The carbon footprint of different modes of birth in the UK and the Netherlands: An exploratory study using life cycle assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the carbon footprint of caesarean and vaginal birth. DESIGN: Life cycle assessment (LCA). SETTING: Tertiary maternity units and home births in the UK and the Netherlands. POPULATION: Birthing women. METHODS: A cradle-to-grave LCA using openLCA software to model the carbon footprint of different modes of delivery in the UK and the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Carbon footprint' (in kgCO2 equivalents [kgCO2 e]). RESULTS: Excluding analgesia, the carbon footprint of a caesarean birth in the UK was 31.21 kgCO2 e, compared with 12.47 kgCO2 e for vaginal birth in hospital and 7.63 kgCO2 e at home. In the Netherlands the carbon footprint of a caesarean was higher (32.96 kgCO2 e), but lower for vaginal birth in hospital and home (10.74 and 6.27 kgCO2 e, respectively). Emissions associated with analgesia for vaginal birth ranged from 0.08 kgCO2 e (with opioid analgesia) to 237.33 kgCO2 e (nitrous oxide with oxygen). Differences in analgesia use resulted in a lower average carbon footprint for vaginal birth in the Netherlands than the UK (11.64 versus 193.26 kgCO2 e). CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of a caesarean is higher than for a vaginal birth if analgesia is excluded, but this is very sensitive to the analgesia used; use of nitrous oxide with oxygen multiplies the carbon footprint of vaginal birth 25-fold. Alternative methods of pain relief or nitrous oxide destruction systems would lead to a substantial improvement in carbon footprint. Although clinical need and maternal choice are paramount, protocols should consider the environmental impact of different choices.

Pessary or Progesterone to Prevent Preterm delivery in women with short cervical length: the Quadruple P randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is in quantity and in severity the most important topic in obstetric care in the developed world. Progestogens and cervical pessaries have been studied as potential preventive treatments with conflicting results. So far, no study has compared both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The Quadruple P study aims to compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cervical pessary in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcome associated with preterm birth in asymptomatic women with a short cervix, in singleton and multiple pregnancies separately. It is a nationwide open-label multicentre randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a superiority design and will be accompanied by an economic analysis. Pregnant women undergoing the routine anomaly scan will be offered cervical length measurement between 18 and 22 weeks in a singleton and at 16-22 weeks in a multiple pregnancy. Women with a short cervix, defined as less than, or equal to 35 mm in a singleton and less than 38 mm in a multiple pregnancy, will be invited to participate in the study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated to receive either progesterone or a cervical pessary. Following randomization, the silicone cervical pessary will be placed during vaginal examination or 200 mg progesterone capsules will be daily self-administered vaginally. Both interventions will be continued until 36 weeks gestation or until delivery, whichever comes first. Primary outcome will be composite adverse perinatal outcome of perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III and IV, periventricular leukomalacia higher than grade I, necrotizing enterocolitis higher than stage I, Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) or culture proven sepsis. These outcomes will be measured up until 10 weeks after the expected due date. Secondary outcomes will be, among others, time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 28, 32, 34 and 37 weeks, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for threatened preterm labour and costs. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on whether vaginal progesterone or a cervical pessary is more effective in decreasing adverse perinatal outcome in both singletons and multiples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NTR 4414 . Date of registration January 29th 2014.

Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.

BACKGROUND: Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal delivery and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative delivery. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable girdle. A survey in the United States found that 84% of the respondents used fundal pressure in their obstetric centres.There is little evidence to demonstrate that the use of fundal pressure is effective to improve maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Several anecdotal reports suggest that fundal pressure is associated with maternal and neonatal complications: for example, uterine rupture, neonatal fractures and brain damage. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and adverse effects of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies. We extracted the data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We excluded two of three identified trials from the analyses for methodological reasons. This left no studies on manual fundal pressure. We included one study (500 women) of fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure to reduce operative delivery rates. The methodological quality of the included study was good.Use of the inflatable belt did not change the rate of operative deliveries (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11). Fetal outcomes in terms of five-minute Apgar scores below seven (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68), low arterial cord pH (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55) and admission to the neonatal unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.45) were also not different between the groups. There was no severe neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity. There was an increase in intact perineum (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.77), as well as anal sphincter tears (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02) in the belt group. There were no data on long-term outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available to conclude on beneficial or harmful effects of manual fundal pressure. Good quality randomised controlled trials are needed to study the effect of manual fundal pressure. Fundal pressure by an insufflatable belt during the second stage of labour does not appear to increase the rate of spontaneous vaginal births in women with epidural analgesia. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. The effects on the maternal perineum are inconclusive.

Outcomes of pregnancies in women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes, in an ethnically mixed population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of pregnancies in women with pre-existing, type 1 and type 2, diabetes and to examine the influence of ethnicity on these outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Large district hospital in Yorkshire with an ethnically mixed population. SAMPLE: Case series of all 202 pregnancies in women with pre-existing diabetes, ending in miscarriage, termination of pregnancy or delivery between January 1994 and December 2002. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis comparing outcomes in type of diabetes and in ethnic group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fetal loss, perinatal and infant mortality and congenital anomaly. RESULTS: All 14 stillbirths and infant deaths and 13 of the 15 congenital malformations were to Asian women. Analysis within this ethnic group showed a very high rate of adverse birth outcome for type 1 diabetic women and for type 2 diabetic women on insulin before the pregnancy. Total pregnancy loss among type 1 diabetic women was 156 per 1000 and among type 2 diabetic women on insulin was 167 per 1000. Congenital abnormality rates were 156 per 1000 for type 1 diabetic women and 261 per 1000 for type 2 diabetic women on insulin. Asian type 2 diabetic women not on insulin prior to pregnancy had significantly better outcomes: Total pregnancy loss was 123 per 1000 and congenital abnormality rate was 32 per 1000. After adjustment for confounders, including type of diabetes, Asian women had significantly worse outcomes (combined perinatal loss and malformation) than Caucasian women [odds ratio (OR) 4.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-21.1]. CONCLUSION: Ethnicity has a significant impact on the outcome of diabetic pregnancies, with worse outcomes for babies born to Asian mothers compared with Caucasian mothers. The use of insulin pre-pregnancy rather than type of diabetes appears to predict adverse outcome.