M-L Nguyen1, P Lefèvre2, M Dreyfus3. 1. Service de gynécologie, CHU Côte-de-Nacre, avenue Côte-de-Nacre, 14033 Caen cedex, France. Electronic address: may_lise@hotmail.com. 2. Service de gynécologie, centre hospitalier de Bayeux, 13, rue Nesmond, BP 18127, 14401 Bayeux cedex, France. 3. Service de gynécologie, CHU Côte-de-Nacre, avenue Côte-de-Nacre, 14033 Caen cedex, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Know the impact of the unplanned deliveries in a town of medium size, the characteristics of these women and maternal and neonatal risks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted between January 2002 and December 2009. Unexpected delivery was defined as any delivery taking place outside of a non-elective way maternity. Each unexpected delivery was matched at nearest delivery of equivalent term, at the CHU maternity, with an onset of spontaneous labour. RESULTS: Ninety-four women gave birth unexpectedly for a total of 48,721 births (incidence of 0.19%). There was a significant difference between cases and controls for parity (1.8 versus 0.9), the lack of follow-up of pregnancy (21.3% versus 1.1%), tobacco (57.4% versus 25.5%), the socio-economic level, the type of feeding (artificial: 61.7% versus 30.6%), the home-hospital distance and obstetric follow-up. We found a significant increase in perinatal mortality (6.4% versus 1%) and stay in Neonatal ICU (19.1% versus 9.2%). The main neonatal morbidity was hypothermia. CONCLUSION: It is difficult to target a population at risk because the type of these women is non-specific. Prevention of unplanned deliveries and their morbidities through information of patients on the grounds of urgent consultation and support of the newborn to limit hypothermia.
OBJECTIVES: Know the impact of the unplanned deliveries in a town of medium size, the characteristics of these women and maternal and neonatal risks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted between January 2002 and December 2009. Unexpected delivery was defined as any delivery taking place outside of a non-elective way maternity. Each unexpected delivery was matched at nearest delivery of equivalent term, at the CHU maternity, with an onset of spontaneous labour. RESULTS: Ninety-four women gave birth unexpectedly for a total of 48,721 births (incidence of 0.19%). There was a significant difference between cases and controls for parity (1.8 versus 0.9), the lack of follow-up of pregnancy (21.3% versus 1.1%), tobacco (57.4% versus 25.5%), the socio-economic level, the type of feeding (artificial: 61.7% versus 30.6%), the home-hospital distance and obstetric follow-up. We found a significant increase in perinatal mortality (6.4% versus 1%) and stay in Neonatal ICU (19.1% versus 9.2%). The main neonatal morbidity was hypothermia. CONCLUSION: It is difficult to target a population at risk because the type of these women is non-specific. Prevention of unplanned deliveries and their morbidities through information of patients on the grounds of urgent consultation and support of the newborn to limit hypothermia.