Intrapartum and neonatal mortality among low-risk women in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands: a propensity score matched study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intrapartum and neonatal mortality in low-risk term women starting labour in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a propensity score matched study using data from our national perinatal register, completed with data from medical files. We studied women without major risk factors with singleton pregnancies who gave birth at term between 2005 and 2008 in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands. Major risk factors comprised non-vertex position of the fetus, previous Caesarean birth, hypertension, (gestational) diabetes mellitus, post-term pregnancy (≥42 weeks), prolonged rupture of membranes (>24 hours), vaginal bleeding in the second half of pregnancy or induced labour. Groups were devided by midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour. The primary outcome was intrapartum and neonatal (<28 days) mortality. Secondary outcomes included obstetric interventions, 5 min Apgar scores<7 and neonatal intensive care admittance for >24 hours. RESULTS: We studied 57 396 women. Perinatal mortality occurred in 30 of 46 764 (0.64‰) women in midwife-led care and in 2 of 10 632 (0.19‰) women in obstetrician-led care (OR 3.4, 95% CI 0.82 to 14.3). A propensity score matched analysis in a 1:1 ratio with 10 632 women per group revealed an OR for perinatal mortality of 4.0 (95% CI 0.85 to 18.9). CONCLUSION: Among low-risk women, midwife-led care at the onset of labour was associated with a statistically non-significant higher mortality rate.

Risk indicators for referral during labor from community midwife to gynecologist: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk indicators for referral during labor from community midwife to a gynecologist in a prospective cohort of women with a singleton term pregnancy, starting labor with a community midwife between 2000 and 2007, registered in the Dutch national perinatal registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Referral from community midwife to a gynecologist during labor, because of fetal distress, failure to progress in second stage of labor, meconium stained amniotic fluid, failure to progress in first stage of labor, wish for pain relief, a combination of other less urgent reasons or no referral (reference). RESULTS: A total of 241 595 (32%) were referred from community midwife to a gynecologist during labor, because of fetal distress (FD;5%), failure to progress in second stage of labor (FTP2;14%), meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF;24%), failure to progress in first stage of labor (FTP1;17%), wish for pain relief (WFPR;7%) or a combination of other less urgent reasons, for example, malpresentation (e.g. breech) or other nonspecified problems (OTHER;33%). The strongest overall risk indicators were gestational age (lower risk of referral because of FD, FTP2, MSAF, FTP1 and WFPR and a higher risk of referral because of OTHER at a gestational age between 37(+0) and 37(+)(6) weeks, and higher risks of referral for all reasons at a gestational age ≥41(+)(0) when compared to a gestational age between 38 (+)(0) and 40 (+)(6) weeks and no referral), the intended place of delivery (higher risk of all types of referral compared to no referral when the intended place of delivery was either at a midwife-led birth center or a hospital instead of at home) and birth history (higher risk of all types of referral compared to no referral when women had a history of instrumental vaginal delivery or when they were nulliparous instead of being multiparous without a history of an instrument vaginal delivery). Risk indicators associated with specific reasons of referral were maternal age, ethnicity, degree of urbanization, social economic status, neonatal gender and birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk pregnant women, a referral during labor is associated with readily available risk indicators. These risk indicators may be used to increase referral risk awareness and to counsel women for the intended place to start labor.

Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour.

BACKGROUND: Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013) and PubMed (1966 to 6 April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.

Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is a common intervention in obstetric practice. Traditionally, in most hospitals induction of labour with medication starts early in the morning, with the start of the working day for the day shift. In human and animal studies spontaneous onset of labour is proven to have a circadian rhythm with a preference for start of labour in the evening. Moreover, when spontaneous labour starts in the evening, the total duration of labour and delivery shortens and fewer obstetric interventions are needed. Based on these observations one might assume that starting induction of labour in the evening, in harmony with the circadian rhythm of natural birth, is more beneficial for both mother and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether induction of labour starting in the evening, coinciding with the endogenous circadian rhythm, improves the outcome of labour compared with induction of labour starting in the early morning, organised to coincide with office hours. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Trials Search Co-ordinator to search the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012). In addition, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to 16 February 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 16 February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We excluded trials that employed quasi-random methods of treatment allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: The search resulted in 2693 articles that we screened on title and abstract for eligibility.Thirteen studies were selected for full text assessment. We included three randomised trials involving 1150 women. Two trials compared the administration of prostaglandins in the morning versus the evening in women with an unfavourable cervix, and one trial compared induction of labour in the morning versus the evening in women with a favourable cervix and/or ruptured membranes with intravenous oxytocin. Because of the different mechanism, we have reported results for these two comparisons separately.In the two trials comparing prostaglandins in the morning versus the evening there were few clinically significant differences between study groups for maternal or neonatal outcomes. One study reported a statistically significant preference by women to start induction of labour with prostaglandins in the morning.In the trial examining induction of labour with intravenous oxytocin, the number of neonatal admissions was statistically significantly increased in the group of women that started induction in the morning. This finding was unexpected, and while the trial authors offered some possible explanations for this, it is important that any future trials examine neonatal outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account women's preferences that favoured administration of prostaglandins in the morning, we conclude that caregivers should preferably consider administering prostaglandins in the morning.There is no strong evidence that induction of labour with intravenous oxytocin in the evening is more or less effective than induction in the morning. Consideration may be given to start induction of labour with oxytocin in the evening when indicated.

Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour.

BACKGROUND: Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 April 2012) and PubMed (1966 to 7 March 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.