Model of care and chance of spontaneous vaginal birth: a prospective, multicenter matched-pair analysis from North Rhine-Westphalia.
Case-Control Studies
Delivery Rooms
/ organization & administration
Delivery, Obstetric
/ methods
Female
Germany
/ epidemiology
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Matched-Pair Analysis
Midwifery
Obstetric Labor Complications
/ epidemiology
Parity
Parturition
Patient Transfer
/ statistics & numerical data
Perinatal Care
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
/ epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Case-control studies
Delivery rooms
Midwifery
Obstetrics
Parturition
Pregnancy
Prospective studies
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Dec 2021
30 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
18
02
2021
accepted:
07
12
2021
entrez:
31
12
2021
pubmed:
1
1
2022
medline:
15
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advantages of midwife-led models of care have been reported; these include a higher vaginal birth rate and less interventions. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in obstetrician-led units. We compared the outcome of birth planned in alongside midwifery units (AMU) with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in obstetrician-led units. A prospective, controlled, multicenter study was conducted. Six of seven AMUs in North Rhine-Westphalia participated. Healthy women with a singleton term cephalic pregnancy booking for birth in AMU were eligible. For each woman in the study group a control was chosen who would have been eligible for birth in AMU but was booking for obstetrician-led care; matching for parity was performed. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter. Secondary endpoints included a composite outcome of adverse outcome in the third stage and / or postpartum hemorrhage; higher-order obstetric lacerations; and for the neonate, a composite outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 and / or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 and / or transfer to specialist neonatal care). Statistical analysis was by intention to treat. A non-inferiority analysis was performed. Five hundred eighty-nine case-control pairs were recruited, final analysis was performed with 391 case-control pairs. Nulliparous women constituted 56.0% of cases. For the primary endpoint vaginal birth superiority was established for the study group (5.66%, 95%-CI 0.42% - 10.88%). For the composite newborn outcome (1.28%, 95%-CI -1.86% - -4.47%) and for higher-order obstetric lacerations (2.33%, 95%-CI -0.45% - 5.37%) non-inferiority was established. Non-inferiority was not present for the composite maternal outcome (-1.56%, 95%-CI -6.69% - 3.57%). The epidural anesthesia rate was lower (22.9% vs. 41.1%), and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the study group (p < 0.001 for both). Transfer to obstetrician-led care occurred in 51.2% of cases, with a strong association to parity (p < 0.001). Request for regional anesthesia was the most common cause for transfer (47.1%). Our comparison between care in AMU and obstetrician-led care with respect to mode of birth and other outcomes confirmed the superiority of this model of care for low-risk women. This pertains to AMU where admission and transfer criteria are in place and adhered to.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Advantages of midwife-led models of care have been reported; these include a higher vaginal birth rate and less interventions. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in obstetrician-led units. We compared the outcome of birth planned in alongside midwifery units (AMU) with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in obstetrician-led units.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective, controlled, multicenter study was conducted. Six of seven AMUs in North Rhine-Westphalia participated. Healthy women with a singleton term cephalic pregnancy booking for birth in AMU were eligible. For each woman in the study group a control was chosen who would have been eligible for birth in AMU but was booking for obstetrician-led care; matching for parity was performed. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter. Secondary endpoints included a composite outcome of adverse outcome in the third stage and / or postpartum hemorrhage; higher-order obstetric lacerations; and for the neonate, a composite outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 and / or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 and / or transfer to specialist neonatal care). Statistical analysis was by intention to treat. A non-inferiority analysis was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Five hundred eighty-nine case-control pairs were recruited, final analysis was performed with 391 case-control pairs. Nulliparous women constituted 56.0% of cases. For the primary endpoint vaginal birth superiority was established for the study group (5.66%, 95%-CI 0.42% - 10.88%). For the composite newborn outcome (1.28%, 95%-CI -1.86% - -4.47%) and for higher-order obstetric lacerations (2.33%, 95%-CI -0.45% - 5.37%) non-inferiority was established. Non-inferiority was not present for the composite maternal outcome (-1.56%, 95%-CI -6.69% - 3.57%). The epidural anesthesia rate was lower (22.9% vs. 41.1%), and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the study group (p < 0.001 for both). Transfer to obstetrician-led care occurred in 51.2% of cases, with a strong association to parity (p < 0.001). Request for regional anesthesia was the most common cause for transfer (47.1%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our comparison between care in AMU and obstetrician-led care with respect to mode of birth and other outcomes confirmed the superiority of this model of care for low-risk women. This pertains to AMU where admission and transfer criteria are in place and adhered to.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34969368
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04323-1
pii: 10.1186/s12884-021-04323-1
pmc: PMC8719397
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
849Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS Med. 2020 May 22;17(5):e1003103
pubmed: 32442207
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 May 29;14:179
pubmed: 24886482
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jul 25;14:59-70
pubmed: 31709403
J Perinat Med. 2019 Dec 18;48(1):34-39
pubmed: 31811809
BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1081-90
pubmed: 22702241
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 29;7(8):e016288
pubmed: 28851782
BMJ. 2011 Nov 23;343:d7400
pubmed: 22117057
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(4):422-8
pubmed: 16612703
Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:240-255
pubmed: 29727829
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 28;4:CD004667
pubmed: 27121907
BJOG. 2011 Oct;118(11):1357-64
pubmed: 21749629
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 29;4:CD001808
pubmed: 31032882
BJOG. 2012 Nov;119(12):1483-92
pubmed: 22830446
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 May 6;20(1):267
pubmed: 32375692
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Oct 28;16(1):329
pubmed: 27793112
Stat Med. 2002 Jan 30;21(2):231-45
pubmed: 11782062
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 08;2:CD000081
pubmed: 28176333
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 31;373(27):2642-53
pubmed: 26716916
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 06;7:CD003766
pubmed: 28681500
Midwifery. 2015 Sep;31(9):879-87
pubmed: 26002990
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018 Jun;16:82-85
pubmed: 29804782
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 29;9(10):e029192
pubmed: 31662359