Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Non-hormonal methods for induction of labour.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The percentage of induced live birth has more than doubled from the 1990s to 2008. Induction of labour can either be based on medical indications, or performed as an elective procedure. A large range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities are available for the induction of labour and the optimal method for labour induction is unknown. This article is aimed to examine literature on non-hormonal methods for labour induction, published from January 2012 to May 2013. RECENT FINDINGS: Eleven studies were identified in our search and included into the review. Foley balloon catheter appears to be more cost-effective and commonly used non-hormonal technique for induction of labour, although further meta-analysis is required in this area. Currently, there is not enough evidence to support routine use in all women for labour induction among other methods including amniotomy, acupuncture, sexual intercourse, isosorbide mononitrate, hypnosis, castor oil and breast stimulation. The latest three studies suggest that amniotomy may increase need for oxytocin augmentation during labour induction. SUMMARY: Many non-hormonal methods for labour induction still require further evidence to support their use within the clinical setting. Balloon catheter seems to be a more widely accepted non-hormonal method that has been supported by various literatures.

Amniotomy and cord prolapse.

Research shows that artificially rupturing the amniotic sac (amniotomy) can cause umbilical cord prolapse. Amniotomy became a routine part of obstetrical care with the introduction of active management, without evidence of benefit. In the 30 years since active management was introduced, the rate at which amniotomy causes umbilical cord prolapse has not been directly studied. Two controlled studies from Turkey from 2002 and 2006 are the only published studies that provide enough data to extract the rate at which cord prolapse follows amniotomy. They show that 1 cord prolapse results from every 300 amniotomies (0.3%). There is data suggesting amniotomy may also increase neonatal GBS infection, maternal pain and fetal blood loss if placental blood vessels are punctured.

The amniotomy question: examining the pros and cons of rupturing membranes.

The culture of birth establishes practices and embraces rituals. Currently there is a movement toward midwifery and away from hospital births as women and professions question the values of some practices and interventions common in hospital births. Amniotomy is a well-established practice that is accepted as an intervention to help women in their birth process, with the hope that it will shorten labor. There is little research regarding the psychological implication of amniotomy on the infant. This paper explores the pros and cons of amniotomy, its role as a ritual for birth attendants and the possible psychological effects on the infant.

Análise crítica dos métodos não-farmacológicos de indução do trabalho de parto / Critical analysis of non-pharmacological methods for induction of labor

A indução do trabalho de parto tem se tornado prática corrente na Obstetrícia moderna. Vários métodos têm sido propostos, e dentre eles os não-farmacológicos merecem destaque. Estes métodos podem ser classificados como naturais e artificiais. Os estudos realizados para avaliar os diversos métodos naturais, como homeopatia, acupuntura, óleo de rícino, enema, banho quente de imersão, relações sexuais e estimulação mamária para indução do trabalho de parto, são heterogêneos e ainda não existe evidência suficiente de que possam ser utilizados na prática clínica. Dentre os métodos artificiais, o descolamento das membranas encontra-se associado à indução efetiva do parto, porém, o procedimento é doloroso e pode ser desconfortável para as mulheres. A capacidade máxima de dilatação da laminária ocorre entre 12 e 24 horas, entretanto tem sido pouco utilizada devido ao surgimento de métodos mais efetivos. A sonda de Foley constitui um procedimento efetivo que pode ser usado na presença de contraindicações para os métodos farmacológicos, especialmente em gestantes com cesárea anterior, porém persistem preocupações quanto ao risco de infecção materna e fetal. Por outro lado, a ruptura artificial das membranas e os métodos mecânicos ainda não podem ser recomendados, porque as evidências sobre sua efetividade e segurança são insuficientes, mesmo quando associados à administração intravenosa de ocitocina.

Induction of labor has been currently a routine practice in Obstetrics. Several methods have been proposed and among them the non-pharmacological methods deserve consideration. These methods are classified as natural and artificial ones. Studies conducted to evaluate natural methods, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, ricin oil, enema, hot water immersion, sexual intercourse and nipple stimulation for labor induction, are heterogeneous and there is no enough evidence yet to support their use in clinical practice. Among artificial methods, membrane sweeping is associated with success on labor induction but can be a painful procedure, which is considered uncomfortable by several women. The maximum dilation of laminaria occurs between 12 and 24 hours, but this method has been less used because other methods are more effective. Foley catheter is a safe and effective procedure that can be used in the presence of contraindications for pharmacological methods, especially in pregnant women with previous cesarean section. Notwithstanding, there are still concerns about the risk of maternal/fetal infection. On the other hand, artificial rupture of membranes (amniotomy) cannot be recommended so far because evidences about its effectiveness and safety are insufficient, even when associated with intravenous administration of oxytocin.

Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium.

Around 20% of all deliveries are preceded by labour induction, a proportion that has not varied dramatically over recent years. Fetal death was the only indication for labour induction centuries ago, while this is now a very rare indication, with prolonged pregnancy and maternal hypertensive disorders being the major indications for the last 50-60 years. Techniques for inducing labour have also changed from dietary delicacies and verbal threats giving way to physical stimulation mainly achieved by cervical stretching and amniotomy and more recently to sophisticated pharmacological manipulation using oxytocin and prostaglandins, based on our expanding knowledge of the physiological processes involved in spontaneous parturition. Relaxin, antiprogestins, nitric oxide as well as complementary medicines have also been explored in recent years. Successful induction is, however, still not guaranteed and there has been increasing emphasis during the past decade on exploring strategies for identifying the probability of success. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in cervical mucus, maternal serum nitrite/nitrate concentrations, ultrasound delineation of cervical form and electrical impedance measurements across the cervix are all being investigated. Safety, success, and patient satisfaction continue to be the major objectives with economic evaluations now becoming a significant factor in the search for the ideal induction method.

Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction.

The overall rate of induction of labor in the United States in 1993 was 134 per 1,000 live births, or over 527,000 of the four million births that occur annually in the United States. Indications for labor induction include postdate pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and maternal medical complications, such as diabetes mellitus and pregnancy-induced hypertension. This article briefly reviews common indications for induction of labor and the importance of cervical ripening. It then addresses methods used to hasten cervical ripening and to induce labor, ranging from the more "natural" and noninvasive methods, such as nipple stimulation, to the newest commercially available formulation of prostaglandin. Methods well documented in the scientific literature, as well as those commonly used but less well studied, are included. Although one may argue about the "invasive" nature of these methods, they are addressed, in general, from the most natural methods to the latest pharmacologic methods, and they include the following: sexual intercourse, nipple/breast stimulation, herbal preparations, homeopathic solutions, castor oil, enemas, acupuncture, membrane sweeping or stripping, mechanical dilation (balloon catheters, laminaria, and synthetic osmotic dilators), amniotomy, and pharmacologic hormonal preparations (prostaglandin E2, oxytocin, misoprostol, mifepristone, and relaxin).