perinatal deaths in nonparticipants. Protocol-driven management, differences between participants and nonparticipants, or the fact that nonparticipants had a preference for expectant management might explain the findings