Literature DB >> 26042957

Unexpected complications of low-risk pregnancies in the United States.

Valery A Danilack1, Anthony P Nunes2, Maureen G Phipps3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Determining appropriate sites of care for any type of medical issue assumes successful matching of patient risks to facility capabilities and resources. In obstetrics, predicting patients who will have a need for additional resources beyond routine obstetric and neonatal care is difficult. Women without prenatal risk factors and their newborns may experience unexpected complications during delivery or postpartum. In this study, we report the risk of unexpected maternal and newborn complications among pregnancies without identified prenatal risk factors. STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation utilizing US natality data to analyze 10 million birth certificate records from 2011 through 2013. We categorized pregnancies as low risk (no prenatal risk factors) or high risk (at least 1 prenatal risk factor) according to 19 demographic, medical, and pregnancy characteristics. We evaluated 21 individual unexpected or adverse intrapartum and postpartum outcomes in addition to a composite indicator of any adverse outcome.
RESULTS: Among 10,458,616 pregnancies, 38% were identified as low risk and 62% were identified as high risk for unexpected complications. At least 1 unexpected complication was indicated on the birth certificate for 46% of all pregnancies, 29% of low-risk pregnancies, and 57% of high-risk pregnancies. While the risk for unexpected or adverse outcomes was greatly reduced for the low-risk group compared to the high-risk group overall and for several of the individual outcomes, low-risk pregnancies had higher risks of vacuum delivery, forceps delivery, meconium staining, and chorioamnionitis compared to high-risk pregnancies.
CONCLUSION: Of births, 29% identified to be low risk had an unexpected complication that would require nonroutine obstetric or neonatal care. Additionally, for select outcomes, risks were higher in the low-risk group compared to the group with identified risk factors. This information is important for planning location of birth and evaluating birthing centers and hospitals for necessary resources to ensure quality care and patient safety.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  labor and delivery; labor complications; obstetric delivery; pregnancy; pregnancy outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26042957      PMCID: PMC4728153          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  47 in total

1.  Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies.

Authors:  Jacoba van der Kooy; Jashvant Poeran; Johanna P de Graaf; Erwin Birnie; Semiha Denktaş; Eric A P Steegers; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting.

Authors:  Judy Slome Cohain
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2006: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Eileen K Hutton; Angela H Reitsma; Karyn Kaufman
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.689

4.  Home birth metaanalysis: does it meet AJOG's reporting requirements?

Authors:  Gillian M L Gyte; Miranda J Dodwell; Alison J Macfarlane
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Levels of neonatal care.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Severe maternal morbidity among delivery and postpartum hospitalizations in the United States.

Authors:  William M Callaghan; Andreea A Creanga; Elena V Kuklina
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Birth outcomes of planned home births in Missouri: a population-based study.

Authors:  Jen Jen Chang; George A Macones
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Perinatal outcomes in low-risk term pregnancies: do they differ by week of gestation?

Authors:  Yvonne W Cheng; James M Nicholson; Sanae Nakagawa; Tim A Bruckner; A Eugene Washington; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician.

Authors:  Patricia A Janssen; Lee Saxell; Lesley A Page; Michael C Klein; Robert M Liston; Shoo K Lee
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Ank de Jonge; Jeanette A J M Mesman; Judith Manniën; Joost J Zwart; Jeroen van Dillen; Jos van Roosmalen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-06-13
View more
  19 in total

1.  Quality and Clinical Outcomes Associated with a Gentamicin Use System Change for Managing Chorioamnionitis.

Authors:  Jason B Sauberan; Brittney Choi; Alexander R Paradyse; Jennifer Le
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Association Between Loss of Hospital-Based Obstetric Services and Birth Outcomes in Rural Counties in the United States.

Authors:  Katy B Kozhimannil; Peiyin Hung; Carrie Henning-Smith; Michelle M Casey; Shailendra Prasad
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Obstetric Comorbidity and Severe Maternal Morbidity Among Massachusetts Delivery Hospitalizations, 1998-2013.

Authors:  Nicholas J Somerville; Timothy C Nielsen; Elizabeth Harvey; Sarah Rae Easter; Brian Bateman; Hafsatou Diop; Susan E Manning
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2019-09

4.  Reduced rate of postpartum readmissions among homeless compared with non-homeless women in New York: a population-based study using serial, cross-sectional data.

Authors:  Rie Sakai-Bizmark; Hiraku Kumamaru; Dennys Estevez; Sophia Neman; Lauren E M Bedel; Laurie A Mena; Emily H Marr; Michael G Ross
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 7.418

5.  Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.

Authors:  Germaine M Buck Louis; Jagteshwar Grewal; Paul S Albert; Anthony Sciscione; Deborah A Wing; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; Ronald Wapner; Mary E D'Alton; Daniel Skupski; Michael P Nageotte; Angela C Ranzini; John Owen; Edward K Chien; Sabrina Craigo; Mary L Hediger; Sungduk Kim; Cuilin Zhang; Katherine L Grantz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Location of childbirth for rural women: implications for maternal levels of care.

Authors:  Katy B Kozhimannil; Michelle M Casey; Peiyin Hung; Shailendra Prasad; Ira S Moscovice
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Planned home deliveries in Finland, 1996-2013.

Authors:  Katja Ovaskainen; Riitta Ojala; Kati Tihtonen; Mika Gissler; Tiina Luukkaala; Outi Tammela
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 2.521

8.  Decentralization and Regionalization: Redesigning Health Systems for High Quality Maternity Care Comment on "Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care: A Review of Evidence for the Optimal Distribution of Surgical Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries".

Authors:  Sanam Roder-DeWan
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2021-03-14

9.  Identification of earlier predictors of pregnancy complications through wearable technologies in a Brazilian multicentre cohort: Maternal Actigraphy Exploratory Study I (MAES-I) study protocol.

Authors:  Renato T Souza; Jose Guilherme Cecatti; Jussara Mayrink; Rafael Bessa Galvão; Maria Laura Costa; Francisco Feitosa; Edilberto Rocha Filho; Debora F Leite; Janete Vettorazzi; Ricardo P Tedesco; Danielly S Santana; Joao Paulo Souza
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-20       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Using proteomics to advance the search for potential biomarkers for preeclampsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thy Pham Hoai Nguyen; Cameron James Patrick; Laura Jean Parry; Mary Familari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.