Perinatal morbidity among women with a previous caesarean delivery (PRISMA trial): a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with a previous caesarean delivery face a difficult choice in their next pregnancy: planning another caesarean or attempting vaginal delivery, both of which are associated with potential maternal and perinatal complications. This trial aimed to assess whether a multifaceted intervention, which promoted person-centred decision making and best practices, would reduce the risk of major perinatal morbidity among women with one previous caesarean delivery. METHODS: We conducted an open, multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled trial of a multifaceted 2-year intervention in 40 hospitals in Quebec among women with one previous caesarean delivery, in which hospitals were the units of randomisation and women the units of analysis. Randomisation was stratified according to level of care, using blocked randomisation. Hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention group (implementation of best practices and provision of tools that aimed to support decision making about mode of delivery, including an estimation of the probability of vaginal delivery and an ultrasound estimation of the risk of uterine rupture), or the control group (no intervention). The primary outcome was a composite risk of major perinatal morbidity. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15346559. FINDINGS: 21 281 eligible women delivered during the study period, from April 1, 2016 to Dec 13, 2019 (10 514 in the intervention group and 10 767 in the control group). None were lost to follow-up. There was a significant reduction in the rate of major perinatal morbidity from the baseline period to the intervention period in the intervention group as compared with the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for incremental change over time, 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99]; p=0·042; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [95% CI -2·0 to -0·1]). Major maternal morbidity was significantly reduced in the intervention group as compared with the control group (adjusted OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·33-0·89]; p=0·016). Minor perinatal and maternal morbidity, caesarean delivery, and uterine rupture rates did not differ significantly between groups. INTERPRETATION: A multifaceted intervention supporting women in their choice of mode of delivery and promoting best practices resulted in a significant reduction in rates of major perinatal and maternal morbidity, without an increase in the rate of caesarean or uterine rupture. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, MOP-142448).

No. 355-Physiologic Basis of Pain in Labour and Delivery: An Evidence-Based Approach to its Management.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence relating to nonpharmacological approaches in the management of pain during labour and delivery. To formulate recommendations for the usage of nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. OPTIONS: Nonpharmacological methods available for pain management during labour and delivery exist. These should be included in the counselling and care of women. EVIDENCE: PubMed and Medline were searched for articles in French and English on subjects related to "breastfeeding," "pain," "epidural," "anaesthesia," "analgesia," "labour," "labor," and combined with "gate control theory," "alternative therapies," "massage," "position," "mobility," "TENS," "bathing," "DNIC," "acupuncture," "acupressure," "sterile water injection," "higher center," "control mind," "cognitive structuring," "holistic health," "complementary therapy(ies)," "breathing," "relaxation," "mental imagery," "visualization," "mind focusing," "hypnosis," "auto-hypnosis," "sophrology," "mind and body interventions," "music," "odors," "biofeedback," "Lamaze," "Bonapace," "prenatal training," "gymnastic," "chanting," "haptonomy," "environment," "transcutaneous electrical stimulus-stimulation," "antenatal education," "support," "continuous support," "psychosocial support," "psychosomatic medicine," "supportive care," "companion," "intrapartum care," "nurse," "midwife(ves)," "father," "doula," "caregiver," " hormones," "oxytocin," "endorphin," "prolactin," "catecholamine," "adrenaline," and "noradrenaline" from 1990 to December 2015. Additional studies were identified by screening reference lists from selected studies and from expert suggestions. No language restrictions were applied. VALIDATION METHODS: The quality of the evidence is rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this report. BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COST: The nonpharmacological method encourages an incremental approach to pain management that contributes to reduced interventions through optimal use of the woman's neurophysiologic and endocrine resources and a better understanding of the physiology of stress and pain during labour. GUIDELINE UPDATE: The guideline will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all of part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycles, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations. SPONSORS: This guideline was developed with resources funded by The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Nonpharmacologic approaches for pain management during labor compared with usual care: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nonpharmacologic approaches to pain relief during labor, according to their endogenous mechanism of action, on obstetric interventions, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCE: Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the MRCT databases were used to screen studies from January 1990 to December 2012. STUDY SELECTION: According to Cochrane criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials that compared nonpharmacologic approaches for pain relief during labor to usual care, using intention-to-treat method. RESULTS: Nonpharmacologic approaches, based on Gate Control (water immersion, massage, ambulation, positions) and Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control (acupressure, acupuncture, electrical stimulation, water injections), are associated with a reduction in epidural analgesia and a higher maternal satisfaction with childbirth. When compared with nonpharmacologic approaches based on Central Nervous System Control (education, attention deviation, support), usual care is associated with increased odds of epidural OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.05-1.23), cesarean delivery OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.44), use of oxytocin OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.43), labor duration (29.7 min, 95% CI 4.5-54.8), and a lesser satisfaction with childbirth. Tailored nonpharmacologic approaches, based on continuous support, were the most effective for reducing obstetric interventions. CONCLUSION: Nonpharmacologic approaches to relieve pain during labor, when used as a part of hospital pain relief strategies, provide significant benefits to women and their infants without causing additional harm.

Preventable obstetrical interventions: how many caesarean sections can be prevented in Canada?

Public health authorities have been alarmed by the progressive rise in rates of Caesarean section in Canada, approaching one birth in three in several provinces. We aimed therefore to consider what were preventable obstetrical interventions in women with a low-risk pregnancy and to propose an analytic framework for the reduction of the rate of CS. We obtained statistical variations of CS rates over time, across regions, and within professional practices from MED-ÉCHO, the Quebec hospitalization database, from 1969 to 2009. Data were extracted from a recent systematic review of the cascade of obstetrical interventions to calculate the population-attributable fractions for each intervention associated with an increased probability of CS. We thereby identified expectant management (as an alternative to labour induction) and planned vaginal birth after CS as the leading strategies for potentially reducing rates of CS in women at low risk. For vaginal birth after CS, an increase to its 1995 level could lower the current CS rate of 23.2% (2009 to 2010) to 21.0%. Other alternatives to obstetrical interventions with a potential for lowering CS rates included non-pharmacological pain control methods (such as continuous support during childbirth) in addition to usual care, intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart (instead of electronic fetal monitoring), and multidisciplinary internal quality assessment audits. We believe, therefore, that the concept of preventable CS is supported by empirical evidence, and we identified realistic strategies to maintain a CS rate in Quebec near 20%.

Les autorités en matière de santé publique ont été alarmées par la hausse graduelle des taux de césarienne (CS) au Canada (près d'une naissance sur trois dans plusieurs provinces). Nous avons donc cherché à identifier les interventions obstétricales qui pouvaient être évitées chez les femmes qui connaissent une grossesse les exposant à de faibles risques, ainsi qu'à proposer un cadre analytique pour la réduction du taux de CS. Les variations statistiques, entre 1969 et 2009, des taux de CS avec le temps, d'une région à l'autre et en fonction des pratiques professionnelles ont été tirées de MED-ÉCHO (la base de données sur l'hospitalisation au Québec). Des données ont été tirées d'une récente analyse systématique de la cascade d'interventions obstétricales en vue de calculer les fractions étiologiques du risque pour chacune des interventions associées à une probabilité accrue de CS. Nous avons ainsi identifié la prise en charge non interventionniste (à titre de solution de rechange au déclenchement du travail) et l'accouchement vaginal planifié après CS comme étant les principales stratégies pouvant permettre la réduction des taux de CS chez les femmes exposées à de faibles risques. Pour ce qui est de l'accouchement vaginal après CS, une hausse jusqu'à son niveau de 1995 pourrait faire passer le taux actuel de CS de 23,2 % (de 2009 à 2010) à 21,0 %. Parmi les solutions de rechange aux interventions obstétricales qui présentent le potentiel d'abaisser les taux de CS, on trouvait les méthodes non pharmacologiques de maîtrise de la douleur (comme l'offre d'un soutien continu pendant l'accouchement) s'ajoutant aux soins habituels, l'auscultation intermittente du cœur fœtal (plutôt que le monitorage électronique du fœtus) et les audits internes multidisciplinaires de la qualité. Nous estimons donc que le concept de la CS évitable est soutenu par des données empiriques et nous avons identifié des stratégies réalistes permettant d'assurer le maintien, au Québec, d'un taux de CS se situant près de 20 %.

The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of prior single-layer compared with double-layer closure on the risk of uterine rupture. METHODS: A multicenter, case-control study was performed on women with a single, prior, low-transverse cesarean who experienced complete uterine rupture during a trial of labor. For each case, three women who underwent a trial of labor without uterine rupture after a prior low-transverse cesarean delivery were selected as control participants. Risk factors such as prior uterine closure, suture material, diabetes, prior vaginal delivery, labor induction, cervical ripening, birth weight, prostaglandin use, maternal age, gestational age, and interdelivery interval were compared between groups. Conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-six cases of uterine rupture, including 28 with adverse neonatal outcome, and 288 control participants were assessed. The rate of single-layer closure was 36% (35 of 96) in the case group and 20% (58 of 288) in the control group (P<.01). In multivariable analysis, single-layer closure (odds ratio [OR] 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-5.28) and birth weight greater than 3,500 g (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.21-3.38) were linked with increased rates of uterine rupture, whereas prior vaginal birth was a protective factor (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.93). Single-layer closure was also related to uterine rupture associated with adverse neonatal outcome (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.01-8.27). CONCLUSION: Prior single-layer closure carries more than twice the risk of uterine rupture compared with double-layer closure. Single-layer closure should be avoided in women who could contemplate future vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.