24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Cesarean Birth’ Category

Elective Induction at 40 Weeks? “Decision-Based Evidence Making” Strikes Again

July 14th, 2015 by avatar

Today on Science & Sensibility, contributor Henci Goer takes a look at a systematic review released in spring that examined the impact of elective inductions on the cesarean rate.  Sound analysis or a house of cards?  Looking closer at the studies reviewed provides insight into how the conclusions reached by the investigators might need to be examined more closely.  Henci does that in this review.  Have you read this new systematic review?  Did you come to the same conclusions?  I invite you to share your thoughts in our comments section below. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

flickr photo by catharticflux http://flickr.com/photos/catharticflux/2710057340  CC licensed.

flickr photo by catharticflux http://flickr.com/photos/catharticflux/2710057340 CC licensed.

Yet another systematic review has surfaced “Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials”  in which reviewers claim that electively inducing healthy women, this time at 40, not 41 weeks, offers benefits and doesn’t increase the cesarean surgery rate (Saccone 2015).

Let’s take a closer look.

Reviewers included five trials: three of them conducted in the 1970s (Cole 1975; Martin 1978; Tylleskar 1979), the fourth published in 2005 (Nielsen 2005), and the fifth in 2014 (Miller 2014). Already we have a problem. Induction management in the 1970s is sufficiently different from management today that results are unlikely to apply to contemporary care, but let’s get down to specifics. Two of the 1970s trials were deemed inadequate for inclusion in the Cochrane review of elective induction (Gulmezoglu 2012), and Miller 2014 is published only as an abstract. Quality systematic reviews exclude abstracts because they don’t provide enough information to evaluate the study. For these reasons, these three trials should be taken off the table..

That leaves us with the other two. Nielsen 2005 states in the title “Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: a randomized clinical trial” that it is confined to women with favorable Bishop scores. Anyone familiar with elective induction research should know that inducing when the cervix is ready to go won’t increase the cesarean rate compared with spontaneous onset, but inducing with an unripe cervix is a different story even when using cervical ripening agents (Dunne 2009; Jonsson 2013; Le Ray 2007; Macer 1992; Prysak 1998; Thorsell 2011; Vahratian 2005). As you move the induction date earlier and earlier, more and more women will have an unfavorable cervix, so including a trial limited to women with a ripe one will tilt the playing field in favor of induction. Furthermore, half the participants were multiparous women (113/226). Women with prior vaginal births will go on having vaginal births pretty much no matter what you do to them, which raises another point: inducing earlier means a higher percentage of the inductees will be first-time mothers because first time mothers tend to run longer pregnancies (Mittendorf 1990). Nulliparous women are much more vulnerable to anything that pushes them in the direction of a cesarean. That’s not all: The authors tell us that their hospital has a 7% cesarean rate for dystocia in women at term. If a hospital has a cesarean rate much higher than that—and many do—then results can’t be generalized to it, although, frankly, if the doctors are performing cesareans left and right, induction or spontaneous onset may not make much difference. In short, Nielsen (2005) doesn’t make a compelling argument for 40-week elective induction.

flickr photo by Selbe <3 http://flickr.com/photos/stacylynn/11944718954 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

flickr photo by Selbe < http://flickr.com/photos/stacylynn/11944718954 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

This brings us to the last trial, Cole (1975). Investigators allocated healthy women either to induction at 40 weeks (111 women) or 41 weeks (117 women). As with Nielsen, half the women had prior vaginal births. Despite being healthy, 22 women were induced for “obstetric complications” (undefined) in the 41-week induction group before reaching 41 weeks. If their doctors induced labor because they had concerns, then this would likely put the women at heightened risk for cesarean. Another 32 women were induced for exceeding 41 weeks. This means that overall, nearly half (46%) of the comparison group didn’t begin labor spontaneously, which would mask any association between induction and cesarean. Leaving the induction vs. spontaneous onset issue aside, the U.S. cesarean rate in the early 1970s was around 5%, which means it was a rare woman who would have one regardless of circumstances. Again, not exactly a strong case for inducing at 40 weeks.

What about the benefits? The best reviewers can come up with are a clinically meaningless reduction in mean blood loss (-58 ml); a lower rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid (4% vs. 14%), not, mind you, a reduction in meconium aspiration, and therefore clinically meaningless as well; and an equally meaningless reduction in mean birth weight of -136 g (5 oz). If they had found something more impressive, surely they would have reported it.

Really? This merited a pre-publication media blast? Because it amounts to a textbook example of “garbage in, garbage out.” I can see only three possibilities to explain it: either 1) the authors and peer reviewers at the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) don’t know as much as they should about what constitutes a quality systematic review, 2) they are so steeped in medical model thinking—“How early can we get the baby out of that treacherous maternal environment?”—that their judgment is compromised, or 3) we have a “pay no attention to what’s behind the curtain” effort to promote elective induction. I don’t know which is the more troubling, but if it’s the last one, the sad thing is that because it’s got the magic words “systematic review,” “meta-analysis,” and “randomized controlled trials” in the title, it’s likely to succeed.

References

Cole, R. A., Howie, P. W., & Macnaughton, M. C. (1975). Elective induction of labour. A randomised prospective trial. Lancet, 1(7910), 767-770.

Dunne, C., Da Silva, O., Schmidt, G., & Natale, R. (2009). Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks’ gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 31(12), 1124-1130.

Gulmezoglu, A. M., Crowther, C. A., Middleton, P., & Heatley, E. (2012). Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 6, CD004945.

Jonsson, M., Cnattingius, S., & Wikstrom, A. K. (2013). Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 92(2), 198-203. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12043

Le Ray, C., Carayol, M., Breart, G., & Goffinet, F. (2007). Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86(6), 657-665.

Macer, J. A., Macer, C. L., & Chan, L. S. (1992). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166(6 Pt 1), 1690-1696; discussion 1696-1697.

Martin, D. H., Thompson, W., Pinkerton, J. H., & Watson, J. D. (1978). A randomized controlled trial of selective planned delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 85(2), 109-113.

Miller, N., Cypher, R., Pates, J., & Nielsen, P. E. (2014). Elective induction of nulliparous labor at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol,132(Suppl 1):72S.

Mittendorf, R., Williams, M. A., Berkey, C. S., & Cotter, P. F. (1990). The length of uncomplicated human gestation. Obstet Gynecol, 75(6), 929-932.

Nielsen, P. E., Howard, B. C., Hill, C. C., Larson, P. L., Holland, R. H., & Smith, P. N. (2005). Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: a randomized clinical trial. J Matern Fetal Neontal Med, 18:59-64.

Prysak, M., & Castronova, F. C. (1998). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol, 92(1), 47-52.

Saccone, G., & Berghella, V. (2015). Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

Thorsell, M., Lyrenas, S., Andolf, E., & Kaijser, M. (2011). Induction of labor and the risk for emergency cesarean section in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 90(10), 1094-1099. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01213.x

Tylleskar, J., Finnstrom, O., Leijon, I, et al. (1979). Spontaneous labor and elective induction – a prospective randomized study. Effects on mother and fetus. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand, 58:513-518.

Vahratian, A., Zhang, J., Troendle, J. F., Sciscione, A. C., & Hoffman, M. K. (2005). Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 698-704.out

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.

 

ACOG, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research , , , , , ,

Great Line-up of Plenary Conference Speakers and President’s Desk Updates

May 14th, 2015 by avatar

lamaze icea conf 2015Today on Science & Sensibility – news you can use!  Plenary speakers have been announced for the upcoming conference and Robin Elise Weiss, Lamaze International’s Board President has a new series of informative videos called “From the President’s Desk” that you will want to check out.  Read on for information on both of these topics.

Lamaze/ICEA Joint Conference News

Lamaze International and the International Childbirth Education Association (ICEA) just announced their plenary (general session) speaker line up for the joint Lamaze/ICEA 2015 conference at Planet Hollywood, Las Vegas on September 17-20.  Four speakers will address the entire conference in general sessions and I am very much looking forward to listening to their presentations along with the many concurrent sessions that will be offered over the four days of the conference.

ICEA and Lamaze celebrated their 50th anniversaries together in 2010 in Milwaukee, WI with a well attended “mega-conference” that had great energy and educational offerings and I expect that this conference will be just as big and wonderful.  Bringing together two leaders in childbirth education to hold a joint conference means that all attendees will benefit in numerous ways.

The theme of the Las Vegas conference is “Raising the Stakes for Evidence Based Practices & Education in Childbirth” and I know that educators, doctors, midwives, doulas, L&D nurses, IBCLCs and others will come together and take advantage of this joint conference to network, learn, receive contact hours, and socialize with other professionals.  Maybe, even win a little at the blackjack tables or take in a great show.  Las Vegas is a great venue for this conference, offering a wide variety of locales, activities and nightlife to enjoy outside of conference  hours.

This year’s plenary speakers

camman head shot 2015William Camann, MD
Director of Obstetric Anesthesia, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,  Associate Professor of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School

Presentation: What does the informed childbirth educator need to know about labor pain relief in 2015?

 

 

combellick head shot 2015Joan Combellick, MSN, MPH,CM
PhD Student, NYU College of Nursing
Midwife, Hudson River Healthcare

Presentation: Watchful Waiting Revisited: Birth Experience and the Neonatal Microbiome

 

 

Joseph head shot 2015Jennie Joseph, LM, CPM
Co-Founder and Executive Director
Commonsense Childbirth School of Midwifery

Presentation:The Perinatal Revolution: Reducing Disparities and Saving Lives through Perinatal Education and Support

 

 

mcallister head shot 2015Elan McAllister
Founder, Choices in Childbirth

Presentation: No Day But Today

 

 

 

 

Concurrent sessions

Watch the website for soon to be released information on concurrent speakers and their topics.  Concurrent sessions will fall into one of four categories:

  • Evidence-Based Teaching and Practice
  • Using Technology and Innovation to Reach Childbearing and Breastfeeding Women
  • New and Emerging Research in the Field of Childbearing and Breastfeeding
  • Challenges of the Maternal Child Professional

Preconference workshops

Additionally, there will be two preconference workshops available for a small additional fee.  These 4 hour workshops allow you to really immerse yourself in the topic and leave with concrete skills applicable to your work with childbearing families.

  • Movement in Birth (AM)
  • Social Media Smarts: Strategic Online Marketing for the Busy Childbirth Professional (PM)

Early bird registration is open until August 1, 2015, so registering now allows you to save money on the conference fees and make your travel and hotel plans now.  Look for interviews with the plenary speakers over the next few months on Science & Sensibility.

 From the President’s Desk

Board President Robin Elise Weiss, Ph.D, has recently made a series of short and useful videos for Lamaze International on several topics.  The video series is called “From the President’s Desk”. Released to date are several on cesareans;

Robin’s newest video discusses the recently released ACOG committee opinion “Clinical Guidelines and Standardization of Practice to Improve Outcomes“. This video helps both birth professionals and consumers to understand how pushing for the best evidence based care can result in both pregnant people and their babies having improved outcomes.  ACOG wants to be able to offer best practice to those receiving care from its members, and consumers can help by sharing their desire to receive care in line with recommended guidelines.

Head over to Lamaze International’s YouTube Channel to see all the offerings, share the relevant videos with your students and clients and subscribe to the channel so that you don’t miss any of the releases.

2015 Lamaze & ICEA Joint Conference, ACOG, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Conference Calendar, Conference Schedule, Continuing Education, Lamaze International, Lamaze News , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BABE Series: Cesarean Section Role Play Helps Prepare Families

April 30th, 2015 by avatar

apron and babyToday, in our monthly series “Brilliant Activities for Birth Educators” (BABE), I would like to share one of the activities that I do in my Lamaze class to help families feel prepared for a cesarean section. Most families in my classes are planning a vaginal birth, but it never hurts to be prepared should plans change.  One in three pregnant people will birth by cesarean in the USA.  April is Cesarean Awareness Month and that is why I am sharing this activity at this time.

Objectives

My objectives for this specific activity are threefold – 1) to share how the procedure is done 2) to offer different options that might be available for the family to request (skin to skin in the OR, delayed newborn procedures, etc., and 3) brainstorm the role of the support person during a cesarean and what kind of support the pregnant person will find comforting and helpful.

This role play is done in the fifth week of a seven week series. We have just covered variations in labor (induction, augmentation, EFM, AROM, pain medications, assisted second stage and more). They have heard about the hard and soft reasons for a cesarean and now I hope that they will understand the procedure and the choices and options they might have at the time.

Supplies for the activity and the setup

  • Cesarean apron
  • surgical masks
  • drape
  • soft baby
  • hair nets
  • scrubs
  • surgical clothing
  • laminated labels for each role
  • optional – IV bag, BP cuff, EKG leads, etc
up close cesarean apron

Up close of four zippers on cesarean apron

My main prop in this activity is a “cesarean apron” handmade by Kris Avery, a fellow LCCE here in Washington State. The apron has breasts, a belly button and some pubic hair painted on it, but what makes it special is a series of zippers that correspond to the different layers of a person’s body that will be cut during the cesarean procedure. Each zipper is sewn into a different layer and opens to reveal the layer underneath. The skin is represented by the apron, and then there is a layer of fat (yellow felt) that zips open, revealing the uterus (red felt). There are no muscles to “open” because as we know, the abdominal muscles are retracted and not cut. Finally, underneath the uterus, is the amniotic sac, represented by a thin white nylon material.

I ask a partner to come with me out of sight of the class and place the cesarean apron on them. All the zippers are closed. I place a soft baby doll (I use the baby from IKEA) underneath the apron with the head positioned right near the inner zipper.  Sometimes I place the baby in the breech position and plan on having the bum be removed first. When the partner is ready, we walk together back into the classroom and I ask them to lay on a table, where I have placed a pillow.

How I conduct the role play

I invite two class members to come up and hold a drape at chest level, just like it might be positioned in the OR.  I hand out laminated cards to all the other class members. Each card has the role of someone who might be in the OR during a cesarean section – surgeon, baby nurse, anesthesiologist, surgical tech, respiratory therapist, and so on.   I ask the pregnant person who is partnered with my “cesarean person” to play the role of “partner.”  I invite the partner to get into the white “moon suit” that is normally provided to family members during a cesarean.  I hand out hair nets, scrubs, face masks, surgical gowns, to all those who will be in the OR and everyone suits up.  I position all the “actors” in the appropriate spot.  Some go by a pretend “baby warmer” and others stand around the birthing person while others go where they might be in the real operating room. I talk about how hard it is to tell who is in the room and what their role is, when everyone is wearing scrubs/gowns/hats/masks and suggest that they ask people to introduce themselves.  I discuss strategies that the birthing person can use if they are temporarily separated from their support person.  I bring the support person over and seat them at the head of the OR table near the “anesthesiologist” and discuss how they cannot see over the drape for both the patient and the partner. The partner can stand up at the time of birth if they wish, or together they could ask for the drape to be dropped at that moment.  I ask the pregnant person how they are feeling as the surgery is about to begin.FullSizeRender

I walk everyone through the procedure step by step and describe what is happening.  I share what noises they might hear, and what sensations the pregnant person might “feel.”  (Tugging, pressure, pulling, but no pain.)  I try and give a sense of how long it takes for each part of the operation, (prep, incision to baby, closure)  I ask the surgeons to begin to open the zippers, and talk about each layer that they come to.  Finally the surgeons are through the amniotic sac and they reach in and remove the baby’s head through the opening. It is a somewhat tight fit and we discuss how that might benefit the baby.

The baby is delivered, shown to the parents and taken over to the “warmer” where the baby team is waiting.  I encourage partner to go over and see the baby, initiate talking to the baby and start sharing information with the birthing person – what the baby looks like, how s/he is doing, and so on.

cesarean apronWe go on to discuss how the partner can facilitate having the baby brought over to the birthing person ASAP, skin-to-skin, what might need to happen if baby is moved to the special care nursery, and more.  Throughout all of this, the class participants are role-playing through all of the likely activities and people are stepping up to help the family to have a positive experience, within the scope of their assigned role.  The surgeons close (zip up) the different layers and close the outer zipper on the skin.

I am leaving out much of the detail, as I am confident that you can fill in the activities that happen when a person is prepped, taken to the OR, has the cesarean surgery and is then taken to recover.  My hope is to have parents aware of some of the major points of the overall procedure.

Processing the activity

The class members take off the “costumes” and return to their seats.  I feel it is very important to debrief this activity.  It can be overwhelming to some. We debrief further, discussing any observations they had, how they felt as our role play was happening. I ask what are the values that are important to them and their family, if a cesarean should be needed.  A discussion also takes place about what a cesarean recovery plan might look like and how the family’s needs might change if they do not have a vaginal birth.

How is this activity received?

IMG_0116During the activity, class members are usually very engaged and creative in answering questions, acting out their “roles” and brainstorming solutions to the situations I present.  The real magic happens when we debrief.  I can see the wheels turning as families articulate what they will want and need should they have a cesarean birth.  They learn that they have a voice and can share what is important with their medical team.

Time and time again, I receive emails and and notes from class members who ended up having a cesarean. They share how “accurate” our role play was and how it helped them to understand the steps involved with their cesarean.  They were able to speak up in regards to their preferences and felt like their class preparation helped to reduce their stress and anxiety.

Summary

This activity takes time and I often wonder if I should replace it with something much shorter that covers the same topic.  But, I continue to do this role play activity because I see how it really helps families to understand how to play an active role in the birth of their baby, even if it is by cesarean section.

Other resources that I share with the class are the following links:

How might you make a “cesarean apron” that you could use for this activity?  Do you have ideas on how you could modify this activity for your classes?  What other things do you do to help your families to be prepared for a cesarean birth?  I would love to learn how you cover this important topic.  Please share your ideas in the comments section below.

Note/Disclaimer: The use of the acronym “BABE” (Brilliant Activities for Birth Educators) is not affiliated with, aligned with or associated with any particular childbirth program or organization.

 

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Push for Your Baby, Series: Brilliant Activities for Birth Educators , , , ,

The Healthy Birth: Dyad or Triad? Exploring Birth and the Microbiome

April 28th, 2015 by avatar

By Anne Estes, PhD, Illustrated by Cara Gibson, PhD

There has been much discussion and burgeoning research on how the mode of birth affects the microbiome of the infant (and later on the adult).  It is becoming clear that how babies are born impacts the type of bacteria that take up residence in and on our bodies. Today, I would like to welcome researcher and writer Anne Estes, PhD, and researcher and illustrator Cara Gibson, PhD to Science & Sensibility.  Anne shares information on the research into a newborn’s (and later on the adult) microbiome and how it can be affected by the location of birth, the type of birth and the interventions that occur during birth.  Learn more about what this new field of research is telling us about the importance of the microbiome. Stay tuned for a future interview by Anne, with some of the research scientists attempting to supplement the microbiome of infants delivered by planned Cesareans. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

Birth plans often change. Neither my husband nor I anticipated the series of interventions with my first daughter’s birth. In the end, though we had the most important outcome – a healthy mom and baby dyad. How did these interventions influence the health of the third, silent, and invisible member of my daughter’s birth that I hadn’t included in her birth plan – her microbiome?

The helpful and harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungi that live in and on every environment, both living and non-living, are the microbiome of that environment. The bacterial component of the microbiome is best understood to date and will be this post’s focus. An organism’s microbiome influences the development and health of those animals and plants, whereas the microbiome of soil and buildings influence organisms that reside in those non-living environments. Our helpful microbes provide services that range from vitamin synthesis and food degradation to preventing attacks by pathogens. However, in the last few centuries of human-microbe interactions, changes in our birth and medical practices and living conditions may have altered the acquisition of our microbial communities. Our altered microbiomes, especially in the industrialized world, may help explain the increase in allergies, asthma, diabetes, gastrointestinal diseases, and mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and autism.

Humans as ecosystems for microbes

To a bacterium, you are a planet made up of several different ecosystems. From the dry, UV-intense “desert” of your skin to the warm, wet, nutrient-rich “lake” of your mouth, specific bacteria live in different regions on a person, just as specific vertebrate animals live in different ecosystems on the Earth (Figure 1, left and center). As ecosystems of the human environment change during development, pregnancy, or with changing diets, which bacterial species remain or how these microbial species function may shift is slowly becoming understood. How do we first acquire these microbes? Previous posts here and other blogs have done excellent reviews of the human microbiome and birth, so my post will serve to provide updates and pose new questions for consideration.

Fig1_MapLadies6

The source of the infant microbiome

The infant microbiome is acquired during birth [1, 2], from first foods [3-5], and the environment [6], and may also be partially colonized in utero [7]. The microbiome of infants born vaginally most closely represents the microbiome of the mother’s vagina and feces [1], and is rich in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis and Bacteroidetes [8, 9] (Figure 2, left). In contrast, the microbiome of infants born via planned Cesarean is more similar to that of the mother’s skin and hospital environment [1]. The microbiomes of planned Cesarean-born infants are more likely to have hospital-acquired pathogens such as Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and pathogenic Es. coli [1] and lack beneficial Bacteroidetes and Bi. longum subsp. infantis [10] (Figure 2, right). However, when beneficial Bifidobacterium were occasionally present in Cesarean-born infants, pathogenic Es. coli and C. difficile were not found [11] suggesting that one benefit of Bifidobacterium, especially Bi. longum subsp. infantis, may be outcompeting these potential pathogens.

Influence of birth mode on microbiome transmission

Repeatedly, studies in different countries, ethnic groups, ages, and health status have suggested that planned Cesarean-born infants are more likely to have more health issues and a different microbiome, as compared to vaginally born infants [2, 10, 12-14]. These differences in community composition can even be seen in adulthood [15]. A new Canadian study finds that the microbiome of infants born via unplanned Cesarean had increased bacterial richness and diversity, more similar to that of vaginally born infants than planned Cesarean [10]. Unfortunately, this was only a small study where fewer than ten mother-infant pairs were examined. Several variables such as length of time in labor or how far labor progressed, antibiotic use, natural vs. artificial rupture of membranes, and/or other interventions that may influence the microbiome were also not examined [10]. However, it does suggest that the process of labor, perhaps the hormonal or other physiological changes, may influence the microbiome. Additionally, some maternal bacteria may be transmitted when membranes rupture during labor [10]. Are bacteria “eavesdropping” on the chemical changes in the human to prepare themselves for transmission to the baby? Do these maternal hormone changes lead to increased vaginal or gut epithelial sloughing to transmit more or specific bacteria? Certainly, studies with larger sample sizes that can help control for these variables along with experimental studies on model animals are warranted.

Influence of birth place on microbiome transmission

Infants also acquire a proportion of their microbiome from their physical, inanimate surroundings. What proportion of the microbiome and which bacteria are acquired most likely depends on how many and what kinds of bacteria are acquired in utero, through birth method, and first foods. Since Cesarean delivered infants seem to be exposed to a lower density of maternal bacteria than vaginally delivered babies, the former may be more likely to acquire bacteria from their environment. However, this hypothesis has not been examined.

Fig2_MicrobirthVagvC5

 

Just as living organisms are a microbial environment, so are non-living structures such as buildings. Scientists at several universities working together on The Microbiology of the Built Environment Project funded by the Sloan Foundation are comparing the microbes of homes and hospitals. They have found that buildings are quickly colonized by the microbes of the people living in them [16]. Such rapid colonization specific to the individual being housed is even seen in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) [17, 18] (Figure 3).

Fig3_Locations4

One group is surveying the microbiome of a hospital over time, as it is being built and then occupied. Hospital-acquired infections are an increasing concern for all patients, especially newborns. Infants born by Cesarean have an increased rate of MRSA, C. difficile, and other opportunistic pathogens [1]. However, different hospitals and even wards within a hospital might be expected to have disparate levels of pathogens depending on how prevalent the disease is within the hospital patients and staff. Whether freestanding birth centers, operating rooms dedicated to labor-and-delivery only, and mixed-use operating rooms have dissimilar microbiomes has yet to be investigated. Infants born in private homes would be exposed to the same microbiomes of members of the household.

 

Influence of first foods on microbiome transmission

Fig4_MicrobirthBreastvBottle5First foods are another influence on the infant microbiome. Breastfed infants have two “moms:” their human mother and their Milk-Oriented Microbiota (MOM) (Figure 4, left). The MOM are beneficial, protective bacteria in the infant’s gut that thrive when fed the sugars in breast milk [19]. Although human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) are the third most abundant component of breast milk, the infant cannot digest these sugars. Instead, HMOs are a natural prebiotic or “bacterial food”. Various HMO sugar types and concentrations influence bacterial diversity, keeping strains of Bifidobacterium longum subsp infantis in highest abundance in the first few months of life and preventing pathogens from binding to the gut [20]. HMOs vary between pre-term and full term birth, vaginal deliveries and planned Cesarean births (reviewed in [20]), and even between mothers with different types of “secretor” genes [21]. Does this HMO variability serve to maintain and enhance some of the differences in bacterial communities between individuals? In addition to the MOM, a diversity and abundance of bacteria are found in breast milk. The average breastfed baby is exposed to between 1 and 10 million bacteria daily from their mother’s milk [5]! The breast milk microbiome is a unique assemblage of bacteria, distinct from human skin, gut, oral, vaginal, and other specific body site microbiomes [4]. Like other components of breast milk, the bacterial community changes dramatically between colostrum and mature milk with colostrum being the most diverse with over 1,000 different bacterial types [4]. Although only ten women were followed, it is intriguing that the breast milk microbiome of women delivering via planned Cesarean at birth, one month, and six months post-birth, was more similar to their gut microbiome than the breast milk of mothers who delivered vaginally [4]. Milk of moms undergoing unplanned Cesarean and vaginally delivering mothers were most similar [4]. How the presence of different microbes influences the developing human infant immune system has yet to be determined. Additionally, does the breast milk bacteria colonize the infant gut or are they digested? Could breast milk bacteria change how the MOM infant gut microbiome works as they pass through the gut, as one probiotic does in elderly patients [22]?

Formula-fed babies have a more diverse and rich microbiome than breast-fed babies, with lower numbers of Bifidobacterium and higher abundances of Peptostreptococcaceae, which includes C. difficile [10, 23] (Figure 4, right). Gut bacterial diversity is essential in increasing the ability of adults to digest a wide variety of foods. However, bacterial diversity may be detrimental in the infant stage when the immune system is developing and learning to distinguish between microbes that are friends and those that are foes. Breast milk sugars may mediate the relative abundances of different bacterial species [24]. Through studies like the Milk Bioactives Program at University of California at Davis, more is learned about the interaction between breast milk sugars and specific bacteria that can lead to better probiotic and prebiotic formulas and improve infant health.

Influence of in utero environment on microbiome transmission

Many other factors surrounding birth may influence the infant microbiome. High levels of reported maternal stress and high cortisol concentrations during pregnancy, correlated with lower relative abundances of beneficial Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium sp. and higher abundances of Proteobacteria, such as Enterobacter and Escherichia. Infants of these highly stressed mothers had increased reports of gastrointestinal symptoms and allergic reactions, though these issues were reported by caregivers, not physicians, which may confound the findings [25]. A separate study found infants whose gestation lengths were less than 38 weeks had microbiome communities that were low in Bifidobacterium and took 3 to 6 months to reach a normal Bifidiobacterium-rich community as compared to infants born at 40 or more weeks [9]. Finally, the use of antibiotics during pregnancy [12] may also lead to infant health issues.

Do birth interventions change the microbiome?

The potential “eavesdropping” of bacteria on human hormones during pregnancy and labor led me to wonder how the use of synthetic hormones such as Pitocin, especially during stalled labor, might influence the microbiome and overall infant health. There are so many variables to the birth process that many of these questions could only be answered with extremely detailed data of tens of thousands of mother-infant-microbiome triads over time. The influence of interventions such as epidurals, frequency of cervical checks, episiotomies, vaginal preparation with betadine, enemas, and other procedures used during labor and delivery also have not been extensively examined. In general, any procedure that “sterilizes” or cleans the vaginal and rectal area would most likely decrease the transmission of the mother’s microbial community. Whether cervical checks introduce skin or environmental microbes to the infant should also be considered. Finally, what effect does postponing baby’s first bath until 24 or 48 hours after birth have on microbial colonization? What role does the vernix have in facilitating the colonization of the infant’s microbiome?

From lab bench to birth room

Antibiotics, Cesarean delivery, and other interventions are valuable and life-saving for many women and infants; however, as they have become more commonly used we have seen an increase in many long-term diseases and disorders. Recent microbiome research suggests that we should consider birth as delivering and nurturing a healthy triad – mom, infant, and microbiome. Currently, studies are being conducted to swab Cesarean delivered infants with vaginal secretions immediately after birth. Should fecal microbiome members also be considered? If hormone surges are important for the microbiome transmission during labor and in breast milk, as the unplanned Cesarean data suggest, how could the natural hormone surges of labor be mimicked for planned Cesarean? When antibiotics are needed for mother or infant, how best can we quickly repopulate the disturbance to the native microbiome?

Humans, and all organisms, are planets with diverse ecosystems. In sequencing of the human genome, we learned that diseases rarely correlated to specific human genes. Most likely instead of focusing on only the human or only the microbes, we should be examining the intersection between human genomics and microbiome structure and function to best understand health and disease of human-microbe ecosystems. Both human genomics and microbiome work are in their infancy (pun intended). Researchers examine correlations to develop testable hypotheses that can be examined in non-human animal models. Yet many of the microbes of interest are currently unable to be cultivated for direct testing or probiotic use. At this time, directly translating research findings to the delivery room is difficult, but I hope that this post will stimulate thought and conversations about the silent, invisible, yet important third member of human birth and life.

References

  1. Dominguez-Bello, M. G., E. K. Costello, M. Contreras, M. Magris, G. Hidalgo, N. Fierer, and R. Knight. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:11971-11975.
  2. Mueller, N. T., E. Bakacs, J. Combellick, Z. Grigoryan, and M. G. Dominguez-Bello. 2015. The infant microbiome development: mom matters. Trends in Molecular Medicine 21:109-117.
  3. Zivkovic, A. M., J. B. German, C. B. Lebrilla, and D. A. Mills. 2011. Human milk glycobiome and its impact on the infant gastrointestinal microbiota. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:4653-4658.
  4. Cabrera-Rubio, R., M. C. Collado, K. Laitinen, S. Salminen, E. Isolauri, and A. Mira. 2012. The human milk microbiome changes over lactation and is shaped by maternal weight and mode of delivery. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96:544-551.
  5. Fernández, L., S. Langa, V. Martín, A. Maldonado, E. Jiménez, R. Martín, and J. M. Rodríguez. 2013. The human milk microbiota: Origin and potential roles in health and disease. Pharmacological Research 69:1-10.
  6. Thompson, A. L., A. Monteagudo-Mera, M. B. Cadenas, M. L. Lampl, and M. A. Azcarate-Peril. 2015. Milk- and solid-feeding practices and daycare attendance are associated with differences in bacterial diversity, predominant communities, and metabolic and immune function of the infant gut microbiome. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 5.
  7. Prince, A. L., D. M. Chu, M. D. Seferovic, K. M. Antony, J. Ma, and K. M. Aagaard. 2015. The Perinatal Microbiome and Pregnancy: Moving Beyond the Vaginal Microbiome. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine.
  8. Jost, T., C. Lacroix, C. P. Braegger, and C. Chassard. 2012. New Insights in Gut Microbiota Establishment in Healthy Breast Fed Neonates. PLoS ONE 7:e44595.
  9. Dogra, S., O. Sakwinska, S.-E. Soh, C. Ngom-Bru, W. M. Brück, B. Berger, H. Brüssow, Y. S. Lee, F. Yap, Y.-S. Chong, et al. 2015. Dynamics of Infant Gut Microbiota Are Influenced by Delivery Mode and Gestational Duration and Are Associated with Subsequent Adiposity. mBio 6.
  10. Azad, M. B., T. Konya, H. Maughan, D. S. Guttman, C. J. Field, R. S. Chari, M. R. Sears, A. B. Becker, J. A. Scott, and A. L. Kozyrskyj. 2013. Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months. Canadian Medical Association Journal 185:385-394.
  11. Musilova, S., V. Rada, E. Vlkova, V. Bunesova, and J. Nevoral. 2015. Colonisation of the gut by bifidobacteria is much more common in vaginal deliveries than Caesarean sections. Acta Paediatrica 104:e184-e186.
  12. Mueller, N. T., R. Whyatt, L. Hoepner, S. Oberfield, M. G. Dominguez-Bello, E. M. Widen, A. Hassoun, F. Perera, and A. Rundle. 2014. Prenatal exposure to antibiotics, cesarean section and risk of childhood obesity. Int J Obes.
  13. Neu, J., and J. Rushing. 2011. Cesarean versus Vaginal Delivery: Long term infant outcomes and the Hygiene Hypothesis. Clinics in perinatology 38:321-331.
  14. van Nimwegen, F. A., J. Penders, E. E. Stobberingh, D. S. Postma, G. H. Koppelman, M. Kerkhof, N. E. Reijmerink, E. Dompeling, P. A. van den Brandt, I. Ferreira, et al. 2011. Mode and place of delivery, gastrointestinal microbiota, and their influence on asthma and atopy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 128:948-55 e1-3.
  15. Goedert, J. J., X. Hua, G. Yu, and J. Shi. 2014. Diversity and Composition of the Adult Fecal Microbiome Associated with History of Cesarean Birth or Appendectomy: Analysis of the American Gut Project. EBioMedicine 1:167-172.
  16. Lax, S., D. P. Smith, J. Hampton-Marcell, S. M. Owens, K. M. Handley, N. M. Scott, S. M. Gibbons, P. Larsen, B. D. Shogan, S. Weiss, et al. 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345:1048-1052.
  17. Brooks, B., B. Firek, C. Miller, I. Sharon, B. Thomas, R. Baker, M. Morowitz, and J. Banfield. 2014. Microbes in the neonatal intensive care unit resemble those found in the gut of premature infants. Microbiome 2:1.
  18. Raveh-Sadka, T., B. C. Thomas, A. Singh, B. Firek, B. Brooks, C. J. Castelle, I. Sharon, R. Baker, M. Good, M. J. Morowitz, et al. 2015. Gut bacteria are rarely shared by co-hospitalized premature infants, regardless of necrotizing enterocolitis development, vol. 4.
  19. Zivkovic, A. M., Z. T. Lewis, J. B. German, and D. A. Mills. 2013. Establishment of a Milk-Oriented Microbiota (MOM) in Early Life: How Babies Meet Their Moms. Functional Food Reviews 5:3-12.
  20. Smilowitz, J. T., C. B. Lebrilla, D. A. Mills, J. B. German, and S. L. Freeman. 2014. Breast Milk Oligosaccharides: Structure-Function Relationships in the Neonate. Annual Review of Nutrition 34:143-169.
  21. Lewis, Z., S. Totten, J. Smilowitz, M. Popovic, E. Parker, D. Lemay, M. Van Tassell, M. Miller, Y.-S. Jin, J. German, et al. 2015. Maternal fucosyltransferase 2 status affects the gut bifidobacterial communities of breastfed infants. Microbiome 3:13.
  22. Eloe-Fadrosh, E. A., A. Brady, J. Crabtree, E. F. Drabek, B. Ma, A. Mahurkar, J. Ravel, M. Haverkamp, A.-M. Fiorino, C. Botelho, et al. 2015. Functional Dynamics of the Gut Microbiome in Elderly People during Probiotic Consumption. mBio 6.
  23. Bezirtzoglou, E., A. Tsiotsias, and G. W. Welling. 2011. Microbiota profile in feces of breast- and formula-fed newborns by using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Anaerobe 17:478-482.
  24. Guaraldi, F., and G. Salvatori. 2012. Effect of Breast and Formula Feeding on Gut Microbiota Shaping in Newborns. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2:94.
  25. Zijlmans, M. A. C., K. Korpela, J. M. Riksen-Walraven, W. M. de Vos, and C. de Weerth. 2015. Maternal prenatal stress is associated with the infant intestinal microbiota. Psychoneuroendocrinology 53:233-245.

About Anne Estes

AnneMEstes_headshot 2015Anne M. Estes, PhD is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Genome Sciences in Baltimore, MD. She is interested in how microbes and their host organisms work together throughout host development. Anne blogs about the importance of microbes, especially during pregnancy, birth, first foods, and early childhood at Mostly Microbes.

 

 

About Cara Gibson

cara gibson head shot 2015Cara Gibson, BSc (Hon), MS, PhD was trained as an entomologist (insect scientist) and her interests include ecology, biodiversity, and interactions with microbial symbionts. She has worked as a field ecologist, research scientist, educator, outreach coordinator, and scientific illustrator. Dr. Gibson would like to help bridge the gap between current practices and new research to improve women’s health and birth outcomes. Contact Cara at caramgibson at gmail dot com for illustration inquiries / permissions.

 

 

 

 

Babies, Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, New Research, Newborns , , , , , ,

World Health Organization: Provide Cesareans for Women in Need, Don’t Focus on Specific Rate

April 21st, 2015 by avatar
© Patti Ramos Photography

© Patti Ramos Photography

As we have mentioned earlier this month, when Jen Kamel discussed placenta accreta as a downstream risk factor of the increasing cesarean rate, April is Cesarean Awareness Month and the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with a new statement (WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates) that discourages identifying a “cesarean target rate” but rather encourages the use of cesarean surgery worldwide only when appropriate to protect the health of mother and baby. The goal should be that every cesarean performed is done out of true medical necessity and the decision to do so should be based on individual circumstances evaluated at the time for each mother/baby dyad.

Since 1985,  it has been stated that a safe and appropriate cesarean target rate was between 10-15%.  It was believed that if the cesarean rate exceeded that target rate, the mortality and morbidity for both mothers and babies would rise as a result of potentially unnecessary surgeries being performed.  Everyone recognizes that a cesarean birth can save the life of a mother and/or a baby.  But it needs to be acknowledged that there are no benefits to mothers and babies when a cesarean is done when it is not required.  WHO has decided to revisit the decades old suggested target rate as the number of cesarean surgeries being performed are increasing all around the world.  In the USA, in 2013, 1,284,339 cesarean surgeries were performed.  32.7% of all babies born in the USA that year were delivered by surgery.

There are both short term and long term risks to mothers, babies and future pregnancies every time a cesarean is performed.  These risks are even more elevated in areas where women have limited access to appropriate obstetrical care.

The WHO strived to identify an ideal cesarean rate for each country or population as well as a worldwide country level analysis.  The cesarean rate at the population level is determined by two items – 1) the level of access to cesareans and 2) the use of the intervention, both appropriate and inappropriately. Governments and agencies can use this information to allocate funding and resources.  Cesareans are costly to perform and doing more than necessary puts undue financial hardship on resources that may already be stretched too thin in many places around the world.

After conducting a systematic review – the team tasked with determining the population based cesarean rate determined that indeed, when cesareans are performed up to a rate of approximately 10-15%, maternal, neonatal and infant mortality and morbidity is reduced.  When the cesarean rate starts to increase above this level, mortality rates are not improved. When socioeconomic factors were included in the analysis, the relationship between lower mortality rates and an increasing cesarean rate disappeared.  In locations where cesarean rates were below 10%, as the rate increased, there was a decrease in mortality in both mothers and babies.  When the rate was between 10-30%, they did not see a continued decrease in mother or newborn mortality rates. The team also acknowledged that once the cesarean rate increased to 30% or above, the link between newborn and maternal mortality becomes difficult to assess.

In countries that struggle with resources, staffing and access to care, the common complications of surgery, such as infection, make cesarean surgery even more complicated and even dangerous for those women who give birth this way.

The team also struggled with analyzing the morbidity rate due to the lack of available data.  They did acknowledge that while the social and psychological impact of cesarean sections were not analyzed, potential impacts could be found in the maternal–infant relationship, women’s psychological health, women’s ability to successfully initiate breastfeeding and pediatric outcomes.  More research is needed.

WHO Cesarean Rate Conclusions

© WHO

 

The WHO team also felt it is important to establish, recognize and apply a universal classification system for cesareans that can be applied at the hospital level and allow comparisons to take place between different facilities and the unique populations that they serve. Once established, rates and systems could be compared between geographic regions, countries, different facilities and on a global level and the data analyzed effectively to help identify where change can be effective at reducing poor outcomes.

robson high res 2

© WHO – click image for full size version

After reviewing the different classification systems currently available, they determined that universal use of the Robson classification would best meet the needs of both international and local analysis.  The Robson classification system is named after Dr. Michael Robson, who in 2001 developed this system to classify women based on their obstetric characteristics for the purpose of research analysis.  This allows for comparisons to be made regarding cesarean section rates with few confounding factors.  Every woman will be clearly classified into one of the ten known groups when admitted for delivery. The WHO team states that the Robson classification system “is simple, robust, reproducible, clinically relevant, and prospective.”

The WHO team believes that using the Robson classification will aid in data analysis on many levels and the information obtained from these analyses be public information.  This information can be used to help facilities to optimize the use of cesarean section in the specific groups that will benefit from intervention.  It will also help determine the effectiveness of different strategies that are currently being used to reduce this intervention when not necessary.

Cesarean sections can be a life-saving tool under certain circumstances.  When cesareans are performed when not medically necessary, there are both long term and short term risks to both mothers and babies, including increased mortality and morbidity and risks to future pregnancies.  This becomes especially significant in areas of low resources and scare obstetric care.  Better data is needed to help reduce the cesarean rate in locations where it is unnecessarily high and to be able to direct resources where they are needed and can improve outcomes.  The World Health Organization hopes that this data becomes available so that more accurate research can be conducted and the reduction in mortality and morbidity for mothers and babies can be reduced.

Are you sharing with your classes, clients and families the importance of having a cesarean only when medically necessary?  While April may be Cesarean Awareness Month, we need to be diligent all year long to prevent cesareans that are not needed.

Lamaze International has created and made available three infographics that can help families learn more about cesareans and VBACs.

Screenshot 2015-04-20 19.52.53

What’s the Deal with Cesareans?

Avoiding the First Cesarean

VBAC, Yes, It’s an Option! (NEW!)

You can download and print these and other Lamaze International infographics from this page here.

Share what you are doing to honor Cesarean Awareness Month in your professional practice in our comments section below.

 

 

 

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Research, Systematic Review , , , , , ,

cheap oakleys fake oakleys cheap jerseys cheap nfl jerseys wholesale jerseys wholesale nfl jerseys