Michel Rossignol1, Nils Chaillet, Faiza Boughrassa, Jean-Marie Moutquin. 1. Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS), QC, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise the literature on the relations between four intrapartum obstetric interventions-electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), epidural analgesia, labor induction, and labor acceleration; and two types of delivery-instrumental (forceps and vacuum) and cesarean section. METHODS: This review included meta-analyses published between January 2000 and April 2012 including at least one randomized clinical trial published after 1995 and presenting results on low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, searched in the databases Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with no language restriction. RESULTS: Of 306 documents identified, 8 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and presented results on women at low risk. EFM at admission (vs intermittent auscultation) was associated with cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.44) and epidural analgesia (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43). Epidural on request was associated with cesarean delivery (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.44), and oxytocin use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.43) when compared with epidural on request plus nonpharmacological labor pain control methods such as one-to-one support, breathing techniques, and relaxation. Induction and acceleration of labor showed heterogeneous patterns of associations with cesarean delivery and instrumental delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Complex patterns of associations between obstetric interventions and modes of delivery were illustrated in an empirical model. Intermittent auscultation and nonpharmacological labor pain control interventions, such as one-to-one support during labor, have the potential for substantially reducing cesarean deliveries.
OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise the literature on the relations between four intrapartum obstetric interventions-electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), epidural analgesia, labor induction, and labor acceleration; and two types of delivery-instrumental (forceps and vacuum) and cesarean section. METHODS: This review included meta-analyses published between January 2000 and April 2012 including at least one randomized clinical trial published after 1995 and presenting results on low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, searched in the databases Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with no language restriction. RESULTS: Of 306 documents identified, 8 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and presented results on women at low risk. EFM at admission (vs intermittent auscultation) was associated with cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.44) and epidural analgesia (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43). Epidural on request was associated with cesarean delivery (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.44), and oxytocin use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.43) when compared with epidural on request plus nonpharmacological labor pain control methods such as one-to-one support, breathing techniques, and relaxation. Induction and acceleration of labor showed heterogeneous patterns of associations with cesarean delivery and instrumental delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Complex patterns of associations between obstetric interventions and modes of delivery were illustrated in an empirical model. Intermittent auscultation and nonpharmacological labor pain control interventions, such as one-to-one support during labor, have the potential for substantially reducing cesarean deliveries.
Authors: S Downe; K Finlayson; C Melvin; H Spiby; S Ali; P Diggle; G Gyte; S Hinder; V Miller; P Slade; D Trepel; A Weeks; P Whorwell; M Williamson Journal: BJOG Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Anna Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; Thomas van den Akker; Katrien Beeckman; Annick Bogaerts; Monalisa Barros; Patricia Janssen; Lorena Binfa; Eva Rydahl; Lucy Frith; Mechthild M Gross; Berglind Hálfdánsdóttir; Deirdre Daly; Jean Calleja-Agius; Patricia Gillen; Anne Britt Vika Nilsen; Eugene Declercq; Ank de Jonge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kate M Levett; Sarah J Lord; Hannah G Dahlen; Caroline A Smith; Federico Girosi; Soo Downe; Kenneth William Finlayson; Julie Fleet; Mary Steen; Mary-Ann Davey; Elizabeth Newnham; Anette Werner; Leslie Arnott; Kerry Sutcliffe; Anna Lene Seidler; Kylie Elizabeth Hunter; Lisa Askie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.692