24h-payday

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘cesarean’

It Takes a Professional Village! A Study Looks At Collaborative Interdisciplinary Maternity Care Programs on Perinatal Outcomes

September 19th, 2012 by avatar

The  Canadian Medical Association Journal, published in their September 12, 2012 issue a very interesting study examining how a team approach to maternity care might improve maternal and neonat aloutcomes.  The study, Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes  is reviewed here.

The Challenge

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstownsley/28337593/

The number of physicians in Canada who provide obstetric care has declined in past years for reasons that include increasing physician retirement, closure of rural hospitals, liability concerns, dissatisfaction with the lifestyle and a difficulty in accessing maternity care in a variety of settings.  While registered midwife attended births may be on the rise, midwives in Canada attend less than 10% of all births nationwide.   At the same time as the number of doctors willing or able to attend births decline, cesarean rates are on the rise,  causing pressure on the maternity care system, including longer hospital stays both intrapartum and postpartum, which brings with it the associated costs and resources needed to accommodate this increase.

The diversity of the population having babies in many provinces is increasing, presenting additional challenges in meeting the non-French/English speaking population, who are more at risk for increased obstetrical interventions and are less likely to breastfeed.

The Study

In response to these challenges, the South Community Birth Program was established to provide care from a consortium of providers, including family practice physicians, community health nurses, doulas, midwives and others, who would work together to serve the multiethnic, low income communities that may be most at risk for interventions and surgery.

The retrospective cohort study examined outcomes between two matched groups of healthy women receiving maternity care in an ethically diverse region of South Vancouver, BC, Canada that has upwards of 45% immigrant families, 18% of them arriving in Canada in the past 5 years.  One group participated in the South Community Birth Program and the other received standard care in community based practices.

The South Community Birth Program offers maternity care in a team-based shared-care model, with the family practice doctors, midwives, nurses and doulas working together .  Women could be referred to the program by the health care provider or self refer.  After a few initial standard obstetrical appointments with a family practice doctor or midwife occur to determine medical history, physical examination, genetic history, necessary labs and other prenatal testing, the women and their partners are invited to join group prenatal care, based on the Centering Pregnancy Model.  Approximately 20% of the first time mothers choose to remain in the traditional obstetric care model.  10-12  families are grouped by their expected due date, and meet for 10 scheduled sessions, facilitated by either a family physician or midwife and a community nurse.  Each session has a carefully designed curriculum that covers nutrition, exercise, labor, birth and newborn care, among other topics.  Monthly meetings to discuss individual situations and access to comprehensive electronic medical records enhanced the collaboration between the team. Trained doulas, who speak 25 different languages, also meet with the family once prenatally and provide one on one continuous labor support during labor and birth. The admitting midwife or physician remains in the hospital during the patient’s labor and attends the birth.

After a hospital stay of 24-48 hours, the family receives a home visit from a family practice physician or midwife the day after discharge. Clinic breastfeeding and postpartum support is provided by a Master’s level clinical nurse specialist who is also a board certified lactation consultant.  At six weeks, the mother is discharged back to her physician, and a weekly drop in clinic is offered through 6 months postpartum.

The outcomes of the women in the South Community Birth Program were compared to women who received standard care from their midwives or family practice physicians.  Similar cohorts were established of women carrying a single baby of like ages, parity, and geographic region, and all the mothers were considered low risk and of normal body mass index.

The primary outcome measured was the proportion of women who underwent cesarean delivery.  The secondary outcomes measured were obstetrical interventions and maternal outcomes (method of fetal assessment during labor, use of analgesia during labor, augmentation or induction of labor, length of labor, perineal tramau, blood transfusion and length of stay) and neonatal outcomes (stillbirth, death before discharge, Apgar score less than 7, preterm delivery, small or large for gestational age, length of hospital stay, readmission, admission to neonatal intensive care unit for more than 24 hours and method of feeding at discharge).

Results

There was more incidence of diabetes and previous cesareans in the comparison group but the level of alcohol and substance use was the same in both groups.  Midwives delivered 41.9% of the babies in the birth program and 7.4% of babies in the comparison group.

When the rate of cesarean delivery was examined for both nullips and multips, the birth group women were at significantly reduced risk of cesarean delivery and were not at increased risk of assisted vaginal delivery with forceps or vacuum.

Interestingly, the birth program women who received care from an obstetrician were significantly more likely to have a cesarean than those receiving in the standard program who also received care from an obstetrician.  More women in the birth program with a prior cesarean delivery planned a vaginal birth in this pregnancy, though the proportion of successful vaginal births after cesareans dd not differ between the two groups.

The women in the community birth program experienced more intermittent auscultation vs electronic fetal monitoring and were more likely to use nitrous oxide and oxygen alone for pain relief and less likely to use epidural analgesia (Table 3).  Though indications for inductions did not differ, the birth program women were less likely to be induced.  More third degree perineal tears were observed in the birth program group but less episiotomies were performed.  Hospital stays were shorter for both mothers and newborns in the community program.

When you look at the newborns in the birth program, they were at marginally increased risk of being large for gestational age and were readmitted to the hospital in the first 28 days after birth at a higher rate, the majority of readmissions in the community and standard care group were due to jaundice. Exclusive breastfeeding in the birth program group was higher than in the standard group.

Discussion

The mothers and the babies in the community birth program were offered collaborative, multidisciplinary, community based care and this resulted in a lower cesarean rate, shorter hospital stays, experienced less interventions and they left the hospital more likely to be exclusively breastfeeding. Many of the outcomes observed in this study, especially for the families participating in the South Birth Community Program are in line with Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practices.  There are many questions that can be raised, and some of them are are discussed by the authors.

Was it the collaborative care from an interdisciplinary team result in better outcomes?  Was there a self-selection by the women themselves for the low intervention route that resulted in the observed differences?  Are the care providers themselves who are more likely to support normal birth self-selecting to work in the community birth program? Did the fact that the geographic area of the study had been underserved by maternity providers before the study play a role in the outcomes? Did the emotional and social support provided by the prenatal and postpartum group meetings facilitate a more informed or engaged group of families?

I also wonder how childbirth educators, added to such a model program, might also offer opportunity to reduce interventions and improve outcomes  Could childbirth educators in your community partner with other maternity care providers to work collaboratively to meet the perinatal needs of expectant families?  Would bringing health care providers interested in supporting physiologic birth in to share their knowledge in YOUR classrooms help to create an environment where families felt supported by an entire skilled team of people helping them to achieve better outcomes.

Would this model be financially and logistically replicable in other underserved communities and help to alleviate some of the concerns of a reduction in obstetrical providers and increased cesareans and interventions without improved maternal and newborn outcomes? And how can you, the childbirth educator, play a role?

References

Azad MB, Korzyrkyj AL. Perinatal programming of asthma: the role of the gut microbiota. Clin Dev Immunol 2012 Nov. 3 [Epub ahead of print].

Canadian Association of Midwives. Annual report 2011. Montréal (QC): The Association; 2011. Available: www .canadianmidwives.org /data/document /agm %202011 %20inal .pdf

Farine D, Gagnon R; Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Are we facing a crisis in maternal fetal medicine in Canada? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008;30:598-9.

Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Hamisu M, et al. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption.Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:771-8.

Giving birth in Canada: the costs. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Institute of Health Information; 2006.

Godwin M, Hodgetts G, Seguin R, et al. The Ontario Family Medicine Residents Cohort Study: factors affecting residents’ decisions to practise obstetrics. CMAJ 2002;166:179-84.

Hannah ME. Planned elective cesarean section: A reasonable choice for some women? CMAJ 2004;170:813-4.

Harris, S., Janssen, P., Saxell, L., Carty, E., MacRae, G., & Petersen, K. (2012). Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes. Canadian Medical Association Journal, doi: DOI:10.1503 /cmaj.111753

Ontario Maternity Care Expert Panel. Maternity care in Ontario 2006: emerging crisis, emerging solutions: Ottawa (ON): Ontario Women’s Health Council, Ministry of Health and LongTerm Care; 2006.

Reid AJ, Carroll JC. Choosing to practise obstetrics. What factors influence family practice residents? Can Fam Physician 1991; 37:1859-67.

Thavagnanam S, Fleming J, Bromley A, et al. A meta-analysis of the association between cesarean section and childhood asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 2008;38:629-33.

 

 

Babies, Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Fetal Monitoring, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unintended Consequences: Cesarean Section, The Gut Microbiota, and Child Health

July 12th, 2012 by avatar

Today’s guest post is written by Dr. Mark Sloan, pediatrician and author of Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth.  Dr. Sloan takes a look at impact of cesarean birth on normal gut bacteria.  – SM

When I first learned some years ago that cesarean section was associated with an increased risk of childhood asthma and eczema, I eagerly awaited the rest of the story. What could the link possibly be? Epidurals? Anesthetics? Antibiotics? Something strange and exotic was afoot, I was certain.

Imagine my surprise, then, when a growing body of evidence pointed to an unexpected source: the newborn gastrointestinal tract and the microorganisms that live there.

How might intestinal bacteria play such a major role in the health and well-being of newborns and children? The answer lies in an ancient, mutually beneficial relationship between humans and bacteria, one that modern birth technology has dramatically altered.

* * *

Creative Commons photo by Eric Erbe, Colorization by Christopher Pooley. USDA

“Microbiota” is the term used to describe the community of microorganisms—bacteria, viruses, and fungi—that normally live in or on a given organ in the body. There’s a unique microbiota that inhabits the mouth, for example, another that lives on the skin, and still another that populates the intestine, or gut. Given an intestinal surface area of about 2,700 square feet—more or less the size of a tennis court—the microbiota inhabiting the gut is the largest and most diverse in the body.

How large and diverse? The gut microbiota contains roughly one quadrillion cells—at least ten times as many cells as does the human body itself. More than 1,000 bacterial species having been identified to date, with unknown numbers yet to be discovered.

How do all those bacteria get there? The fetal intestine, in the absence of congenital infection, is sterile in utero. The bacteria that come to colonize the bowel are acquired during birth and shortly afterwards, a process that is very much influenced by how a baby is born.

The gut microbiota and mode of delivery

In vaginally-born babies, the bacteria destined for the gut microbiota originate primarily in the maternal birth canal and rectum. Once these bacteria are swallowed by the newborn, they travel through the stomach and colonize the upper and lower intestine, a complicated process that evolves rapidly.

Infants born by cesarean section—particularly cesareans performed before labor begins—don’t encounter the bacteria of the birth canal and maternal rectum. (If a cesarean is performed during labor the infant may be exposed to these bacteria, but to a lesser degree than in vaginal birth.) Instead, bacteria from the skin and hospital environment quickly populate the bowel. As a result, the bacteria inhabiting the lower intestine following a cesarean birth can differ significantly from those found in the vaginally-born baby.

Whatever the mode of delivery, a core gut microbiota is well established within a few weeks of life and persists largely intact into adulthood. A less stable peripheral microbiota—one that is more sensitive to changes in diet and environmental factors, like antibiotics—is created as well. Between one and two years of age, when weaning from breast milk typically leads to a diet lower in fat and higher in carbohydrates, the gut microbiota takes on its final, mature profile.

Development of the newborn immune system 

The dramatic first steps in immune system development take place at the same time the core microbiota is being formed, and the gut bacteria play a key role in that process.

In the hours and days following birth, the newly-arrived gut bacteria stimulate the newborn to produce white blood cells and other immune system components, including antibodies directed at unwelcome, disease-causing microorganisms. The bacteria of the microbiota also “teach” the newborn’s immune system to tolerate their own presence—to differentiate bacterial friend from foe, in other words.

In a cesarean birth the fledgling immune system is confronted with unfamiliar, often hostile bacteria—including Clostridium difficile, a particularly troublesome hospital-acquired bug. In addition, the healthy probiotic bacteria associated with vaginal birth (e.g., lactobacillus) arrive later and in lower numbers. These changes in the composition of the normal gut microbiota occur during a critical time in immune system development.

The cesarean-asthma theory (in a nutshell) 

Here’s how cesareans and asthma are likely connected:

Creative Commons photo by hemangi28

Humans evolved right along with the gut microbiota normally acquired during vaginal birth. When the composition of the microbiota is imbalanced, or unusual germs like Clostridium difficile appear, the immune system doesn’t like it. A low-grade, long-lasting inflammatory response directed at these intruders begins at birth, leading to a kind of weakness and “leakiness” of the intestinal lining. Proteins and carbohydrates that normally would not be absorbed from the intestinal contents—including large, incompletely digested food molecules—make their way into the infant’s bloodstream.

To make a very long story short, inflammation and the abnormal processing of food that results appear to increase the risk of asthma and eczema—and diabetes, obesity, and other chronic conditions—later in life.

* * *

Normalizing the post-cesarean gut microbiota

 Reducing the cesarean rate is an obvious best practice in promoting a healthy gut microbiota. But there will always be a need for cesarean section, and so researchers are starting to focus on “normalization” of the gut microbiota of cesarean-born babies. Although there are as yet no proven therapies, here are some possibilities:

  • Probiotics. Though administering healthful probiotic bacteria to correct an imbalanced microbiota makes intuitive sense, studies to date have been disappointing, with only minor, short-lived changes changes to the gut microbiota. However, research into “good” bacteria and how they become established in the intestine is active and ongoing.
  • Direct transfer of maternal secretions. Placing maternal vaginal and rectal material into the newborn’s mouth has been proposed—more or less mimicking natural colonization—but to date there are no published studies to support the practice.
  • Fecal transplantation. Direct transfer of fecal material from healthy adults into the gastrointestinal tracts of people suffering from Clostridium difficile infections has shown promise. Could healthy parents serve as “donors” for their babies? Applying such technology to otherwise healthy newborns is highly impractical at present, to say the least. Still, refinements may someday make this a viable option.

Conclusion

A cesarean section doesn’t automatically condemn a child to a lifetime of asthma or eczema, just as a vaginal birth isn’t a guarantee of perfect health. But cesarean birth, by altering normal gut microbiota and immune system development, does appear to moderately increase the risk of these and other chronic health conditions. A woman who has the option of choosing her mode of delivery should add this to the many other factors she must weigh in deciding how her baby will be born.

Childbirth educators and other birth professionals, when you speak to your classes or clients about the benefits and risks of cesarean section, do you mention this information.  What do you think about this connection?  What should your students know about how to minimize the impact of cesarean on the future potential health of their children?  Please share your thoughts on the comment section,- SM

 Selected references:

1)    Effects of mode of delivery on gut microbiota composition 

Biasucci G, Rubini M, Riboni S, et al (2010). Mode of delivery affects the bacterial community in the newborn gut. Early Human Development 86:S13-S15

Penders J, Tjhijs C, Vink C, et al (2006). Factors influencing the composition of the intestinal microbiota in early infancy. Pediatrics 118(2):511-521.

Salimen S, Gibson GR, McCartney AL (2004). Influence of mode of delivery on gut microbiota in seven year old children. Gut 53:1388-1389.

2)    Development of the newborn immune system

Huurre A, et al (2008). Mode of delivery: Effects on gut microbiota and humoral immunity. Neonatology 93:236-240.

Johnson C, Versalovic J (2012). The human microbiome and its potential importance to pediatrics.  Pediatrics (published online April 2, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds2011-2736).

Vael C, Desager, K (2009). The importance of the development of the intestinal microbiota in infancy. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 21(6):794-800

3)    Cesarean birth, gut microbiota, and asthma/atopic disease

Azad M, Korzyrkyj A (2012). Perinatal programming of asthma: The role of the gut microbiota. Clinical and Developmental Immunology Volume 2012; Article ID 932072; doi:10.1155/2012/932072

Thanvagnanam S, Fleming J, Bromley A, et al (2008). A meta-analysis of the association between caesarean section and childhood asthma. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 38(4): 629-633.

van Nimwegen F, Penders J, Stobberingh E, et al (2011). Mode and place of delivery, gastrointestinal microbiota, and their influence on asthma and atopy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 128(5):948-955.e3

About Mark Sloan, M.D.

Mark Sloan has been a pediatrician and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics for more than 25 years. Since 1982, he has practiced with the Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento and Santa Rosa, California, where he was Chief of Pediatrics from 1997 to 2002. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Community and Family Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Sloan’s first book, Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth was published in 2009 by Ballantine BooksHis writing has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and Notre Dame Magazine, among other publications.  Dr. Sloan can be reached through his blog.

 

 

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Newborns, Practice Guidelines, Push for Your Baby, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Delivery By Cesarean Section And Risk Of Obesity In Preschool Age Children; Research Review

June 21st, 2012 by avatar

Today’s guest post is written by Dr. Mark Sloan, pediatrician and author of Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth.  Dr. Sloan takes a look at the study released in May, 2012 examing the relationship between Cesarean deliveries and obesity in preschoolers. – SM

I don’t recall learning much about childhood obesity in my early-1980s pediatric residency. This was partly due to the fact that obesity wasn’t all that common—only about 7% of kids fell into that category at the time—and partly because the solution seemed obvious, and not quite worthy of medical attention. “Join a baseball team, kid,” my senior resident once told an overweight boy with asthma. “And you,” he said, pointing an accusatory finger at the boy’s mother. “Stop buying cookies, okay?”

Creative Commons photo by LouLou-Nico

One thing I did learn a lot about in residency, though, was cesarean section. The U.S. cesarean rate topped 20% for the first time, up from 6% just a decade earlier.  I spent a steadily increasing amount of time in operating rooms, waiting for an obstetrician to hand me a baby.

We all thought the rise in cesareans was a good thing—think of the lives saved, the brain damage avoided, we told ourselves.  If anyone had suggested cesarean birth might be creating long-term health problems for those “saved” babies, we would have scoffed. And had anyone suggested that it might lead to a lifetime of obesity, we’d have laughed them right out of the hospital.

But here we have it: The cesarean rate is now 50% higher than it was in 1980. (Hamilton BE, Martin JA, & Ventura SJ. 2011)  The rate of childhood obesity has tripled. (Ogden C. & Carroll M., 2010) Is this just a coincidence?

Theories abound as to the cause of the childhood obesity epidemic. It’s all those sodas and sports drinks laden with high fructose corn syrup. Or it’s sugary, fatty, super-sized fast food. Or video games, the loss of Physical Education at school, bad parenting, unsafe neighborhoods, too little sleep, too much schoolwork, or all of the above. Just about any variable you can think of has been scrutinized for obesogenic potential.

And now, thanks to Dr. Susanna Huh and her research team at Harvard University, we can add cesarean section to the list of suspects.

Creative Commons photo

Huh’s team studied 1,255 mother-child pairs recruited between 1999 and 2002 as part of Project Viva, a longitudinal prebirth cohort of mothers and babies in eastern Massachusetts. A trained research assistant conducted in-person visits with the mothers during pregnancy, and with mothers and babies shortly after delivery, and at 6 months and 3 years after birth. At each visit the children’s length, weight and skin-fold thicknesses were assessed.

Their results: Children born by cesarean section were twice as likely to be obese at 3 years of age than those born vaginally. (Huh, SY, Rifas-Shiman, SI, Zera, CA, Edwards, JWR, Oken, E, Weiss, ST, & Gillman, MW, 2012) This relationship held up even after adjusting for factors like the mother’s weight, ethnicity, age, education, and parity, and the baby’s gender, gestational age, and birth weight.

The Huh study wasn’t designed to look at the reasons for the increased risk of obesity associated with cesarean birth, but the Harvard team suggested several possibilities:

  1. The most likely culprit is the known alteration of the gut microbiota—the sum total of all the micro-organisms found in the healthy human bowel—caused by cesarean birth. The microbiota of vaginally-born babies is populated by bacteria acquired from the birth canal and maternal rectum. In cesarean-born babies, who do not traverse the birth canal, the microbiota is dominated by bacteria from the skin and the hospital environment. In general, cesarean-born babies have an abnormal gut microbiota: too many carbohydrate-loving Firmicutes bacteria and too few obesity-preventing Bacteroidetes species, compared with the microbiota found in vaginally-born babies. This same gut microbiota profile is associated with obesity in adults; the link between the two appears to be low-level bowel inflammation triggered by the abnormal microbiota, which alters how food is absorbed  from the gut and processed within the body.
  2. The second possibility is that cesarean birth is just a stand-in for something else that’s happening at the same time. In discussing their findings, Huh and colleagues speculate about antibiotics routinely given to women during the course of a cesarean. Antibiotics given during pregnancy may temporarily alter the newborn gut microbiota, but research results are mixed as to whether this is a significant, lasting effect.
  3.  It’s possible that all of this has nothing to do with the gut microbiota. There are maternal and placental hormones, and immune and inflammatory factors, surging in a mother’s (and baby’s) bloodstream during labor. These, obviously, are missing to some extent if she never completes labor, and are largely absent if a cesarean is performed before labor starts. The lack of a normal maternal stress response to labor could adversely impact the development of the newborn immune system, theoretically leading to the gut inflammation associated with obesity.
  4.  Differences in mode of feeding may be involved as well. The study’s cesarean babies breast-fed for a significantly shorter time than did the vaginally-born babies. Though the authors don’t comment on this, early weaning is also associated with alterations of the infant gut microbiota.

My best guess: the cesarean-obesity link is likely a big mash-up of all of these, plus other factors no one has yet even dreamed of. Further research by Dr. Huh’s team and many others in the coming months and years will hopefully clarify the picture.

In the meantime, the risk of future obesity is one more factor maternity care providers and their pregnant clients should weigh before deciding on how a baby will be born.

Would you be likely to share this connection between mode of delivery and childhood obesity with  your students when teaching about benefits and risks of cesarean section?  Do you think if more families knew about this connection, they might make different choices surrounding the labor and birth of their baby and avoid interventions likely to increase their risk of a cesarean birth.  Is this information just one more thing that blames mothers for things that are out of their control?  Please share your thoughts in our comment section. -SM

References

Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2010. National vital statistics reports; vol 60 no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2011.

 Huh, Susanna Y, Rifas-Shiman, Sheryl L, Zera, Chloe A, Edwards, Janet W Rich, Oken, Emily, Weiss, Scott T, & Gillman, Matthew W. (2012). Delivery by caesarean section and risk of obesity in preschool age children: a prospective cohort study. Archives of Disease in Childhood. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-301141

Ogden Cynthia, & Carroll Margaret, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2010). Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents: United states, trends 1963-1965 through 2007-2008. Retrieved from CDC/National Center for Health Statistics website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_07_08/obesity_child_07_08.htm

About Mark Sloan

Mark Sloan has been a pediatrician and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics for more than 25 years. Dr. Sloan graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, received his medical degree from the University of Illinois, Chicago, in 1979, and completed his pediatric training at the University of Michigan. Since 1982 he has practiced with the Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento and Santa Rosa, California, where he was Chief of Pediatrics from 1997 to 2002. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Community and Family Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Sloan’s first book, Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth was published in 2009 by Ballantine Books. His writing has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and Notre Dame Magazine, among other publications. Dr. Sloan can be reached through his blog.

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, New Research, Research , , , , , , , ,

Elective Induction at Term Reduces Perinatal Mortality Without Increasing Operative Delivery? Looking Behind the Curtain

May 29th, 2012 by avatar

A recent study of elective induction at term purports to show that it would reduce perinatal mortality without affecting spontaneous birth rates, although it would increase admission to a special neonatal care unit if done before 41 weeks. The study, conducted in Scotland, analyzed outcomes of 1,271,549 women carrying a singleton, head-down baby of 37 to 40 weeks gestation who gave birth between 1981 and 2007. (Forty-one weeks was considered postterm.) Women with prior cesarean, breech baby, or placenta previa were excluded. Elective induction was defined as induction with no medical indications (hypertensive or kidney disorders, thromboembolic disease, diabetes, liver disorders, pre-existing medical disorder, antenatal investigation of abnormality, suspected fetal abnormality, fetal compromise, or previous stillbirth or neonatal death), and 176,136 women met these criteria. Perinatal mortality was defined as stillbirth or death within the first month, excluding deaths associated with congenital anomalies. Outcomes were adjusted for maternal age, parity (no prior births vs. one or more prior births), time period, and birth weight.

Investigators reported outcomes by week in two ways: women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered after that week and women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered in or after that week. I will report outcomes according to the second method because it is less biased.

Perinatal mortality rates declined from 2.4 per 1000 at 37 weeks to 1.6 per 1000 at 41 weeks in the “not electively induced” population and varied from 0.9 to 0.6 per 1000 in the electively induced population, showing no trend, which meant that the excess

Drewesque, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

perinatal mortality rate fell from 2.3 per 1000 more deaths at 37 weeks in the “not electively induced” population to 0.9 more at 41 weeks. That would seem to clinch the argument for elective term induction were it not for one fatal flaw: investigators did not compare similar populations. They isolated a low-risk—I may even say ultra-low-risk—group of women and compared them with everyone else, including women with the high-risk conditions listed above! Finding lower perinatal mortality rates should not be surprising. It would have been extraordinary if they had not.

Even with that advantage, more babies were admitted to special or intensive care nurseries after elective induction at every week through 40 weeks, which contradicts the current belief that elective delivery at 39 weeks poses no excess risk. Excesses declined from 94 more babies per 1000 with elective induction at 37 weeks to 10 more babies per 1000 at 40 weeks. (At 41 weeks, 3 more babies per 1000 were admitted to special or intensive care in the “not electively induced” population.)

What about finding similar spontaneous vaginal birth rates? Spontaneous birth rates were, indeed, similar between groups, but more women delivered via cesarean surgery in the electively induced group. Depending on the week, 0.3 to 1.5 more women per 100 electively induced had cesareans. Spontaneous birth rates were similar because the cesarean excess was offset by an excess of instrumental vaginal deliveries at each week in the “no elective induction” group. An excess of instrumental deliveries is concerning primarily because of the increased likelihood of anal sphincter injury; however, an excess in cesarean deliveries is far more serious, carrying as it does increased likelihood of severe maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in both current and future pregnancies.

Rob, Joyce, Alex & Nova's photostream, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Rob, Joyce, Alex & Nova's photostream, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Furthermore, the investigators chose not to report cesarean rates according to parity. Women with a prior vaginal birth or births will be little affected by induction, but first-time mothers are a different story. Studies (see references below) comparing term elective induction with spontaneous onset report that elective induction roughly doubles the chance of cesarean with excesses ranging from 3 to 31 more women per 100 having labor end in cesarean. Three studies (Hannah et al. 1996, Kassab et al, 2011; Pavicic et al. 2009.) specifically evaluating elective induction at 41 weeks compared with expectant management for at least one more week in low-risk first-time mothers report a remarkably similar excess: 8 to 9 more cesareans per 100 women induced electively. In first-time mothers, then, the excess cesarean surgery rate was almost certainly much greater than the excess rate in the Scottish population overall.

So there you have it. Does elective induction at term save babies? We don’t know because the investigators compared apples to oranges. It certainly increases likelihood of admittance to special or intensive neonatal care through 40 weeks, an excess all the more ominous because comparison women were not all low risk. It’s also a safe bet that it substantially increases cesarean surgery rates in first-time mothers going by what other studies have found. And, again, the excess would likely have been greater even in the population overall had investigators compared low-risk women to low-risk women. Lesson learned: if you don’t look at what’s behind the curtain, you may get very misleading ideas of what is really going on.

Boulvain, M., Marcoux, S., Bureau, M., Fortier, M., & Fraser, W. (2001). Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 15(2), 131-138.

Cammu, H., Martens, G., Ruyssinck, G., & Amy, J. J. (2002). Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186(2), 240-244.

Dublin, S., Lydon-Rochelle, M., Kaplan, R. C., Watts, D. H., & Critchlow, C. W. (2000). Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 183(4), 986-994.

Ehrenthal, D. B., Jiang, X., & Strobino, D. M. (2010). Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 116(1), 35-42.

Glantz, J. C. (2005). Elective induction vs. Spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med, 50(4), 235-240.

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.

Luthy, D. A., Malmgren, J. A., & Zingheim, R. W. (2004). Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 191(5), 1511-1515.

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.

Maslow, A. S., & Sweeny, A. L. (2000). Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 95(6 Pt 1), 917-922.

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.

Seyb, S. T., Berka, R. J., Socol, M. L., & Dooley, S. L. (1999). Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 94(4), 600-607.

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.

van Gemund, N., Hardeman, A., Scherjon, S. A., & Kanhai, H. H. (2003). Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. A matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 56(3), 133-138.

Vardo, J. H., Thornburg, L. L., & Glantz, J. C. (2011). Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med, 56(1-2), 25-30.

Vrouenraets, F. P., Roumen, F. J., Dehing, C. J., van den Akker, E. S., Aarts, M. J., & Scheve, E. J. (2005). Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 690-697.

Yeast, J. D., Jones, A., & Poskin, M. (1999). Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions Am J Obstet Gynecol, 180(3 Pt 1), 628-633.

Cesarean Birth, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

How Long Can Labor Safely Be?

April 18th, 2012 by avatar

How Long Can Labor Safely Be?

By regular contributor, Henci Goer

A few weeks ago Kathy Morelli wrote an S&S blog post about a study comparing labor patterns in the 1960s with labor patterns today. The contemporary data were collected by the U.S. Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a collection of 19 hospitals, 17 of them teaching institutions, whose primary purpose is “to describe contemporary labor progression and to evaluate the timing of Cesarean delivery in women with labor protraction and arrest.” The study compared women with spontaneous labor onset at term who were carrying singleton, head-down babies and found that after adjustment for differences in maternal and pregnancy characteristics, labors take longer today despite substantially increased use of oxytocin augmentation. The authors attributed the increased length to changes in management practices and concluded: “Since labor times are longer today than in the past, the benefit of extensive interventions such as oxytocin and cesarean delivery in modern labor management needs further evaluation”(Laughon, Branch, Beaver and Zhang, p. 14).

The question still on the table is at what point does increased risk of morbidity from continuing a prolonged labor outweigh the risks of cesarean surgery or instrumental vaginal delivery to curtail it? The CSL study doesn’t answer that question, but we have two studies, one in a single institution and the other a multicenter study, that provide means and extremes for duration of physiologic labor. Both studies were conducted in healthy women in spontaneous labor at term with a singleton, head down fetus who were cared for by midwives. No woman had oxytocin augmentation, epidural analgesia, or an instrumental vaginal or cesarean delivery. Let’s compare data on first-time mothers since they are much more likely to experience progress delay.

 

CSL
n = 43,576

Albers 1999
n = 806

Albers 1996
n = 556

4 cm -> 10 cm
CSL: median (95th percentile)*
Albers: mean (95th percentile)
6.5 (24.0) hr 7.7 (17.5) hr 7.7 (19.4) hr
2nd stage
CSL: median (95th percentile)**
Albers: mean (95th percentile)
0.9 (3.1) hr 0.9 (2.4) hr 0.9 (2.5) hr
epidural 60% 0% 0%
oxytocin augmentation 37% 0% 0%
instrumental vaginal delivery 10% 0% 0%
intrapartum cesarean 16% 0% 0%
5-min Apgar < 7 2% 0.8% 1.1%

*data only from women reaching full dilation
** data only from women having spontaneous birth

As you can see, labor averaged even longer in the physiologic groups without doing any harm to the newborns. As you can also see, the midwifery data blow active management concepts, now enshrined in partograms, out of the water. Setting 1 cm per hour as the threshold for abnormally slow progress—which allows 6 hours to go from 4 cm to 10—means augmenting first-time mothers dilating faster than the average rate!

The CSL investigators point out that half the cesareans in the entire CSL cohort were performed for “failure to progress” or “cephalopelvic disproportion” and reference another study of the cohort finding that “a large percentage of women” (p. 12) had cesareans prior to active-phase labor. Indeed they did. Among first-time mothers with spontaneous labor onset who had cesareans for delayed progress, more than a quarter of them (28%) had the surgery at 5 cm dilation or less. Among induced labors, the percentage soared to half (53%).

Despite their concern about over use of oxytocin augmentation and operative delivery, the CSL investigators also note that the extra two hours of average labor duration in first-time mothers (compared with the 1960s cohort) cost Intermountain Healthcare hospitals, which managed 5439 vaginal births in first-time mothers in 2010, an extra $110.40 per labor, amounting to an annual excess cost of $600,466. They continue: “The implications for healthcare systems and payors are obvious and should drive a reconsideration of modern-day labor process management with an eye towards process improvement” (p. 13). One wonders just what that process improvement might be. The “time is money” argument certainly doesn’t augur for recommendations to have patience and avoid intervening—especially not when intervening via cesarean surgery increases revenue as well as saves money.

They don’t come right out and say so, but clearly the CSL investigators know they have documented a gross overuse of cesarean surgery to cut short (pun intended) perfectly normal labors that pose no excess risk to mothers or babies. The Consortium on Safe Labor has, in fact, exposed that labor in their participating hospitals isn’t very . . . well, . . . safe. Women are ending up with major interventions they don’t really need and, no doubt, some of them are experiencing unnecessarily their consequent complications. What is more, economics provides a perverse incentive for keeping it that way.

 

 

Authoritative Knowledge, Cesarean Birth, Systematic Review, Uncategorized , , ,