Prospective cohort study of water immersion for labour and birth compared with standard care in an Irish maternity setting

[Influence of water immersion on the use of epidural anesthesia during labor]

OBJECTIVE

Immersion in water during labor could reduce pain and use of epidural anesthesia during childbirth. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of immersion in water during labor on the use of epidural anesthesia in a midwife care setting.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of all women who gave birth in the physiological ward of Saint-Étienne University Hospital between October 2020 and December 2022.

RESULTS

The study did not find difference between immersion group and control group concerning the use of epidural anesthesia (P=0.49). The immersion group counted more women with a duration of labor greater than 6hours than in the control group. The multivariate analysis adjusted for parity and duration of labor did not find difference between both groups [OR 0.58; 95% CI (0.30; 1.09)].

CONCLUSION

Even if it does not seem to modify the use of epidurals, immersion in water does not seem to increase maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. It represents a therapeutic alternative with reasonable cost to offer for pregnant women who wish to give birth without epidural anesthesia.

The association between waterbirth and perineal injury or other adverse outcomes among low-risk women with physiological birth: Results from the Nordic Home Birth Cohort Study

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND

Immersion in water has known benefits, such as reducing pain and shortening the duration of labour. The relationship between waterbirth and perineal injury remains unclear.

AIM

To compare the incidence of perineal injury in waterbirth and birth on land among low-risk women. Secondary outcomes were postpartum haemorrhage and 5-minute Apgar scores <7.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 2875 low-risk women who planned a home birth in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in 2008-2013 and had a spontaneous vaginal birth without intervention. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed.

FINDINGS

A total of 942 women had a waterbirth, and 1933 gave birth on land. The groups differed in their various background variables. Multiparous women had moderately lower rates of intact perineum (59.3% vs. 63.9%) and primiparous women had lower rates of episiotomies (1.1% vs. 4.8%) in waterbirth than in birth on land. No statistically significant differences were detected in adjusted regression analysis on intact perineum in waterbirth (primiparous women's aOR = 1.03, CI 0.68-1.58; multiparous women's aOR = 0.84, CI 0.67-1.05). The rates of sphincter injuries (0.9% vs. 0.6%) were low in both groups. No significant differences were detected in secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The decreased incidence of intact perineum among multiparous women was modest and inconclusive, and the prevalence of sphincter injury was low.

CONCLUSION

Low-risk women contemplating waterbirth should be advised to weigh the risks and benefits detected in this study against previously established benefits of waterbirth and should make an informed choice based on their values.

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

OBJECTIVE

Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-17.02; p = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63-2,674; p = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05-7.24; p = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01-29.78; p = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.60; p = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.12; p < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.48; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications.

KEY POINTS

· High-quality evidence is not available for neonatal safety of waterbirth; therefore, retrospective studies still represent the main body of evidence.. · Differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them, the increased risk of cord avulsion is a potentially fatal event.. · A trained staff must assist women who chose to deliver in water and cord avulsion must be promptly recognized and managed to avoid severe neonatal complications..

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.

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To explore the effect of hydrotherapy applied in the first stage of labour on the health of mother and newborn.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by following PRISMA. The studies were obtained by scanning EBSCO, PubMed, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases. Twenty studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included.

RESULTS

The total sample size of the studies was 8254 (hydrotherapy: 2953, control: 5301). Meta-analyses showed that the perception of pain decreased, comfort level and vaginal birth rate were higher and assisted vaginal birth rate and APGAR scores in the first minute were lower in women who underwent hydrotherapy. There was no difference between groups in terms of the duration of the first and second stage of labour, episiotomy, perineal trauma, intrapartum and postpartum bleeding amounts, use of pain medication and labour augmentations, APGAR scores in the fifth minute, positive neonatal bacterial culture and neonatal intensive care unit need.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that the results that hydrotherapy decreased the perception of pain and assisted birth, increased the rate of vaginal birth and comfort level and did not adversely affect the health of the mother and baby during the birth process.

Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor

BACKGROUND

Although there is scientific evidence regarding the use of water immersion during labor, this evidence is primarily focused on the first stage of labor. There is limited scientific evidence on water immersion during the second stage of labor.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and synthesis of contemporary evidence related to water birth, with a specific focus on the second stage of labor.

METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature published between January 2018 and October 2023 was carried out. A synthesis of the results was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were utilized as information sources. The search strategy was designed using the keywords "immersion" and "parturition", along with their relevant synonyms. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies employing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and quantitative and qualitative approaches focusing on pregnant women undergoing water immersion at any stage of the labor process.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were selected: two systematic reviews (one quantitative and one qualitative), five cohort studies, one case-control study, one cross-sectional observational study, and two qualitative studies. A thorough assessment of the methodology was performed using several specific tools: the Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk of Bias 2) tool for systematic reviews, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies, STROBE for observational descriptive studies, and CASPe for qualitative studies. The results provided fundamental insights that will contribute to conceptual standardization regarding the effects of water birth on maternal and fetal health. Additionally, a synthesis of the results was performed concerning types of delivery, analgesia use, pain perception, and maternal satisfaction with the water birth experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we conclude that the results regarding delivery types, labor durations, and analgesia use found in the literature, along with statistically significant maternal/fetal effects, are crucial for making recommendations regarding the use of water during labor in any of its stages if the woman desires it safely.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives.

DESIGN

A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches.

REVIEW METHODS

Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes.

RESULTS

Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included-quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited.

Taking the reins: A grounded theory study of women's experiences of negotiating water immersion for labour and birth after a previous caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Women seeking a vaginal birth after a caesarean section (VBAC) frequently want to keep their subsequent labour and birth free from intervention. Water immersion (WI) during labour is potentially an effective tool for women having a VBAC for its natural pain-relieving properties. However, negotiating access to WI can be difficult, especially in the context of VBAC.

AIM

To explore women's experiences of negotiating WI for labour and birth in the context of VBAC.

METHODOLOGY

This Grounded Theory study followed Strauss and Corbin's framework and analytic process. Twenty-five women planning or using WI for their VBAC labour or birth were recruited from two midwifery practices and a social media group across Australia. Participants were interviewed during pregnancy and/or postnatally.

FINDINGS

'Taking the reins', the core category explaining the women's experiences of assuming authority over their birth, comprised five categories: 'Robbed of my previous birth experience'; 'My eyes were opened'; 'Water is my tool for a successful VBAC'; 'Actioning my choices and rights for WI', and 'Empowered to take back control'. 'Wanting natural and normal' was the driving force behind women's desire to birth vaginally. Two mediating factors: Having someone in your corner and Rules for birth facilitated or hindered their birth choices, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The women became active participants in their healthcare by seeking information and options to keep their birth experience natural and normal. Support from other women and advocacy in the form of continuity of midwifery care was crucial in successfully negotiating WI for their VBAC when navigating the complex health system.

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Water and Conventional Delivery during Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In many maternal settings, water delivery is widely available for women who do not have an increased risk of complications during childbirth. Soaking in water during labor has been associated with a number of maternal benefits. However, the situation of water birth is not well known, there is lack of hard evidence on safety, and little is known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. In this paper, we have explored the effects of water delivery compared to the conventional delivery on the health of mothers and babies. For this purpose, clinical trials were conducted including women in labor, in which participants were treated with water labor or conventional labor, respectively, in the experimental and control group. In this analysis, we have selected 17 eligible studies which included 175654 participants. Compared to the conventional birth group, the risk of Apgar score <7 at 5 min of age in the water birth group dropped by 28% (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-1.00, I 2 = 25%, P=0.05). Also, the duration of labor was shorter the in water birth group whatever the labor stage was. The patients who underwent water birth showed an obviously lower rate of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86, I 2 = 53%, P=0.007). In this meta-analysis, it was seen that water delivery has clinical significance in alleviating the pain of mothers, promoting the safety of mothers and infants, and reducing postpartum complications.