Contraindications in planned home birth in Iceland: A retrospective cohort study

Intrapartum time intervals and transfer of nulliparae from community births to maternity care units in Germany

BACKGROUND

Over one-third of nulliparae planning births either at home or in freestanding midwife-led birthing centers (community births) in high-income countries are transferred during labor. Perinatal data are reported each year in Germany for women planning community birth. So far, data sets have not been linked to describe time-related factors associated with nulliparous transfer to hospital.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the prevalence of referral for nulliparae and assess maternal and labor characteristics associated with intrapartum transfer.

METHODS

Perinatal data from 2010 to 2015 were linked (n = 26,115). Women were reviewed with respect to international eligibility criteria for community birth; 1997 women were excluded (7.6%). Descriptive statistics were reported; unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) tested the predictive effect of demographic and labor factors on rates of intrapartum transfer.

RESULTS

One in three nulliparous women (30.6%) were transferred to hospital. Compared with community births, transferred women were significantly more likely to experience longer time intervals during labor: from rupture of membranes (ROM) until birth lasting 5 to 18 h (OR 6.05, CI 5.53-6.61) and 19 to 24 h (OR 10.83, CI 9.45-12.41) compared to one to 4 h; and from onset of labor until birth 11 to 24 h (OR 6.72, CI 6.24-7.23) and 25 to 29 h (OR 26.62, CI 22.77-31.11) compared to one to 10 h. When entering all factors into the model, we found the strongest predictors of transfer to be fetal distress, longer time intervals between ROM until birth and onset of labor until birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Nulliparous transfer rates were similar to rates in other high-income countries; 94% of referrals were non-urgent. Time was found to be an independent risk factor for the transfer of nulliparae planning community birth.

Risk of complicated birth at term in nulliparous and multiparous women using routinely collected maternity data in England: cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate of complicated birth at term in women classified at low risk according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for intrapartum care (no pre-existing medical conditions, important obstetric history, or complications during pregnancy) and to assess if the risk classification can be improved by considering parity and the number of risk factors.

DESIGN

Cohort study using linked electronic maternity records.

PARTICIPANTS

276 766 women with a singleton birth at term after a trial of labour in 87 NHS hospital trusts in England between April 2015 and March 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

A composite outcome of complicated birth, defined as a birth with use of an instrument, caesarean delivery, anal sphincter injury, postpartum haemorrhage, or Apgar score of 7 or less at five minutes.

RESULTS

Multiparous women without a history of caesarean section had the lowest rates of complicated birth, varying from 8.8% (4879 of 55 426 women, 95% confidence interval 8.6% to 9.0%) in those without specific risk factors to 21.8% (613 of 2811 women, 20.2% to 23.4%) in those with three or more. The rate of complicated birth was higher in nulliparous women, with corresponding rates varying from 43.4% (25  805 of 59 413 women, 43.0% to 43.8%) to 64.3% (364 of 566 women, 60.3% to 68.3%); and highest in multiparous women with previous caesarean section, with corresponding rates varying from 42.9% (3426 of 7993 women, 41.8% to 44.0%) to 66.3% (554 of 836 women, 63.0% to 69.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nulliparous women without risk factors have substantially higher rates of complicated birth than multiparous women without a previous caesarean section even if the latter have multiple risk factors. Grouping women first according to parity and previous mode of birth, and then within these groups according to presence of specific risk factors would provide greater and more informed choice to women, better targeting of interventions, and fewer transfers during labour than according to the presence of risk factors alone.

Neonatal mortality in the United States is related to location of birth (hospital versus home) rather than the type of birth attendant

BACKGROUND

Planned home births have leveled off in the United States in recent years after a significant rise starting in the mid-2000s. Planned home births in the United States are associated with increased patient-risk profiles. Multiple studies concluded that, compared with hospital births, absolute and relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in US planned home births are significantly increased.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety of birth in the United States by comparing the neonatal mortality outcomes of 2 locations, hospital birth and home birth, by 4 types of attendants: hospital midwife; certified nurse-midwife at home; direct-entry ("other") midwife at home; and attendant at home not identified, using the most recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention natality data on neonatal mortality for planned home births in the United States. Outcomes are presented as absolute risks (neonatal mortality per 10,000 live births) and as relative risks of neonatal mortality (hospital-certified nurse-midwife odds ratio, 1) overall, and for recognized risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

We used the most current US Centers for Disease and Prevention Control Linked Birth and Infant Death Records for 2010-2017 to assess neonatal mortality (neonatal death days 0-27 after birth) for single, term (37+ weeks), normal-weight ( >2499 g) infants for planned home births and hospital births by birth attendants: hospital-certified nurse-midwives, home-certified nurse-midwives, home other midwives (eg, lay or direct-entry midwives), and other home birth attendant not identified.

RESULTS

The neonatal mortality for US hospital midwife-attended births was 3.27 per 10,000 live births, 13.66 per 10,000 live births for all planned home births, and 27.98 per 10,000 live births for unintended/unplanned home births. Planned home births attended by direct-entry midwives and by certified nurse-midwives had a significantly elevated absolute and relative neonatal mortality risk compared with certified nurse-midwife-attended hospital births (hospital-certified nurse-midwife: 3.27/10,000 live births odds ratio, 1; home birth direct-entry midwives: neonatal mortality 12.44/10,000 live births, odds ratio, 3.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.65, P<.0001; home birth-certified nurse-midwife: neonatal mortality 9.48/10,000 live births, odds ratio, 2.90, 95% confidence interval, 2.90; P<.0001). These differences increased further when patients were stratified for recognized risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The safety of birth in the United States varies by location and attendant. Compared with US hospital births attended by a certified nurse-midwife, planned US home births for all types of attendants are a less safe setting of birth, especially when recognized risk factors are taken into account. The type of midwife attending US planned home birth appears to have no differential effect on decreasing the absolute and relative risk of neonatal mortality of planned home birth, because the difference in outcomes of US planned home births attended by direct-entry midwives or by certified nurse-midwives is not statistically significant.