Labor outcomes in caseload midwifery compared with standard midwifery care: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown caseload midwifery to increase the chance of vaginal birth, but this may not be the case in settings with high vaginal birth rates in standard care. This study investigated the association between caseload midwifery and birth mode, labor interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes at a large obstetric unit in Denmark. METHODS: Cohort study including medical records on live, singleton births fr om June 2018 until February 2022. Exposure was caseload midwifery care compared with standard midwifery care. The primary outcome was birth mode, and secondary outcomes were other outcomes of labor. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by log-binomial regression. RESULTS: Among 16,110 pregnancies, 3162 pregnancies (19.6%) received caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwifery was associated with fewer planned cesareans (aRR 0.63 [95% CI 0.54-0.74]) and emergency cesareans (aRR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75-0.95]). No differences in labor induction, use of epidural analgesia, oxytocin augmentation, or anal sphincter tears were observed. Caseload midwifery performed more amniotomies (aRR 1.14 [95% CI 1.02-1.27]) and tended to perform more episiotomies (aRR 1.19 [95% CI 0.96-1.48]). Postpartum hemorrhage (aRR 0.90 [95% CI 0.82-0.99]) and low Apgar score were less likely (aRR 0.54 [95% CI 0.37-0.77]), and early discharge more likely (aRR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17-1.28]) in caseload midwifery. CONCLUSION: In caseload midwifery care, a higher vaginal birth rate was observed with no increase in adverse outcomes, mainly due to a lower likelihood of planned cesarean. Also, fewer children were born with low Apgar scores.

How do reproductive history and anthropometry in midlife relate to later risk of pelvic organ prolapse? A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to examine the association between reproductive and anthropometric factors and later risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We carried out a prospective cohort study including 11,114 female nurses > 44 years from the Danish Nurse Cohort. In 1993, the study population was recruited through the Danish Nurse Organization and self-reported data on age, height, weight, age at menarche, age at first birth and number of childbirths were obtained. POP diagnosis was obtained from the National Patient Registry. Risk of POP was estimated using COX regression and presented as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 10% of the women received a diagnosis of POP within a median follow-up of 22 years. A 4% increase in risk of POP was seen for each increasing BMI (kg/m2) unit at baseline. Compared to women of normal weight, higher risks of POP were seen in overweight (HR 1.18: 1.02-1.36) and obese women (HR 1.33: 1.02-1.74), while underweight had a lower risk (HR 0.51: 0.27-0.95). Compared to women with one childbirth, women with no childbirths had a reduced risk of 57% while increased risks of 46%, 78% and 137% were observed in women with two, three and four childbirths. Women with menarche before the age of 12 tended to have a higher risk of POP as did women who were 30-33 years at their first childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: POP is a common health problem in women, and BMI and number of childbirths are strong predictors.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy in Denmark-characteristics and outcomes after confirmed infection in pregnancy: A nationwide, prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the risk factors for and consequences of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy is essential to guide clinical care. Previous studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy have been among hospitalized patients, which may have exaggerated risk estimates of severe outcomes because all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pregnant population were not included. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for and outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy independent of severity of infection in a universally tested population, and to identify risk factors for and outcomes after severe infection requiring hospital admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective population-based cohort study in Denmark using data from the Danish National Patient Register and Danish Microbiology Database and prospectively registered data from medical records. We included all pregnancies between March 1 and October 31, 2020 and compared women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy to non-infected pregnant women. Cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were both identified prospectively and through register linkage to ensure that all cases were identified and that cases were pregnant during infection. Main outcome measures were pregnancy, delivery, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. Severe infection was defined as hospital admission due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. RESULTS: Among 82 682 pregnancies, 418 women had SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, corresponding to an incidence of 5.1 per 1000 pregnancies, 23 (5.5%) of which required hospital admission due to COVID-19. Risk factors for infection were asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95% CI 1.41-3.41) and being foreign born (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.70-2.64). Risk factors for hospital admission due to COVID-19 included obesity (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.00-7.51), smoking (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.58-13.90), infection after gestational age (GA) 22 weeks (GA 22-27 weeks: OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.16-12.29; GA 28-36 weeks: OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.60-14.12), and having asthma (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.39-14.79). We found no difference in any obstetrical or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 20 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy required admission to hospital due to COVID-19. Risk factors for admission comprised obesity, smoking, asthma, and infection after GA 22 weeks. Severe adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were rare.