Birth under water--to breathe or not to breathe

Immersion in water during the second stage of labor: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current obstetrical guidelines in the United States caution firmly against birth in water, but patients remain interested in this intervention. Limited data are available to evaluate the safety and efficacy of water immersion in the second stage of labor for patients and neonates.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the effects of water use during the second stage of labor on maternal outcomes. Second, it aimed to propose guidelines for midwives conducting the second stage of labor in water.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, prospective design was used to evaluate the primary outcomes of maternal experience in labor and trauma to the birth canal and several secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes when participants delivered in water vs in a conventional setting. Participants were recruited at 2 academic state hospitals serving the same low- to middle-income group urban population in the midwestern suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa over a period of 2 years. Individuals in active labor without exclusion criteria were asked to participate in the study. A total of 120 participants were enrolled, with 60 randomized to water birth and 60 to conventional birth. Outcomes were compared using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The use of water during birth significantly reduced the participants' perception of experienced pain than what they expected it to be (P=.006) and enhanced their satisfaction with their ability to cope with labor (P=.010). No differences were noted in trauma to the birth canal. No adverse maternal effects were noted. One early neonatal death occurred in the water group. The most likely cause of death was preexisting intrauterine fetal infection.

CONCLUSION

Participants who delivered in water were significantly more satisfied with their birthing experience. The possible harmful effect of inhalation of fresh water by a baby is not resolved, and a large randomized controlled trial is recommended. It is recommended that immersion in water during the second stage of labor should only be offered by competent birth attendants who follow specific guidelines until clear evidence is available on the possible beneficial or harmful effects. Pending further evidence, we recommend adding salt to the bath to produce a physiological saline solution to reduce theoretical risks associated with fresh water inhalation by the neonate.

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.

Australian midwives views and experiences of practice and politics related to water immersion for labour and birth: A web based survey

BACKGROUND

There is little published research that has examined practitioners' views and experiences of pain relieving measures commonly used during labour and birth, particularly for non-pharmacological measures such as water immersion. Furthermore, there is minimal published research examining the process of policy and guideline development, that is, the translation of published research to usable practice guidance.

AIMS

The aims of phase three of a larger study were to explore midwives knowledge, experiences and support for the option of water immersion for labour and birth in practice and their involvement, if any, in development of policy and guidelines pertaining to the option.

METHODS

Phase three of a three phased mixed methods study included a web based survey of 234 Australian midwives who had facilitated and/or been involved in the development of policies and/or guidelines relating to the practice of water immersion.

FINDINGS

Midwives who participated in this study were supportive of both water immersion for labour and birth reiterating documented benefits of reduced pain, maternal relaxation and a positive birth experience. The most significant concerns were maternal collapse, the difficulty of estimating blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage whilst barriers included lack of accredited staff, lifting equipment and negative attitudes. Midwives indicated that policy/guideline documents limited their ability to facilitate water immersion and did not always to support women's informed choice.

CONCLUSION

Midwives who participated in this study supported the practice of water immersion reiterating the benefits documented in the literature and minimal risk to the woman and baby.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia approved the research.

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.

Case Report of Haemophilus parainfluenzae Sepsis in a Newborn Infant Following Water Birth and a Review of Literature

Water birth has grown in popularity over the recent years. Although beneficial for mothers, there are concerns for the infants. There are previous reports of infection following water birth. The information regarding infection with Haemophilus parainfluenzae is limited. We report a case of a neonate with H. parainfluenzae bacteremia following water birth. The child was successfully treated with both antibiotic and supportive care. Previous reports of neonatal H. parainfluenzae infection are reviewed.

[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.

Immersion in water during labor and delivery

Immersion in water has been suggested as a beneficial alternative for labor, delivery, or both and over the past decades has gained popularity in many parts of the world. Immersion in water during the first stage of labor may be associated with decreased pain or use of anesthesia and decreased duration of labor. However, there is no evidence that immersion in water during the first stage of labor otherwise improves perinatal outcomes, and it should not prevent or inhibit other elements of care. The safety and efficacy of immersion in water during the second stage of labor have not been established, and immersion in water during the second stage of labor has not been associated with maternal or fetal benefit. Given these facts and case reports of rare but serious adverse effects in the newborn, the practice of immersion in the second stage of labor (underwater delivery) should be considered an experimental procedure that only should be performed within the context of an appropriately designed clinical trial with informed consent. Facilities that plan to offer immersion in the first stage of labor need to establish rigorous protocols for candidate selection, maintenance and cleaning of tubs and immersion pools, infection control procedures, monitoring of mothers and fetuses at appropriate intervals while immersed, and immediately and safely moving women out of the tubs if maternal or fetal concerns develop.

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.

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.

Review of 1600 water births. Does water birth increase the risk of neonatal infection?

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed 1600 water births at a single institution over an 8-year period.

METHODS

We compared 737 primiparae deliveries in water with 407 primiparae deliveries in bed, and 142 primiparae on the delivery stool. We also evaluated the duration of labor, perineal trauma, arterial cord blood pH, postpartum maternal hemoglobin levels, and rates of neonatal infection. In 250 water deliveries we performed bacterial cultures of water samples obtained from the bath after filling and after delivery.

RESULTS

The duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter with a water birth than with a land delivery (380 vs. 468 minutes, P<0.01). The episiotomy rate in all water births was lower with a water birth than with a delivery in bed or a delivery on the birthing stool (0.38%, 23%, and 8.4%, respectively). The rate of perineal tears was similar (23%, respectively). There were no differences in the duration of the second stage (34 vs. 37 minutes), arterial cord blood pH, or postpartum maternal hemoglobin levels. No woman using the water birth method required analgesics. The rate of neonatal infection was also not increased with a water birth (1.22% vs. 2.64%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Water birth appears to be associated with a significantly shorter first stage of labor, lower episiotomy rate and reduced analgesic requirements when compared with other delivery positions. If women are selected appropriately and hygiene rules are respected, water birth appears to be safe for both the mother and neonate.

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.

It's beyond water: Stories of women's experience of using water for labour and birth

PURPOSE

This study aimed to give 'voice' to women's experiences of using water for labour and birth.

PARTICIPANTS

Five women from a large urban region in New Zealand, who used water for labour and birth, at home and in hospital.

METHODS

The study employed an interpretive design using audio-taped conversations as the method of data collection and a thematic analysis of the women's stories.

FINDINGS

Data analysis produced two core categories; 'Getting to the water' which revealed the impact of preparing for and anticipating the water; and 'Getting into the water' which provided a sanctuary and a release from pain.

CONCLUSION

The all-encompassing warmth associated with being enveloped in warm water cradled, supported, relaxed, comforted, soothed, sheltered and protected the women; it created a barrier and offered a sense of privacy. Water can be used in any form, even the act of thinking about, preparing for and anticipating the water opened possibilities for these women. The women used water to reduce their fear of pain and of childbirth itself; to cope with pain, not necessarily to remove or diminish pain; and to maintain control over the process of birth. The women indicated that it was not necessary to actually give birth in the water to achieve these benefits. Listening to the stories of women provides us with insights into what is important to them. Women's knowledge contributes an important part of the evidence on which we base our practice.

Die Kontamination des Wassers und die Infektionsrate bei der Wassergeburt

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at examining the water of the birthing tub for pathogenic germs and at comparing the infection rates of the children born conventionally.

METHOD

In a prospective study, the germs found in the water of 300 water births were determined . The tub water was sampled twice: sample A was taken after filling the tub with tap water, sample B after the water delivery. In addition, the paediatrician documented any signs of infection of the neonates during their hospital stay.

RESULTS

The A samples contained Legionella in 29%, Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 22%, enterococci in 18%, colibacilli in 32% and Escherichia coli in 8%. After fitting a filter system, no Legionella was detected any more. P. aeruginosa was found in only 3% of the samples. In the B samples, we found an increased contamination by colibacilli in 81%. A marked burden with E. coli was detected in 58% of the samples. Due to a clinically an biochemically suspected beginning infection, 1.15% of the water-born children (14 out of 1,215) were given antibiotics. In contrast, 2.30% of the conventionally born neonates (19 out of 817) were treated with antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

It is evident that during the bearing-down phase faeces are discharged into the birthing tube and that the water is contaminated mainly by E. coli and colibacilli, but also slightly by Staphylococcus aureus. The contamination of the tap water by Legionella and Pseudomonas could clearly be reduced by installation of a filter system into the supply hose of the birthing tub. Neonatal infections were not more frequent after water births than after conventional deliveries.

Enhancing the midwife-woman relationship through shared decision making and clinical guidelines

The active and passive voice allocated to women within maternity service guidelines helps construct the nature of decision making. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that by allocating women an active voice within practice guidelines serves the interest of all parties within the health care relationship. Clinical guidelines were reviewed, and electronic databases and text were searched. The findings of this paper support that applying the principles of a shared decision making framework, within clinical practice guidelines, can assist the development of a partnership relationship between midwives and women.

Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years

AIMS

This study compares neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality between waterbirths and landbirths (spontaneous singleton births in cephalic presentation, vacuum extractions are excluded).

METHODS

In this observational study covering nine years, standardized questionnaires were used to document 9,518 spontaneous singleton cephalic presentation births, of which 3,617 were waterbirths and 5,901 landbirths.

RESULTS

Landbirths show higher rates of episiotomies as well as third and fourth degree perineal lacerations. Waterbirths show a higher rate of births "without injuries", first and second-degree perineal lacerations, vaginal and labial tears. After a waterbirth, there is an average loss of 5.26 g/l blood; this is significantly less than landbirths where there is an 8.08 g/l blood loss on average. In 69.7% waterbirths required no analgesic, compared to 58.0% for landbirths. Water and landbirths do not differ with respect to maternal and neonatal infections. After landbirths, there was a higher rate of newborn complications with subsequent transfer to an external NICU. During the study, there were neither maternal nor neonatal deaths related to spontaneous labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Waterbirths are associated with low risks for both mother and child when obstetrical guidelines are followed.

Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasts for immersion in water during labour, and birth have advocated its use to increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of supportive care. Sceptics are concerned that there may be greater harm to women and/or babies, for example, a perceived risk associated with neonatal inhalation of water and maternal/neonatal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effects of immersion in water during pregnancy, labour, or birth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing any kind of bath tub/pool with no immersion during pregnancy, labour or birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One reviewer entered the data and another checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

: Eight trials are included (2939 women). No trials were identified that evaluated immersion versus no immersion during pregnancy, considered different types of baths/pools, or considered the management of third stage of labour. There was a statistically significant reduction in the use of epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia amongst women allocated to water immersion water during the first stage of labour compared to those not allocated to water immersion (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.99, four trials). There was no significant difference in vaginal operative deliveries (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, six trials), or caesarean sections (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.91). Women who used water immersion during the first stage of labour reported statistically significantly less pain than those not labouring in water (40/59 versus 55/61) (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.63, one trial). There were no significant differences in incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of analgesia and reported maternal pain, without adverse outcomes on labour duration, operative delivery or neonatal outcomes. The effects of immersion in water during pregnancy or in the third stage are unclear. One trial explores birth in water, but is too small to determine the outcomes for women or neonates.

Perinatal mortality and morbidity among babies delivered in water: surveillance study and postal survey

AIM

To compare perinatal morbidity and mortality for babies delivered in water with rates for babies delivered conventionally (not in water).

DESIGN

Surveillance study (of all consultant paediatricians) and postal survey (of all NHS maternity units).

SETTING

British Isles (surveillance study); England and Wales (postal survey).

SUBJECTS

Babies born in the British Isles between April 1994 and March 1996 who died perinatally or were admitted for special care within 48 hours of birth after delivery in water or after labour in water followed by conventional delivery (surveillance study); babies delivered in water in England and Wales in the same period (postal survey). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESE Number of deliveries in water in the British Isles that resulted in perinatal death or in admission to special care within 48 hours of birth; and proportions (of such deliveries) of all water births in England and Wales.

RESULTS

4032 deliveries (0.6% of all deliveries) in England and Wales occurred in water. Perinatal mortality was 1.2/1000 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.9) live births; 8.4/1000 (5.8 to 11.8) live births were admitted for special care. No deaths were directly attributable to delivery in water, but 2 admissions were for water aspiration. UK reports of mortality and special care admission rates for babies of women considered to be at low risk of complications during delivery who delivered conventionally ranged from 0.8/1000 (0. 2 to 4.2) to 4.6/1000 (0.1 to 25) live births and from 9.2 (1.1 to 33) to 64/1000 (58 to 70) live births respectively. Compared with regional data for low risk, spontaneous, normal vaginal deliveries at term, the relative risk for perinatal mortality associated with delivery in water was 0.9 (99% confidence interval 0.2 to 3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Perinatal mortality is not substantially higher among babies delivered in water than among those born to low risk women who delivered conventionally. The data are compatible with a small increase or decrease in perinatal mortality for babies delivered in water.