Birth by vacuum extraction

Background: In Sweden, vacuum extraction (VE) is used in almost every tenth woman to facilitate vaginal birth. VE is an important obstetric instrument that is used when shortening of the second stage of labor is necessary. VE has been associated with increased neonatal morbidity such as extracranial and cranial injuries. The outcome of the VE depends on the right selection of patients and how the VE is performed. Despite its common use, little is known about the performance of VEs, how many extractions fail, and if failure is dangerous for the child. It is also unclear whether VE delivery has negative long-term consequences for the child. Materials and Methods: In Study I, we investigated clinical performance as described in medical records in 596 VE deliveries and compared this with recommendations in local practice guidelines for VE. Detailed data on performance was collected from six different delivery units, each contributing with information about 100 VEs performed in 2013. In Study II, we investigated if women delivered by VE receive adequate pain relief and the risk factors associated with not receiving pain relief. We identified 62,568 women delivered by VE between 1999 and 2008 in the Swedish Medical Birth Register (SMBR). In Study III, the aim was to investigate the incidence of failed VEs, risk factors for failure, and neonatal morbidity in failed VEs. We collected information on singleton pregnancies delivered at term (>36+6) by either a successful VE (n=83,671) or a failed VE (n= 4747) from the SMBR. Failed VE was defined as a VE attempt with a subsequent cesarean section (CS), the use of forceps, or both. In Study IV, the aim was to investigate if birth by VE affects cognitive development as indicated by school performance at sixteen years of age. We identified 126,032 infants born as singletons without major congenital malformations, in a vertex presentation at a gestational week of 34 or more, with Swedish-born parents, and delivered between 1990 and 1993 in the SMBR. These children were followed up at sixteen years of age in the school grade registry containing all final grades in compulsory school. Results: Clinical performances in VEs were mostly conducted according to evidence-based safe practice; however, in a few cases, inappropriate and potentially harmful performance was used. In 6% of all extractions, more than six pulls were used to deliver the infant, and in 2.3% the procedure took more than 20 minutes. Fourteen extractions (2.3%) were conducted from a high station in the maternal pelvis. The local practice guidelines on VE were incomplete and were not updated or evidence-based. Every third woman was delivered by VE without potent pain relief. VE failure occurred in 5.4% of cases. Identified risk factors for failure were for example nulliparity, fetal malposition, and mid-pelvic extractions. Failure with the extractor was associated with increased risks of subgaleal hematoma, convulsions, and low Apgar scores but not intracranial hemorrhage in the infant. Children delivered by VE had significantly lower mean mathematics test scores and mean merit grades than children born vaginally without instruments, after adjustment for major confounders. Infants delivered by emergency cesarean section had similar results as children delivered by VE. Conclusion: Improvements in the clinical performance of VEs can be accomplished, and practice guidelines need to be improved to support safe and evidence-based practice in VE procedures. In addition, more women should receive pain relief prior to the extraction. Failed VE can be dangerous for the child, and risk factors for failure should be closely evaluated prior to the extraction to avoid this dangerous situation. In the case of failure, a subsequent CS should be performed. Birth by VE has marginal negative effects on final school grades at 16 years of age compared with children born by spontaneous vaginal delivery. Similar marginal effects were found in children delivered by emergency CS, indicating that these lower grades are rather due to difficult labor occurring prior to birth and not to the instrument itself

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction: Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. Methods: We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women. Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12). Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Duration of second stage of labour at term and pushing time : risk factors for postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND: Prolonged labour is associated with increased risk of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), but the role of active pushing time and the relation with management during labour remains poorly understood. METHODS: A population-based cohort study from electronic medical record data in the Stockholm-Gotland Region, Sweden. We included 57 267 primiparous women with singleton, term gestation, livebirths delivered vaginally in cephalic presentation in 2008-14. We performed multivariable Poisson regression to estimate the association between length of second stage, pushing time, and PPH (estimated blood loss >500 mL during delivery), adjusting for maternal, delivery, and fetal characteristics as potential confounders. RESULTS: The incidence of PPH was 28.9%. The risk of PPH increased with each passing hour of second stage: compared with a second stage <1 h, the adjusted relative risk (RR) for PPH were for 1 to <2 h 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07, 1.14); for 2 to <3 h 1.15 (95% CI 1.10, 1.20); for 3 to <4 h 1.28 (95% CI 1.22, 1.33); and for ≥4 h 1.40 (95% CI 1.33, 1.46). PPH also increased with pushing time exceeding 30 min. Compared to pushing time between 15 and 29 min, the RR for PPH were for <15 min 0.98 (95% CI 0.94, 1.03); for 30-44 min 1.08 (95% CI 1.04, 1.12); for 45-59 min 1.11 (95% CI 1.06, 1.16); and for ≥60 min 1.20 (95% CI 1.15, 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Increased length of second stage and pushing time during labour are both associated with increased risk of PPH.Swedish Research Council, 2013-2429Stockholm County Council (ALF project), 20130156Accepte

Labor curves based on cervical dilatation over time and their accuracy and effectiveness: A systematic scoping review

Objectives: This systematic scoping review was conducted to 1) identify and describe labor curves that illustrate cervical dilatation over time; 2) map any evidence for, as well as outcomes used to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the curves; and 3) identify areas in research that require further investigation. Methods: A three-step systematic literature search was conducted for publications up to May 2023. We searched the Medline, Maternity & Infant Care, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CINAHL, Scopus, and African Index Medicus databases for studies describing labor curves, assessing their effectiveness in improving birth outcomes, or assessing their accuracy as screening or diagnostic tools. Original research articles and systematic reviews were included. We excluded studies investigating adverse birth outcomes retrospectively, and those investigating the effect of analgesia-related interventions on labor progression. Study eligibility was assessed, and data were extracted from included studies using a piloted charting form. The findings are presented according to descriptive summaries created for the included studies. Results and implications for research: Of 26,073 potentially eligible studies, 108 studies were included. Seventy-three studies described labor curves, of which ten of the thirteen largest were based mainly on the United States Consortium on Safe Labor cohort. Labor curve endpoints were 10 cm cervical dilatation in 69 studies and vaginal birth in 4 studies. Labor curve accuracy was assessed in 26 studies, of which all 15 published after 1986 were from low- and middle–income countries. Recent studies of labor curve accuracy in high-income countries are lacking. The effectiveness of labor curves was assessed in 13 studies, which failed to prove the superiority of any curve. Patient-reported health and well-being is an underrepresented outcome in evaluations of labor curves. The usefulness of labor curves is still a matter of debate, as studies have failed to prove their accuracy or effectiveness

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. Methods We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women. Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12). Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusions This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Severe perineal trauma among women undergoing vaginal birth after cesarean delivery : A population-based cohort study

Background: To examine risk of severe perineal trauma among nulliparous women and those undergoing vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). Methods: This is a population-based cohort study of all births to women with their two first consecutive singleton pregnancies in Stockholm-Gotland Sweden between 2008 and 2014. Risk of severe perineal trauma was compared between nulliparous women and those undergoing VBAC with severe perineal trauma being the main outcome measure. Associations between indication and timing of primary cesarean delivery and risk of severe perineal trauma in subsequent vaginal birth were analyzed using Poisson regression analysis. Results: The rate of severe perineal trauma among nulliparous women and those undergoing VBAC was 7.0% and 12.3%, respectively. Compared with nulliparous women, those undergoing VBAC were significantly older, had a shorter stature, and gave birth in a non-upright position to heavier infants with larger head circumferences. The rate of instrumental vaginal delivery among nulliparous women and those undergoing VBAC was 19.3% and 20.2%, respectively (P = 0.331). An increased risk of severe perineal trauma remained after adjustments among those undergoing VBAC (adjusted risk ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.63). Level of risk was not associated with indication (dystocia or signs of fetal distress) of primary cesarean delivery, nor how far the woman had progressed in labor (fully dilated versus planned cesarean delivery) before delivering by cesarean. Conclusions: Compared with nulliparous women, those undergoing VBAC are at increased risk of severe perineal trauma, irrespective of indication and timing of primary cesarean delivery

Birth position and obstetric anal sphincter injury: a population-based study of 113 000 spontaneous births.

The association between birth position and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) in spontaneous vaginal deliveries is unclear