Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcome in water birth

Comparative Analysis of Therapeutic Showers and Bathtubs for Pain Management and Labor Outcomes-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Hydrotherapy, including the use of therapeutic showers and bathtubs, has been studied for its potential benefits in labor pain management. Previous research has indicated that hydrotherapy can alleviate pain, but comparative studies between therapeutic showers and bathtubs are scarce. Objective: This study aims to compare the effects of therapeutic showers and bathtubs on pain perception, labor duration, use of epidural analgesia, and maternal and neonatal outcomes during labor. Methods: A total of 124 pregnant women were included in this study. Participants were divided into two groups: those who used a therapeutic shower and those who used a bathtub during labor. Pain levels were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). Labor duration, use of epidural analgesia, types of delivery, maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, perineal status, maternal hypotension, fever, and breastfeeding), and neonatal outcomes (APGAR scores, fetal heart rate, complications, and neonatal unit admissions) were recorded and analyzed. Results: Both the therapeutic shower and the bathtub effectively reduced pain perception, with the bathtub showing a greater reduction in VAS scores. The therapeutic shower group experienced a significantly shorter labor duration compared to the bathtub group. The majority of participants in both groups did not require epidural analgesia, with no significant differences between the groups. There were no significant differences in the types of delivery. Maternal outcomes indicated a lower incidence of perineal tears and episiotomies in the therapeutic shower group. Neonatal outcomes, including APGAR scores and fetal heart rate, were similar between the groups, with no significant differences in complications or neonatal unit admissions. Conclusions: Both therapeutic showers and bathtubs are effective for pain relief during labor, with the bathtub showing a higher reduction in pain intensity. The therapeutic shower is associated with a shorter labor duration and a lower incidence of perineal tears and episiotomies. Both methods are safe for neonatal well-being, making hydrotherapy a viable non-pharmacological option for pain management in labor. However, the therapeutic shower may offer additional benefits in terms of labor duration and maternal outcomes.

Influence of non-pharmacological methods on duration of labor: a systematic review

The article aims to verify the influence of MNFs on the duration of the birth process. A systematic review was carried out in the MEDLINE, Web of Science and LILACS databases, through a combination of terms that cover the topic addressed, from 1996 to 2021/April. The Excel spreadsheet was used to collect data to extract information regarding each selected article, in turn, data analysis included the evaluation and classification of quality, reliability and risk of bias, thus, the following tools were used: Cochrane RoB 2, Checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Warm bath, walking, exercises with a birthing ball, breathing techniques, supine position, acupuncture, acupressure and water birth reduced labor time. While spontaneous pushing, massage and immersion baths prolonged labor. Non-pharmacological methods capable of reducing the duration of labor were hot/warm shower, walking, birth ball exercises, breathing techniques, maternal mobility, dorsal position, acupuncture, acupressure and water birth, as well. associated applied techniques such as hot/warm bath, ball exercises and lumbosacral massage, as well as immersion bath, ball exercises, aromatherapy, vertical postures and maternal mobility with alternating vertical postures, shortened the birth time.

Effects of Hydrotherapy on the Management of Childbirth and Its Outcomes-A Retrospective Cohort Study

The use of hydrotherapy during childbirth has gained relevance due to the demand for natural childbirth and greater respect for the woman's choice. Studies have shown benefits such as less use of epidural analgesia, increased ability to cope with pain, shorter labor, and a better overall birth experience.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to generate further evidence on maternal and birth outcomes associated with the use of hydrotherapy during labor, specifically aiming to describe the effects of water immersion during all stages of labor (first, second, and third) on women.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study was carried out on a random sample of women who gave birth at the Costa del Sol Hospital between January 2010 and December 2020. The calculated sample size was 377 women and the data were extracted from their partograms. After data extraction, two groups were formed: one group used hydrotherapy during childbirth (n = 124), while the other group included women who did not use hydrotherapy during the childbirth process (n = 253).

RESULTS

The results highlight significant differences in pain perception, analgesia use, types of labor, and delivery times between the two groups. Women who did not use hydrotherapy reported higher pain perception, with a median (IQR) of 8 (7-9) on a numerical scale, compared to a median (IQR) of 6 (5-7) for the hydrotherapy group. Furthermore, the group without hydrotherapy required epidural analgesia in 40% of cases, while in the hydrotherapy group, it was only necessary in 20%. In terms of the type of delivery, the hydrotherapy group had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to the non-hydrotherapy group, which had more operative vaginal deliveries. The overall duration of labor was longer in the hydrotherapy group, especially in women who arrived at the hospital late in labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrotherapy is associated with a longer time to delivery. Women with a higher pain tolerance tend to opt for hydrotherapy instead of epidural analgesia.

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to conduct a thorough and contemporary assessment of maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth in comparison with land-based birth.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and gray literature sources, from inception to February 28, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who delivered either conventionally or while submerged in water.

METHODS

Pooled unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method). We assessed the 95% prediction intervals to estimate the likely range of future study results. To evaluate the robustness of the results, we calculated fragility indices. Maternal infection was designated as the primary outcome, whereas postpartum hemorrhage, perineal lacerations, obstetrical anal sphincter injury, umbilical cord avulsion, low Apgar scores, neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation, neonatal infection, neonatal mortality within 30 days of birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20,642 articles identified, 52 were included in the meta-analyses. Based on data from observational studies, water birth was not associated with increased probability of maternal infection compared with land birth (10 articles, 113,395 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.14). Patients undergoing water birth had decreased odds of postpartum hemorrhage (21 articles, 149,732 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94). Neonates delivered while submerged in water had increased odds of cord avulsion (10 articles, 91,504 pregnancies; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.24) and decreased odds of low Apgar scores (21 articles, 165,917 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.82), neonatal infection (15 articles, 53,635 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97), neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation (19 articles, 181,001 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.84), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (30 articles, 287,698 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.70).

CONCLUSION

When compared with land birth, water birth does not appear to increase the risk of most maternal and neonatal complications. Like any other delivery method, water birth has its unique considerations and potential risks, which health care providers and expectant parents should evaluate thoroughly. However, with proper precautions in place, water birth can be a reasonable choice for mothers and newborns, in facilities equipped to conduct water births safely.

Is a randomized controlled trial of waterbirth possible? An Australian feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention-to-treat analysis, and per-protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage.

RESULTS

1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per-protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage.

CONCLUSIONS

A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention-to-treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth

OBJECTIVES

Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I² was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.

RESULTS

We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019147001.

Waterbirths were associated with low pain relief during delivery, high breastfeeding success and healthy newborn infants

AIM

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of waterbirths and conventional births in a Finnish hospital setting for the first time.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared waterbirths with conventional low-risk deliveries from September 2018 to March 2021 at a level-two hospital in Finland. Cases and controls were collected from the patient records database.

RESULTS

The study comprised 78 waterbirths and 1,623 matched conventional births. Mothers in the waterbirth group only required a quarter of the amount of pain medication required by those in the control group. Babies born in water had slightly lower birth temperatures than those born conventionally (36.6°C versus 36.8°C). Umbilical cord artery and vein pH were slightly higher in the waterbirth group than in the control group: artery 7.31 versus 7.28 and vein 7.38 versus 7.35). The Apgar scores did not differ. Hospital stays were shorter in the waterbirth group than in the conventional birth group (1.90 days versus 2.33 days). Babies in the waterbirth group were significantly less likely to require formula than those in the conventional birth group during their hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Waterbirth decreased the requirement for maternal pain medication and favoured greater breastfeeding and earlier discharge. Prospective studies must confirm these findings.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Hospital-Based Deliveries With Water Immersion

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had no higher risk of neonatal intensive care or special care nursery admissions than a clinically comparable population.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery admission for deliveries with water immersion compared with deliveries in the matched control group without water immersion. Secondary outcomes included adverse neonatal diagnoses, maternal infections, and perineal lacerations.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data (2014–2018) from two health systems (eight hospitals), with similar clinical eligibility, associated with low risks of intrapartum complications, and implementation policies for waterbirth. The water immersion group included women intending waterbirth. Water immersion was recorded prospectively during delivery. The comparison population were women who met the clinical eligibility criteria for waterbirth but did not experience water immersion during labor. Comparison cases were matched (1:1) using propensity scores. Outcomes were compared using Fischer's exact tests and logistic regression with stratification by stage of water immersion.

RESULTS:

Of the 583 women with water immersion, 34.1% (199) experienced first-stage water immersion only, 65.9% (384) experienced second-stage immersion, of whom 12.0% (70) exited during second stage, and 53.9% (314) completed delivery in the water. Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions were lower for second-stage water immersion deliveries than deliveries in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.7). Lacerations were lower in the second-stage immersion group (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.7). Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions and lacerations were not different between the first-stage immersion group and their matched comparisons. Cord avulsions occurred for 0.8% of second-stage water immersion deliveries compared with none in the control groups. Five-minute Apgar score (less than 7), maternal infections, and other adverse outcomes were not significantly different between either the first- or second-stage water immersion groups and their control group.

CONCLUSION:

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had lower risk of NICU or special care nursery admission and perineal lacerations than matched deliveries in the control group without water immersion.

Perineal outcomes and its associated variables of water births versus non-water births: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Objectives: to describe the perineal outcomes of women who had delivered in water and out of water. Methods: a cross-sectional and quantitative study developed in a public hospital in Setúbal, Portugal. The population was of women who participated in the "Water Birth Project" in the period from 2011 to 2014, which gave birth in water and out of water. 104 women were selected according to established inclusion criteria. The groups were compared according to the following variables: demographics, obstetric information, delivery care and perineal outcomes. The data were analyzed in the Stata(r) software, with descriptive and bivariate statistics (chi-square and Fisher's test). Results: the medical records of 73 women who gave birth in water and 31 women who gave birth out of water were studied. Water deliveries were significantly associated with fewer perineal lacerations, lower rates of episiotomy, and shorter delivery time. Conclusions: the results of the study suggest that childbirth in water has a protective effect against severe third or fourth degree perineal tears, during fetal expulsion in water.

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital-Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth

INTRODUCTION

Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse-midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6-week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi-square) with a significance level of P < .05.

RESULTS

Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P = .03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P = .045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low-risk women and their neonates.

Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Methods of Labour Pain Relief-Establishment of Effectiveness and Comparison

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods and to compare them. Materials and methods: 258 women were included in the study and interviewed using a questionnaire and the visual analogue scale for pain. They were divided into six groups depending on chosen method of labour pain relief: epidural anaesthesia (EA; n = 42), water immersion and water birth (WB; n = 40), nitrous oxide gas for pain control (G; n = 40), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (n = 50), multiple management (MM; n = 42), none (N; n = 44). Results: The average age of the women was 29.4 ± 3.74 years and 60.47% of them were nulliparous (n = 156). Mean values of labour pain intensity were 6.81 ± 2.26 during the first stage of labour; 7.86 ± 2.06 during the second stage, and 3.22 ± 2.46 during the third stage. There was no significant difference in pain level between epidural analgesia and gas groups in the first stage of labour (p = 0.74). Nevertheless, epidural analgesia reduced pain level during the second and third stage (both p < 0.01). The highest satisfaction level pertains to water immersion (n = 38; 95%). Conclusion: Epidural analgesia is the gold standard of labour pain relief, however water birth was found to be associated with the highest satisfaction level of the parturient women. The contentment of childbirth depends not only on the level of experienced pain, but also on the care provided to the parturient during pregnancy and labour.

Experiences of Greek women of water immersion during normal labour and birth. A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

There is scarce information on water births in Greece, as few women labour and give birth in water. The Greek public health system does not provide water immersion as a birthing option, and so women can only experience this option in private healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to explore the key concepts and themes identified from an analysis of the experiences of women who laboured and gave birth immersed in water.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study involving twelve women who used water immersion during labour, of which nine had also a water birth. Individual interviews were conducted and their content was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: Water use as a natural way of birth, Mixed messages from the healthcare professionals, and Partner's supportive role during water birth. All women reported a positive birth experience and water immersion helped them cope with the pain of labour. They felt greatly empowered following birth and this contributed to successful breastfeeding for more than one year, in the majority of cases. They reported difficulties in finding healthcare professionals that were in support of their choices. The women felt highly supported by the partner's role.

CONCLUSIONS

Labouring and giving birth immersed in water was met with great satisfaction by all women. The findings of this study have added to the current body of midwifery knowledge on how water immersion can improve a woman's experience and so support a normal birth outcome.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

The Waterbirth Project: São Bernardo Hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

The following quantitative observational study aimed to analyse the maternal and neonatal outcomes of 90 low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in water at São Bernardo Hospital.

METHODS

A form containing information on the obstetric history of the parturient, the type of immersion, and the labour and birth follow-up was used by midwives to collect the data.

BACKGROUND

The Apgar score (at 1min after birth) used in this study, called Aqua Apgar, was adapted by Cornelia Enning.

RESULTS

The mean water immersion time was 1h and 46min and had an influence on the duration of labour (mean 5h and 37min), with a statistically significant difference (P=0.004). There was a decreased cervical dilatation time and a shorter duration of the expulsion phase. In the immersion scenario, 30% of the women did not undergo any examination to assess the length of the cervix, and 57.8% presented intact perennial areas or first-degree tears. As for neonatal outcomes, during maternal immersion, 97% maintained normal fetal heart rates (between 110 and 160 beats per minute) and Aqua Apgar was higher than 7, both in the first minute (mean of 9.4) and in the fifth minute of life (mean of 9.9).

CONCLUSION

These safety outcomes, based on sound scientific evidence, should increasingly support and inform clinical decisions and increase the number of waterbirths in health facilities. The results of this study align with growing evidence that suggests waterbirth is a safe delivery option and therefore should be offered to women.

An Assessment of the Effects of Hydrotherapy During the Active Phase of Labor on the Labor Process and Parenting Behavior

This study was conducted to assess the effect on labor process and parenting behavior of hydrotherapy applied during the active phase of labor. This quasi-experimental study was conducted by using an equivalent comparison group ( n = 40). The participants in the experimental group whose cervical dilation was 5 cm were taken to the hydrotherapy tub. This application continued until cervical dilation reached 10 cm. The Participants Questionnaire, The Birth Follow-up Questionnaire, The Postpartum ]collection tools. The duration of the active phase and second stage of labor was extremely short in the experimental group in comparison with the equivalent comparison group ( p = .001). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of the experimental group were lower than those of the equivalent comparison group when cervical dilation was 6 cm and 10 cm ( p = .001). The experimental group also displayed more positive parenting behavior and positive labor feeling ( p = .001).

Retrospective Cohort Study of Hydrotherapy in Labor

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of hydrotherapy for pain management in labor.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Hospital labor and delivery unit in the Northwestern United States, 2006 through 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Women in a nurse-midwifery-managed practice who were eligible to use hydrotherapy during labor.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to report the proportion of participants who initiated and discontinued hydrotherapy and duration of hydrotherapy use. Logistic regression was used to provide adjusted odds ratios for characteristics associated with hydrotherapy use.

RESULTS

Of the 327 participants included, 268 (82%) initiated hydrotherapy. Of those, 80 (29.9%) were removed from the water because they met medical exclusion criteria, and 24 (9%) progressed to pharmacologic pain management. The mean duration of tub use was 156.3 minutes (standard deviation = 122.7). Induction of labor was associated with declining the offer of hydrotherapy, and nulliparity was associated with medical removal from hydrotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In a hospital that promoted hydrotherapy for pain management in labor, most women who were eligible initiated hydrotherapy. Hospital staff can estimate demand for hydrotherapy by being aware that hydrotherapy use is associated with nulliparity.

Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, 9% of babies born in the UK were delivered underwater. Waterbirth is increasing in popularity, despite uncertainty regarding its safety for neonates. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the existing evidence for neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

METHODS

A structured electronic database search was performed with no language restrictions. All comparative studies which reported neonatal outcomes following waterbirth, and that were published since 1995, were included. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme scoring system. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Data for each neonatal outcome were tabulated and analysed. Meta-analysis was performed for comparable studies which reported sufficient data.

RESULTS

The majority of the 29 included studies were small, with limited follow-up and methodological flaws. They were mostly conducted in Europe and high-income countries. Reporting of data was heterogeneous. No significant difference in neonatal mortality, neonatal intensive care unit/special care baby unit admission rate, Apgar scores, umbilical cord gases or infection rates was found between babies delivered into water and on land.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify definitive evidence that waterbirth causes harm to neonates compared with land birth. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no additional risks or benefits for neonates when comparing waterbirth and conventional delivery on land.

Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Following Waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking.

METHODS

We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity.

RESULTS

Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women.

[Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature]

CONTEXT

Water birth is under debate among professionals. For the proponents of this approach, immersion in water during labour and birth may increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a model of obstetric care more focused on the needs of mothers, particularly the empowerment of women to realize their full potential. In contrast, major critics cite a risk of inhalation of water for the newborn and a risk of infection for the mother and the newborn.

OBJECTIVE

This review tracks the state of scientific knowledge about water birth in order to determine if it can be generalized in hospitals.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database. The period covered is from January 1989 to May 2013. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed with the analysis guide of the Haute Autorité de santé.

RESULTS

The level of evidence of the studies identified goes from moderate to low, particularly as regard to studies analysing the expulsion phase.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to recommend immersion in water during the labour phase. No recommendation can be made as regard to the foetal expulsion phase.

A comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes between water immersion during labor and conventional labor and delivery

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during the first stage of labor can reduce the length of the first stage and epidural/spinal analgesia use; however, there is limited information regarding other outcomes. Our purpose was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women who underwent water immersion during the first stage of labor with those who underwent conventional labor and delivery.

METHODS

Healthy primipara with singleton pregnancies and cephalic presentation were included in the study. Patients were allowed to choose water immersion during labor or conventional labor and delivery. For water immersion, the water temperature was maintained at 35-38°C and subjects left the tub on complete cervical dilatation. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess pain during labor. Other outcome measures included duration of labor, type of delivery, blood loss, pelvic floor dysfunction and symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 42 days after delivery, infant Apgar scores, and need for transfer of the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Thirty eight subjects (mean age, 28.66 ± 3.08 y) received water immersion and 70 (mean age, 27.89 ± 2.99 y) underwent conventional labor and delivery. There were no differences in maternal height, weight, age, gestational age, gravidity, and newborn weight between the groups (all, p>0.05). VAS pain scores were significantly greater in the conventional labor group at 30 min and 60 min after a cervical dilatation of 3 cm (30 min: 10 [9, 10] vs. 6 [5, 8]; 60 min: 10 [10, 10] vs. 7 [6, 8], respectively, both, p<0.001). The duration of labor and postpartum bleeding were similar between the groups (all, p>0.05). The cesarean section rate was higher in the conventional labor group (32.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.026). The 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores were similar between the groups. Maternal and neonatal culture results were similar between the groups. SUI symptoms at 42 days after delivery was significantly higher in the conventional labor group (25.5% vs. 6.1%, respectively, p=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Water immersion can reduce labor pain, and is associated with a lower rate of cesarean delivery and SUI symptoms at 42 days.

Birth, bath, and beyond: the science and safety of water immersion during labor and birth

The 2014 objection to birth in water voiced by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in ACOG Bulletin #594 on immersion in water during labor and birth is nothing new. The Committee on Fetus and Newborn published the very same opinion in 2005, based on a case report that was published in 2002 in the journal Pediatrics. What has changed since 2002 is a growing body of evidence that reports on the safety and efficacy of labor and birth in water. This article reviews the retrospective literature on water birth and explains newborn physiology and the protective mechanisms that prevent babies from breathing during a birth in water.

Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Birthing pools are integrated into maternity care in the United Kingdom and are a popular care option for women in midwifery-led units and at home. The objective of this study was to describe and compare maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes by planned place of birth for women who used a birthing pool.

METHODS

A total of 8,924 women at low risk of childbirth complications were recruited from care settings in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 7,915 (88.9%) women had a spontaneous birth (5,192, 58.3% water births), of whom 4,953 (55.5%) were nulliparas. Fewer nulliparas whose planned place of birth was the community (freestanding midwifery unit or home) had labor augmentation by artificial membrane rupture (149, 11.3% [95% CI: 9.6-13.1]), compared with an alongside midwifery unit (271, 22.7% [95% CI: 20.3-25.2]), or obstetric unit (639, 26.3% [95% CI: 24.5-28.1]). Results were similar for epidural analgesia and episiotomy. More community nulliparas had spontaneous birth (1,172, 88.9% [95% CI: 87.1-90.6]), compared with birth in an alongside midwifery unit (942, 79% [95% CI: 76.6-81.3]) and obstetric unit (1,923, 79.2% [95% CI: 77.5-80.8]); and fewer required hospital transfer (265, 20% [95% CI: 17-22.2]) compared with those in an alongside midwifery unit (370, 31% [95% CI: 28.3-33.7]). Results for multiparas and newborns were similar across care settings. Twenty babies had an umbilical cord snap, 18 (90%) of which occurred during water birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Birthing pool use was associated with a high frequency of spontaneous birth, particularly among nulliparas. Findings revealed differences in midwifery practice between obstetric units, alongside midwifery units, and the community, which may affect outcomes, particularly for nulliparas. No evidence was found for a difference across care settings in interventions or outcomes in multiparas or in outcomes for newborns. During water birth, it is important to prevent undue traction on the cord as the baby is guided to the surface.

The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

To document the practice of labour in water, to assess the effects of water immersion during labor and/or birth (labour stages 1, 2 and 3) on maternal, fetal and neonatal wellbeing and to compare the outcomes and safety with conventional vaginal deliveries and deliveries with epidural analgesia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two-hundred and seven women electing for waterbirth (n=207) were compared with women having conventional vaginal deliveries (n=204) and vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (n=191). Demographic data, length of 1(st), 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor, induction and episiotomy requirements, perineal trauma, apgar scores, NICU requirements and VAS scores were noted.

RESULTS

The 1(st) stage of labor was shorter in waterbirths compared with vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia but the 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor were shortest in patients having waterbirth compared with conventional vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia. Patients having waterbirth had less requirement for induction and episiotomy but had more perineal laceration. All women having waterbirths had reduced analgesia requirements and had lower scores on VAS. There was no difference in terms of NICU admission between the groups. Apgar scores were comparable in both groups. There were no neonatal deaths or neonatal infections during the study.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates the advantages of labor in water in terms of reduction in 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor, reduction in pain and obstetric intervention such as induction or amniotomy.

An economic evaluation of water birth: the cost-effectiveness of mother well-being

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of water compared with normal land delivery.

METHODS

A retrospective controlled study was conducted over a two-year period in a Northern Italian hospital. The cohort included all the 110 women who completed a water birth and 110 women who had a land birth during the same period. The two groups were compared with respect to labour duration, perineal tear and newborn's health status. The economic evaluation adopted a cost-effectiveness approach in relation to presence/absence of perineal tears.

RESULTS

In the water delivery group 58 women (52.7%) experienced at least one perineal tear versus 80 (72.7%) in the traditional delivery group. The mean duration of labour was similar in the two groups. Neonatal well-being, expressed as Apgar score, did not differ significantly among the two groups at the first minute (9.48 vs. 9.28) and was slightly higher at 5 minutes in the water delivery group (9.95 vs. 9.84; P = 0.0269). Water delivery was found to be both more costly [ΔC = €279; 95% confidence interval (CI): 262-296] and more effective in terms of avoided perineal tears. The incremental health care cost per avoided perineal tear because of water delivery was estimated of €1395.7 (95% CI: 1049.2-3608.5).

CONCLUSION

Water birth, as compared with traditional delivery, allows for an increase in maternal well-being and is cost-effective.

Immersion in water in labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasts suggest that labouring in water and waterbirth increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of care. Sceptics cite the possibility of neonatal water inhalation and maternal/neonatal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about immersion in water during labour and waterbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (October 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any bath tub/pool with no immersion during labour and/or birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One review author entered data and another checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 11 trials (3146 women); eight related to the first stage of labour, one to the first and second stages, one to early versus late immersion in the first stage of labour, and another to the second stage. We identified no trials evaluating different baths/pools, or the management of third stage of labour.Results for the first stage of labour showed there was a significant reduction in the epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia rate amongst women allocated to water immersion compared to controls (478/1254 versus 529/1245; odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, six trials). There was no difference in assisted vaginal deliveries (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, seven trials), caesarean sections (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.75, eight trials), perineal trauma or maternal infection. There were no differences for Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01, five trials), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.62, three trials), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07, five trials).A lack of data for some comparisons prevented robust conclusions. Further research is needed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of epidural/spinal analgesia. There is limited information for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour, due to intervention and outcome variability. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring in water or waterbirth. The fact that use of water immersion in labour and birth is now a widely available care option for women threatens the feasibility of a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial.