11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We analyzed the perinatal risks of midwife-attended planned home births in the United States from 2010 through 2012 and compared them with recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for planned home births.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.

          The proportion of women who attempt vaginal delivery after prior cesarean delivery has decreased largely because of concern about safety. The absolute and relative risks associated with a trial of labor in women with a history of cesarean delivery, as compared with elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor, are uncertain. We conducted a prospective four-year observational study of all women with a singleton gestation and a prior cesarean delivery at 19 academic medical centers. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labor and women who had an elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor. Vaginal delivery was attempted by 17,898 women, and 15,801 women underwent elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor. Symptomatic uterine rupture occurred in 124 women who underwent a trial of labor (0.7 percent). Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy occurred in no infants whose mothers underwent elective repeated cesarean delivery and in 12 infants born at term whose mothers underwent a trial of labor (P<0.001). Seven of these cases of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy followed uterine rupture (absolute risk, 0.46 per 1000 women at term undergoing a trial of labor), including two neonatal deaths. The rate of endometritis was higher in women undergoing a trial of labor than in women undergoing repeated elective cesarean delivery (2.9 percent vs. 1.8 percent), as was the rate of blood transfusion (1.7 percent vs. 1.0 percent). The frequency of hysterectomy and of maternal death did not differ significantly between groups (0.2 percent vs. 0.3 percent, and 0.02 percent vs. 0.04 percent, respectively). A trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery is associated with a greater perinatal risk than is elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor, although absolute risks are low. This information is relevant for counseling women about their choices after a cesarean section. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician.

              Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians. We included all planned home births attended by registered midwives from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2004, in British Columbia, Canada (n = 2889), and all planned hospital births meeting the eligibility requirements for home birth that were attended by the same cohort of midwives (n = 4752). We also included a matched sample of physician-attended planned hospital births (n = 5331). The primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality; secondary outcomes were obstetric interventions and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The rate of perinatal death per 1000 births was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-1.03) in the group of planned home births; the rate in the group of planned hospital births was 0.57 (95% CI 0.00-1.43) among women attended by a midwife and 0.64 (95% CI 0.00-1.56) among those attended by a physician. Women in the planned home-birth group were significantly less likely than those who planned a midwife-attended hospital birth to have obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.29-0.36; assisted vaginal delivery, RR 0.41, 95% 0.33-0.52) or adverse maternal outcomes (e.g., third- or fourth-degree perineal tear, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.59; postpartum hemorrhage, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.77). The findings were similar in the comparison with physician-assisted hospital births. Newborns in the home-birth group were less likely than those in the midwife-attended hospital-birth group to require resuscitation at birth (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.37) or oxygen therapy beyond 24 hours (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24-0.59). The findings were similar in the comparison with newborns in the physician-assisted hospital births; in addition, newborns in the home-birth group were less likely to have meconium aspiration (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.93) and more likely to be admitted to hospital or readmitted if born in hospital (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.85). Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
                American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Elsevier BV
                00029378
                March 2015
                March 2015
                : 212
                : 3
                : 350.e1-350.e6
                Article
                10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.021
                25446661
                2e31e357-5df0-495f-b698-8f011509ec18
                © 2015

                http://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article