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.

Critical appraisal of the proposed defenses for planned home birth.

Two prominent proposed defenses have been offered of planned home birth. The first focuses on the very low absolute risk of planned home birth, which is considered to be safe because it is so low, irrespective of its significantly elevated relative risk. The second invokes an analogy between trial of labor after cesarean delivery and planned home birth. Because trial of labor after cesarean delivery and planned home birth have similar, very low absolute risks and because the former is an acceptable clinical practice, defenders of planned home birth argue that the latter should be considered acceptable. This article presents a critical appraisal of these 2 proposed defenses of planned home birth. Question 1: Are proposed defenses of planned home birth focused on its low absolute risks consistent with the commitment to patient safety? This commitment to patient safety requires the identification of variation in the processes of patient care and reduction of variation when reduction improves outcomes. Relative, as well as absolute, risks therefore must be identified. Compared with hospital midwives, planned home births have a significantly higher relative total neonatal mortality risk of 3.87 (1.26 vs 0.32 per 1000 births; P<.001) and a significantly higher relative risk of 5-minute Apgar score of zero of 18.11 (1.63 vs 0.0/1000 births; P<.001). Planned hospital birth prevents these risks. It follows that planned home birth as a variant in birth setting is not consistent with the commitment to patient safety. Question 2: Is the analogy to trial of labor after cesarean delivery consistent with the philosophic rules of analogic reasoning? The long-established philosophic rules for analogic reasoning require that the 2 cases that are compared are similar in all relevant respects and that all relevant analogies have been considered. The 2 cases are dissimilar because the perinatal risks of planned home births are approximately 3 times higher than trial of labor after cesarean delivery. At least 8 clinical analogies to other situations of very low absolute, but unacceptable, risks are ignored. The clinical implication of the results of this critical appraisal is that obstetricians should respond to expressions of interest in planned home birth based on these proposed defenses with a respectful explanation of the inadequacies, the failure to commit to patient safety, and a recommendation for planned hospital birth.

Midwife-assisted planned home birth: an essential component of improving the safety of childbirth in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Hospital births, when compared to out-of-hospital births, have generally led to not only a significantly reduced maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity but also an increase in certain interventions. A trend seems to be emerging, especially in the US where some women are requesting home births, which creates ethical challenges for obstetricians and the health care organizations and policy makers. In the developing world, a completely different reality exists. Home births constitute the majority of deliveries in the developing world. There are severe limitations in terms of facilities, health personnel and deeply entrenched cultural and socio-economic conditions militating against hospital births. As a consequence, maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity remain the highest, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Midwife-assisted planned home birth therefore has a major role to play in increasing the safety of childbirth in SSA. The objective of this paper is to propose a model that can be used to improve the safety of childbirth in low resource countries and to outline why midwife assisted planned home birth with coordination of hospitals is the preferred alternative to unassisted or inadequately assisted planned home birth in SSA.

Human placentophagy: a review.

Placentophagy or placentophagia, the postpartum ingestion of the placenta, is widespread among mammals; however, no contemporary human culture incorporates eating placenta postpartum as part of its traditions. At present, there is an increasing interest in placentophagy among postpartum women, especially in the United States. The placenta can be eaten raw, cooked, roasted, dehydrated, or encapsulated or through smoothies and tinctures. The most frequently used preparation appears to be placenta encapsulation after steaming and dehydration. Numerous companies offer to prepare the placenta for consumption, although the evidence for positive effects of human placentophagy is anecdotal and limited to self-reported surveys. Without any scientific evidence, individuals promoting placentophagy, especially in the form of placenta encapsulation, claim that it is associated with certain physical and psychosocial benefits. We found that there is no scientific evidence of any clinical benefit of placentophagy among humans, and no placental nutrients and hormones are retained in sufficient amounts after placenta encapsulation to be potentially helpful to the mother postpartum. In contrast to the belief of clinical benefits associated with human placentophagy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a warning due to a case in which a newborn infant developed recurrent neonatal group B Streptococcus sepsis after the mother ingested contaminated placenta capsules containing Streptococcus agalactiae. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the intake of placenta capsules should be avoided owing to inadequate eradication of infectious pathogens during the encapsulation process. Therefore, in response to a woman who expresses an interest in placentophagy, physicians should inform her about the reported risks and the absence of clinical benefits associated with the ingestion. In addition, clinicians should inquire regarding a history of placenta ingestion in cases of postpartum maternal or neonatal infections such as group B Streptococcus sepsis. In conclusion, there is no professional responsibility on clinicians to offer placentophagy to pregnant women. Moreover, because placentophagy is potentially harmful with no documented benefit, counseling women should be directive: physicians should discourage this practice. Health care organizations should develop clear clinical guidelines to implement a scientific and professional approach to human placentophagy.

Underlying causes of neonatal deaths in term singleton pregnancies: home births versus hospital births in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the underlying causes of neonatal mortality (NNM) in midwife-attended home births and compare them to hospital births attended by a midwife or a physician in the United States (US). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) linked birth/infant death data set (linked files) for 2008 through 2012 of singleton, term (≥37 weeks) births and normal newborn weights (≥2500 grams). RESULTS: Midwife-attended home births had the highest rate of neonatal deaths [122/95,657 neonatal mortality (NNM) 12.75/10,000; relative risk (RR): 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3-4.4], followed by hospital physician births (8695/14,447,355 NNM 6.02/10,000; RR: 1.7 95% CI 1.6-1.9) and hospital midwife births (480/1,363,199 NNM 3.52/10,000 RR: 1). Among midwife-assisted home births, underlying causes attributed to labor and delivery caused 39.3% (48/122) of neonatal deaths (RR: 13.4; 95% CI 9-19.9) followed by 29.5% due to congenital anomalies (RR: 2.5; 95% CI 1.8-3.6), and 12.3% due to infections (RR: 4.5; 95% CI 2.5-8.1). COMMENT: There are significantly increased risks of neonatal deaths among midwife-attended home births associated with three underlying causes: labor and delivery issues, infections, and fetal malformations. This analysis of the causes of neonatal death in planned home birth shows that it is consistently riskier for newborns to deliver at home than at the hospital. Physicians, midwives, and other health care providers have a professional responsibility to share information about the clinical benefits and risks of clinical management.

Neonatal Mortality of Planned Home Birth in the United States in Relation to Professional Certification of Birth Attendants.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, planned home births in the United States (US) have increased, and have been associated with increased neonatal mortality and other morbidities. In a previous study we reported that neonatal mortality is increased in planned home births but we did not perform an analysis for the presence of professional certification status. PURPOSE: The objective of this study therefore was to undertake an analysis to determine whether the professional certification status of midwives or the home birth setting are more closely associated with the increased neonatal mortality of planned midwife-attended home births in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of our prior study. The 2006-2009 period linked birth/infant deaths data set was analyzed to examine total neonatal deaths (deaths less than 28 days of life) in term singleton births (37+ weeks and newborn weight ≥ 2,500 grams) without documented congenital malformations by certification status of the midwife: certified nurse midwives (CNM), nurse midwives certified by the American Midwifery Certification Board, and "other" or uncertified midwives who are not certified by the American Midwifery Certification Board. RESULTS: Neonatal mortality rates in hospital births attended by certified midwives were significantly lower (3.2/10,000, RR 0.33 95% CI 0.21-0.53) than home births attended by certified midwives (NNM: 10.0/10,000; RR 1) and uncertified midwives (13.7/10,000; RR 1.41 [95% CI, 0.83-2.38]). The difference in neonatal mortality between certified and uncertified midwives at home births did not reach statistical levels (10.0/10,000 births versus 13.7/10,000 births p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that when compared to midwife-attended hospital births, neonatal mortality rates at home births are significantly increased. While NNM was increased in planned homebirths attended by uncertified midwives when compared to certified midwives, this difference was not statistically significant. Neonatal mortality rates at home births were not significantly different in relationship to professional certification status of the birth attendant, whether the delivery was by a certified or an uncertified birth attendant.

Ethics and professional responsibility: Essential dimensions of planned home birth.

Planned home birth is a paradigmatic case study of the importance of ethics and professionalism in contemporary perinatology. In this article we provide a summary of recent analyses of the Centers for Disease Control database on attendants and birth outcomes in the United States. This summary documents the increased risks of neonatal mortality and morbidity of planned home birth as well as bias in Apgar scoring. We then describe the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics, which is based on the professional medical ethics of two major figures in the history of medical ethics, Drs. John Gregory of Scotland and Thomas Percival of England. This model emphasizes the identification and careful balancing of the perinatologist's ethical obligations to pregnant, fetal, and neonatal patients. This model stands in sharp contrast to one-dimensional maternal-rights-based reductionist model of obstetric ethics, which is based solely on the pregnant woman's rights. We then identify the implications of the professional responsibility model for the perinatologist's role in directive counseling of women who express an interest in or ask about planned home birth. Perinatologists should explain the evidence of the increased, preventable perinatal risks of planned home birth, recommend against it, and recommend planned hospital birth. Perinatologists have the professional responsibility to create and sustain a strong culture of safety committed to a home-birth-like experience in the hospital. By routinely fulfilling these professional responsibilities perinatologists can help to prevent the documented, increased risks planned home birth.

Justified skepticism about Apgar scoring in out-of-hospital birth settings.

BACKGROUND: The Apgar score is used worldwide to assess the newborn infant shortly after birth. Apgar scores, including mean scores and those with high cut-off scores, have been used to support claims that planned home birth is as safe as hospital birth. The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution of 5 min Apgar scores among different birth settings and providers in the USA. METHODS: We obtained data from the National Center for Health Statistics of the US Centers for Disease Control birth certificate data for 2007-2010 for all singleton, term births of infants weighing ≥2500 g (n=13,830,531). Patients were then grouped into six categories by birth setting and birth attendant: hospital-based physician, hospital-based midwife, freestanding birth center with either certified nurse midwife and/or other midwife, and home-based delivery with either certified nurse midwife or other midwife. The distribution of each Apgar score from 0 to 10 was assessed for each group. RESULTS: Newborns delivered by other midwives or certified nurse midwives (CNMs) in a birthing center or at home had a significantly higher likelihood of a 5 min maximum Apgar score of 10 than those delivered in a hospital [52.63% in birthing centers, odds ratio (OR) 29.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 28.29-30.06, and 52.44% at home, OR 28.95, 95% CI: 28.40-29.50; CNMs: 16.43% in birthing centers, OR 5.16, 95% CI: 4.99-5.34, and 36.9% at home births, OR 15.29, 95% CI: 14.85-15.73]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows an inexplicable bias of high 5 min Apgar scores of 10 in home or birthing center deliveries. Midwives delivering at home or in birthing centers assigned a significantly higher proportion of Apgar scores of 10 when compared to midwives or physicians delivering in the hospital. Studies that have claimed the safety of out-of-hospital deliveries by using higher mean or high cut-off 5 min Apgar scores and reviews based on these studies should be treated with skepticism by obstetricians and midwives, by pregnant women, and by policy makers. The continued use of studies using higher mean or high cut-off 5 min Apgar scores, and a bias of high Apgar score, to advocate the safety of home births is inappropriate.

Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: 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. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics birth certificate data files from 2010 through 2012 were utilized to analyze the frequency of certain perinatal risk factors that were associated with planned midwife-attended home births in the United States and compare them with deliveries performed in the hospital by certified nurse midwives. Home birth deliveries attended by others were excluded; only planned home births attended by midwives were included. Hospital deliveries attended by certified nurse midwives served as the reference. Perinatal risk factors were those established by ACOG and AAP. RESULTS: Midwife-attended planned home births in the United States had the following risk factors: breech presentation, 0.74% (odds ratio [OR], 3.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.87-3.56); prior cesarean delivery, 4.4% (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 2.0-2.17); twins, 0.64% (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.84-2.31); and gestational age 41 weeks or longer, 28.19% (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.68-1.74). All 4 perinatal risk factors were significantly higher among midwife-attended planned home births when compared with certified nurse midwives-attended hospital births, and 3 of 4 perinatal risk factors were significantly higher in planned home births attended by non-American Midwifery Certification Board (AMCB)-certified midwives (other midwives) when compared with home births attended by certified nurse midwives. Among midwife-attended planned home births, 65.7% of midwives did not meet the ACOG and AAP recommendations for certification by the American Midwifery Certification Board. CONCLUSION: At least 30% of midwife-attended planned home births are not low risk and not within clinical criteria set by ACOG and AAP, and 65.7% of planned home births in the United States are attended by non-AMCB certified midwives, even though both AAP and ACOG state that only AMCB-certified midwives should attend home births.

Early and total neonatal mortality in relation to birth setting in the United States, 2006-2009.

OBJECTIVE: We examined neonatal mortality in relation to birth settings and birth attendants in the United States from 2006 through 2009. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-linked birth and infant death dataset in the United States from 2006 through 2009 were used to assess early and total neonatal mortality for singleton, vertex, and term births without congenital malformations delivered by midwives and physicians in the hospital and midwives and others out of the hospital. Deliveries by hospital midwives served as the reference. RESULTS: Midwife home births had a significantly higher total neonatal mortality risk than deliveries by hospital midwives (1.26 per 1000 births; relative risk [RR], 3.87 vs 0.32 per 1000; P < .001). Midwife home births of 41 weeks or longer (1.84 per 1000; RR, 6.76 vs 0.27 per 1000; P < .001) and midwife home births of women with a first birth (2.19 per 1000; RR, 6.74 vs 0.33 per 1000; P < .001) had significantly higher risks of total neonatal mortality than deliveries by hospital midwives. In midwife home births, neonatal mortality for first births was twice that of subsequent births (2.19 vs 0.96 per 1000; P < .001). Similar results were observed for early neonatal mortality. The excess total neonatal mortality for midwife home births compared with midwife hospital births was 9.32 per 10,000 births, and the excess early neonatal mortality was 7.89 per 10,000 births. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a significantly increased total and early neonatal mortality for home births and even higher risks for women of 41 weeks or longer and women having a first birth. These significantly increased risks of neonatal mortality in home births must be disclosed by all obstetric practitioners to all pregnant women who express an interest in such births.

Planned home birth in the United States and professionalism: a critical assessment.

Planned home birth has been considered by some to be consistent with professional responsibility in patient care. This article critically assesses the ethical and scientific justification for this view and shows it to be unjustified. We critically assess recent statements by professional associations of obstetricians, one that sanctions and one that endorses planned home birth. We base our critical appraisal on the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics, which is based on the ethical concept of medicine from the Scottish and English Enlightenments of the 18th century. Our critical assessment supports the following conclusions. Because of its significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, planned home birth in the United States is not clinically or ethically benign. Attending planned home birth, no matter one's training or experience, is not acting in a professional capacity, because this role preventably results in clinically unnecessary and therefore clinically unacceptable perinatal risk. It is therefore not consistent with the ethical concept of medicine as a profession for any attendant to planned home birth to represent himself or herself as a "professional." Obstetric healthcare associations should neither sanction nor endorse planned home birth. Instead, these associations should recommend against planned home birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should respond to expressions of interest in planned home birth by pregnant women by informing them that it incurs significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, by recommending strongly against planned home birth, and by recommending strongly for planned hospital birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should routinely provide excellent obstetric care to all women transferred to the hospital from a planned home birth.The professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics requires obstetricians to address and remedy legitimate dissatisfaction with some hospital settings and address patients' concerns about excessive interventions. Creating a sustained culture of comprehensive safety, which cannot be achieved in planned home birth, informed by compassionate and respectful treatment of pregnant women, should be a primary focus of professional obstetric responsibility.

Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the occurrence of 5-minute Apgar scores of 0 and seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction for 4 groups by birth setting and birth attendant (hospital physician, hospital midwife, free-standing birth center midwife, and home midwife) in the United States from 2007-2010. METHODS: Data from the United States Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics birth certificate data files were used to assess deliveries by physicians and midwives in and out of the hospital for the 4-year period from 2007-2010 for singleton term births (≥37 weeks' gestation) and ≥2500 g. Five-minute Apgar scores of 0 and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction were analyzed for 4 groups by birth setting and birth attendant (hospital physician, hospital midwife, freestanding birth center midwife, and home midwife). RESULTS: Home births (relative risk [RR], 10.55) and births in free-standing birth centers (RR, 3.56) attended by midwives had a significantly higher risk of a 5-minute Apgar score of 0 (P < .0001) than hospital births attended by physicians or midwives. Home births (RR, 3.80) and births in freestanding birth centers attended by midwives (RR, 1.88) had a significantly higher risk of neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction (P < .0001) than hospital births attended by physicians or midwives. CONCLUSION: The increased risk of 5-minute Apgar score of 0 and seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction of out-of-hospital births should be disclosed by obstetric practitioners to women who express an interest in out-of-hospital birth. Physicians should address patients' motivations for out-of-hospital delivery by continuously improving safe and compassionate care of pregnant, fetal, and neonatal patients in the hospital setting.