Contre la notion de grossesse et d’accouchement à bas risque ?

Intervention of the obstetrician during childbirth in a supposedly low-risk population and influence of parity

OBJECTIVE

Compare obstetrician intervention and calling rates during labour and delivery between low-risk and high-risk women and study the influence of parity on these rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Descriptive retrospective study conducted on 227 patients in a university maternity unit (level 3 university hospital maternity unit) between 1st and 30th January 2014. The low- and high-risk populations were characterised according to the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and NICE guidelines. The obstetrician intervention criteria were: Caesarean section, instrumental vaginal delivery, artificial delivery/uterus examination and postpartum haemorrhage. The obstetrical team also had to call the obstetrician in case of foetal heart rate abnormalities, scalp blood pH measurement, third and/or fourth degree perineal tears, labour dystocia, or any other severe event occurring during labour or delivery.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, the obstetrician intervention rates were respectively 44.5% and 34.4% in the high- and low-risk groups (P=0.13). The obstetrician calling rates were similar between the two groups. Using logistic regression model including parity, the obstetrician intervention rate became significantly higher in the "high-risk" group (OR 2.044, 95% CI 1.129-3.703, P=0.018). In the low-risk population, the intervention rate was significantly increased for nulliparous women compared with multiparas (47.5% versus 9.7%, P<0.001, OR=8.2, CI 95% 2.2 to 46.9).

CONCLUSION

One third of the women defined as low-risk patients appear to need an obstetrician intervention during labour and delivery, with a major influence of parity.

[The access of independent midwives to maternity ward technical facilities: the experimentation of a level-1 department]

OBJECTIVES

The first aim of this study was to evaluate the access of independent midwives to the technical facilities of a level-1 maternity hospital, with a follow-up of 2 years. The second aim was to evaluate the transfer of clinical responsibility, when a patient stops being managed by the independent midwife to be taken care of by the hospital team.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study including 51 patients. Analysis of maternal and perinatal data.

RESULTS

Of the 51 births, there were 42 vaginal deliveries without intervention (82.35%), 3 instrumental deliveries (5.88%), 6 caesarean sections (11.76%). The midwife-led care was completed in 70.59% of cases. The rate of transfer of clinical responsibility during labor was 25.49%. We conducted a neonatal transfer due to a respiratory distress syndrome.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The access to technical support appears as an opportunity for independent midwives to establish a special relationship with their patients. However, this device preserves the possibility of a traditional hospital care when needed. This way, access to the technical support is a safe alternative that has the consent of the users (patients and midwives) as well as of the entire hospital team. Moreover, such device allowed an increase of 5% per year of our obstetrical activity with an estimated increase of 10% per year.

[Does low-risk delivery exist?]

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of our study is to evaluate the rate of call of the obstetrician during childbirth supposed in low-risk and compare it to high-risk deliveries in a maternity service level II. The secondary objective is to assess the level of intervention of the obstetrician with the patient in both groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of 490 patients including 259 classified as low risk based on obstetric criteria of Bourgogne Perinatal Network. The criteria considered for the call and/or intervention of the obstetrician were the following: altered fetal heart rate, lactate scalp, instrumental delivery, cesarean section, complete or complicated perineal, serious event during labor (cord prolapse, uterine rupture…), postpartum hemorrhage treated by prostaglandin ocytocic. The high-risk group is taken as reference for the calculation of confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The rate of call of the obstetrician in the low versus high risk are: 37% [95% CI: 0.98-2.11] and 29% [95% CI: 1.00] (P=0.0587). The rate of intervention of the obstetrician in the low versus high risk is 21% [95% CI: 1.15-3.07] and 12% [95% CI: 1.00] (P=0.0109).

CONCLUSION

The delivery process is unpredictable and potentially risky. Thirty-seven percent of patients classified as low risk at the beginning of labour have required intervention of the obstetrician and 21% of them his intervention.

[Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in a home-like birth centre: a case-control study]

OBJECTIVES

To compare intervention rates associated with labor in low-risk women who began their labor in the "home-like birth centre" and the traditional delivery room.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study used data that were collected from January 2005 through June 2008, from women admitted to the "home-like birth centre" (n=316) and compared to a group of randomly selected low-risk women admitted to the traditional labor ward (n=890) using the Baysian Information Criterion to select the best predictive model.

RESULTS

Women in the "home-like birth centre" had spontaneous vaginal deliveries more often (88.6% versus 82.8%, P value 0.034) and perineal lesions less often (60.1% versus 62.5%, P value 0.013). The frequency of adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ statistically between the two groups, although mean clamped at birth umbilical arterial pH level was higher in the "home-like birth centre" group. The transfer rate from "home-like birth centre" to traditional labor ward was 31.3%.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

It appears that women could benefit from "home-like birth centre" care in settings such as the one studied. Larger observational studies are warranted to validate these results.