| Literature DB >> 20545673 |
S Berglund1, H Pettersson, S Cnattingius, C Grunewald.
Abstract
Please cite this paper as: Berglund S, Pettersson H, Cnattingius S, Grunewald C. How often is a low Apgar score the result of substandard care during labour? BJOG 2010;117:968-978. Objective To increase our knowledge of the occurrence of substandard care during labour. Design A population-based case-control study. Setting Stockholm County. Population Infants born in the period 2004-2006 in Stockholm County. Methods Cases and controls were identified from the Swedish Medical Birth Register, had a gestational age of >/=33 complete weeks, had planned for a vaginal delivery, and had a normal cardiotocographic (CTG) recording on admission. We compared 313 infants with an Apgar score of <7 at 5 minutes of age with 313 randomly selected controls with a full Apgar score, matched for year of birth. Main outcome measure Substandard care during labour. Results We found that 62% of cases and 36% of controls were subject to some form of substandard care during labour. In half of the cases and in 12% of the controls, CTG was abnormal for >/=45 minutes before birth. Fetal blood sampling was not performed in 79% of both cases and controls, when indicated. Oxytocin was provided without signs of uterine inertia in 20% of both cases and controls. Uterine contractions were hyperstimulated by oxytocin in 29% of cases and in 9% of controls, and the dose of oxytocin was increased despite abnormal CTG in 19% and 6% of cases and controls, respectively. Assuming that substandard care is a risk factor for low Apgar score, we estimate that up to 42% of the cases could be prevented by avoiding substandard care. Conclusions There was substandard care during labour of two-thirds of infants with a low Apgar score. The main reasons for substandard care were related to misinterpretation of CTG, not acting on an abnormal CTG in a timely fashion and incautious use of oxytocin.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20545673 PMCID: PMC2901517 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02565.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BJOG ISSN: 1470-0328 Impact factor: 6.531
Descriptive data and risk for an Apgar score of <7 at 5 minutes of age
| Cases | Controls | Odds ratios (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||
| ≤24 | 21 | 6.7 | 40 | 12.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 25–29 | 78 | 24.9 | 72 | 23.0 | 2.1 (1.1–3.8) | 2.8 (1.4–5.8) |
| 30–34 | 131 | 41.9 | 125 | 39.9 | 2.0 (1.1–3.6) | 3.2 (1.6–6.6) |
| ≥35 | 83 | 26.5 | 76 | 24.3 | 2.1 (1.1–3.8) | 4.0 (1.8–8.6) |
| 0 | 214 | 68.4 | 148 | 47.3 | 2.9 (2.0–4.1) | 2.6 (1.6–4.0) |
| ≥1, no caesarean section | 76 | 24.3 | 151 | 48.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| ≥1, at least one caesarean section | 23 | 7.3 | 14 | 4.5 | 3.3 (1.6–6.7) | 2.3 (1.0–5.2) |
| 0 | 287 | 91.7 | 289 | 92.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 1 | 4 | 1.3 | 13 | 4.2 | 0.3 (0.1–1.0) | 0.2 (0–0.6) |
| ≥2 | 20 | 6.4 | 8 | 2.6 | 2.5 (1.1–5.8) | 1.6 (0.6–4.1) |
| Data missing | 2 | 0.6 | 3 | 1.0 | ||
| Spontaneous | 228 | 72.8 | 263 | 84.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Induced | 85 | 27.2 | 50 | 16.0 | 2.0 (1.3–2.9) | 1.6 (1.0–2.5) |
| No | 113 | 36.1 | 190 | 60.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 200 | 63.9 | 123 | 39.3 | 2.7 (2.0–3.8) | 1.9 (1.3–2.8) |
| 1 Jan–15 Jun | 174 | 55.6 | 156 | 49.8 | 1.4 (1.0–2.1) | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) |
| 16 Jun–15 Aug | 59 | 18.8 | 51 | 16.3 | 1.5 (1.0–2.5) | 1.4 (0.8–2.4) |
| 16 Aug–31 Dec | 80 | 25.6 | 106 | 33.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Spontaneous vaginal | 124 | 39.6 | 269 | 85.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Vacuum extraction | 108 | 34.5 | 25 | 8.0 | 9.4 (5.8–15.2) | 7.5 (4.3–12.8) |
| Forceps | 5 | 1.6 | 1 | 0.3 | 10.8 (1.2–93.8) | 6.8 (0.7–63.4) |
| Caesarean section | 76 | 24.3 | 18 | 5.8 | 9.6 (5.3–15.9) | 7.2 (3.8–13.9) |
| 33 + 0–36 + 6 | 28 | 9.0 | 11 | 3.5 | 3.0 (1.4–6.1) | 2.3 (1.1–4.9) |
| 37 + 0–41 + 6 | 240 | 76.7 | 282 | 90.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| ≥42 | 45 | 14.4 | 20 | 6.4 | 2.6 (1.5–4.6) | 2.7 (1.5–4.7) |
| Very small | 12 | 3.8 | 3 | 1.0 | 5.0 (1.4–18.0) | 4.9 (1.3–18.3) |
| Moderately small | 65 | 20.8 | 59 | 18.8 | 1.4 (0.9–2.1) | 1.3 (0.8–2.0) |
| Normal | 160 | 51.6 | 200 | 63.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Moderately large | 65 | 20.8 | 43 | 13.7 | 1.9 (1.2–2.9) | 1.9 (1.2–3.0) |
| Very large | 8 | 2.6 | 8 | 2.6 | 1.2 (0.5–3.4) | 1.2 (0.4–3.4) |
| Missing | 3 | 1.0 | ||||
| Male | 190 | 60.7 | 153 | 48.9 | 1.6 (1.2–2.2) | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) |
| Female | 123 | 39.3 | 160 | 51.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Occiput anterior | 282 | 90.1 | 301 | 96.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Other cephalic | 24 | 7.7 | 10 | 3.2 | 2.6 (1.2–5.4) | 2.7 (1.2–5.9) |
| Breech | 7 | 2.2 | 2 | 0.6 | 3.7 (0.8–18.1) | 2.4 (0.4–13.4) |
| Simplex | 300 | 95.8 | 310 | 99.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Duplex | 13 | 4.2 | 3 | 1.0 | 4.5 (1.3–15.9) | 2.6 (0.6–10.4) |
Analysis of maternal characteristics and characteristics related to care are adjusted for both maternal characteristics and characteristics related to care, and is based on 264 cases and 268 controls. Analyses of infant characteristics are adjusted for infant characteristics, and are based on 310 cases and 313 controls.
Definitions are included in the Methods section.
Occiput posterior, forehead or facial presentation.
Substandard care during labour and risk of an Apgar score of <7 at 5 minutes of age
| Cases | Controls | Odds ratios (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||
| No event of substandard care | 118 | 37.7 | 202 | 64.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Any event of substandard care | 195 | 62.3 | 111 | 35.5 | 3.0 (2.1–4.1) | 2.6 (1.8–3.8) |
| Correct intervals of CTG | 288 | 92.0 | 289 | 92.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Intermittent despite indication for continuous use of CTG | 25 | 8.0 | 24 | 7.7 | 1.0 (0.6–1.9) | 1.0 (0.5–2.0) |
| Normal CTG | 67 | 21.4 | 207 | 66.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Abnormal CTG, <45 minutes before birth | 94 | 30.0 | 67 | 21.4 | 4.3 (2.9–6.6) | 4.2 (2.6–6.8) |
| Abnormal CTG, 45–90 minutes before birth | 65 | 20.8 | 23 | 7.3 | 8.7 (5.0–15.1) | 7.6 (4.0–13.9) |
| Abnormal CTG, ≥90 minutes before birth | 87 | 27.8 | 16 | 5.1 | 16.8 (9.2–30.6) | 15.1 (7.6–30.1) |
| No indication for FBS | 157 | 50.2 | 279 | 89.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| FBS when indicated | 33 | 10.5 | 7 | 2.2 | 8.4 (3.6–19.4) | 7.3 (3.0–17.9) |
| FBS when indicated | 123 | 39.3 | 27 | 8.6 | 8.1 (5.1–12.8) | 7.2 (4.3–12.0) |
| 67 | 21.4 | 151 | 48.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| No hyperstimulation, | 22 | 7.1 | 31 | 10.1 | 1.6 (0.9–3.0) | 0.9 (0.4–1.9) |
| No hyperstimulation, inertia | 83 | 26.9 | 59 | 19.2 | 3.2 (2.0–4.9) | 1.8 (1.0–3.2) |
| Hyperstimulation, | 26 | 8.4 | 12 | 3.9 | 4.9 (2.3–10.2) | 3.4 (1.4–7.8) |
| Hyperstimulation, | 63 | 20.4 | 15 | 4.9 | 9.5 (5.0–17.8) | 5.5 (2.6–12.0) |
| No registration of contractions, no inertia | 24 | 7.8 | 25 | 8.0 | 2.2 (1.2–4.1) | 1.8 (0.9–3.6) |
| No registration of contractions, inertia | 28 | 9.1 | 20 | 6.5 | 3.2 (1.7–6.0) | 2.1 (1.0–4.4) |
| No | 255 | 81.5 | 295 | 94.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 58 | 18.5 | 18 | 5.8 | 3.7 (2.1–6.4) | 3.3 (1.8–6.0) |
Adjusted for the following significant variables in the univariable analyses in Table 1: maternal age, parity, infertility, onset of delivery, epidural, season of birth, gestational age, birthweight, sex of infant, and simplex/duplex. Analysis based on 308 cases and 310 controls. Hosmer and Lemeshow: P= 0.05–0.99.
Any definition of substandard care, as described in Boxes 1 and 2.
Fetal surveillance with STAN was used in five cases and four controls. All five cases had abnormal CTG tracings between 45 and 90 minutes, of which three had hyperstimulation of contractions and no STAN events. One of these deliveries was further complicated by the rupture of the uterus. All four controls had normal CTG throughout labour without STAN events.
Including follow-up of FBS when indicated: yes, follow up, cases n = 33, controls n = 7; no, follow-up, cases n = 32, controls n = 12.
Defined as six contractions every 10 minutes for a period of more than 20 minutes.
Of which three ocurred after induction with prostaglandins.
Substandard care during delivery and risk for an Apgar score of <7 at 5 minutes of age
| Cases | Controls | Odds ratios (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||
| No Imminent asphyxia | 120 | 38.3 | 266 | 85.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Birth within 30 minutes | 132 | 42.2 | 28 | 8.9 | 10.5 (6.6–16.6) | 8.5 (5.0–14.3) |
| Birth after 30 minutes | 42 | 13.4 | 11 | 3.5 | 8.5 (4.2–17.0) | 5.4 (2.4–11.8) |
| Point of time not noted | 19 | 6.1 | 8 | 2.6 | 5.3 (2.2–12.4) | 5.0 (1.9–13.2) |
| Normal CTG | 44 | 14.1 | 185 | 59.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Abnormal for ≤45 minutes | 39 | 12.5 | 61 | 19.5 | 2.7 (1.6–4.5) | 2.6 (1.4–4.8) |
| Abnormalfor >45 minutes | 41 | 13.1 | 23 | 7.3 | 7.5 (4.1–13.8) | 7.2 (3.6–14.7) |
| Not spontaneous vaginal | 189 | 60.4 | 44 | 14.1 | ||
| No | 284 | 90.7 | 313 | 100 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 29 | 9.3 | 0 | 0 | 25.4 (6.1–106.) | 17.7 (4.1–77.1) |
Adjusted for the following significant variables in the univariable analyses in Table 1: maternal age, parity, infertility, onset of delivery, epidural, season of birth, gestational age, birthweight, sex of infant, simplex/duplex and presentation. Analysis based on 308 cases and 310 controls. Hosmer and Lemeshow: P= 0.11–0.64.
Minutes from the noted time point of decision to birth.
Including inadequate trial of labour n = 16; >20 minutes of traction n = 10; more than two cup detachments n = 3.
Figure 1Apgar score at 5 minutes of age.
Neglecting to supervise fetal wellbeing and signs of fetal asphyxia
| There was substandard care during labour if: |
| •no CTG recordings were made for more than 2.5 hours after the admission test; |
| •more than 2.5 hours elapsed between CTG recordings; |
| •CTG recordings were not interpretable because of poor quality; |
| •no FBS was performed despite continuous intermediary or abnormal CTG for more than 45 minutes; |
| •no follow-up of FBS despite continuous abnormal CTG with a normal FBS; |
| •no follow-up of pre-acidotic FBS (according to stage of delivery); |
| •untimely action on abnormal CTG (i.e. more than 45 minutes from onset of abnormal CTG to birth); |
| •uterine tachysystole (more than six contractions every 10 minutes for more than 20 minutes); |
| •increased dose of oxytocin despite abnormal CTG or tachysystole. |
Substandard care during delivery
| There was substandard care during delivery if: |
| •the time from the decision to deliver to birth exceeded 30 minutes in the case of imminent asphyxia; |
| •there was a spontaneous vaginal delivery despite a long-standing (at least 45-minute) abnormal or uninterpretable CTG recording; |
| •a complex vaginal instrumental delivery, defined as an inappropriate trial of labour with a vacuum extractor or forceps in the following circumstances: |
| •incomplete cervical dilation; |
| •non-cephalic presentation or cephalic malpresentation; |
| •non-engaged fetal head; |
| •a clear indication of cephalopelvic disproportion; |
| •extraction exceeding more than 20 minutes (i.e. more than the recommended 15 minutes); |
| •more than two cup detachments. |