Literature DB >> 26140835

Labor and Delivery Experiences of Mothers with Suspected Large Babies.

Erika R Cheng1, Eugene R Declercq2, Candice Belanoff3, Naomi E Stotland4, Ronald E Iverson5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with clinicians' prenatal suspicion of a large baby; and to determine whether communicating fetal size concerns to patients was associated with labor and delivery interventions and outcomes.
METHODS: We examined data from women without a prior cesarean who responded to Listening to Mothers III, a nationally representative survey of women who had given birth between July 2011 and June 2012 (n = 1960). We estimated the effect of having a suspected large baby (SLB) on the odds of six labor and delivery outcomes.
RESULTS: Nearly one-third (31.2%) of women were told by their maternity care providers that their babies might be getting "quite large"; however, only 9.9% delivered a baby weighing ≥4000 g (19.7% among mothers with SLBs, 5.5% without). Women with SLBs had increased adjusted odds of medically-induced labor (AOR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4-2.6), attempted self-induced labor (AOR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4-2.7), and use of epidural analgesics (AOR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.9). No differences were noted for overall cesarean rates, although women with SLBs were more likely to ask for (AOR 4.6; 95% CI 2.8-7.6) and have planned (AOR 1.8; 95% CI 1.0-4.5) cesarean deliveries. These associations were not affected by adjustment for gestational age and birthweight. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only one in five US women who were told that their babies might be getting quite large actually delivered infants weighing ≥4000 g. However, the suspicion of a large baby was associated with an increase in perinatal interventions, regardless of actual fetal size.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Labor induction; Mode of delivery; Suspected macrosomia

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26140835      PMCID: PMC4644447          DOI: 10.1007/s10995-015-1776-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Matern Child Health J        ISSN: 1092-7875


  31 in total

1.  AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of an antepartum obstetric ultrasound examination.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia.

Authors:  Markus Hoopmann; Harald Abele; Norbert Wagner; Diethlem Wallwiener; Karl O Kagan
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 2.587

3.  Therapeutic group psychoeducation and relaxation in treating fear of childbirth.

Authors:  Terhi Saisto; Riikka Toivanen; Katariina Salmela-Aro; Erja Halmesmäki
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.636

4.  Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest?

Authors:  Sean C Blackwell; Jerrie Refuerzo; Rati Chadha; Carlos A Carreno
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery.

Authors:  Katie M Groom; Sara Paterson-Brown; Nicholas M Fisk
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2002-01-10       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 6.  Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review.

Authors:  Suneet P Chauhan; William A Grobman; Robert A Gherman; Vidya B Chauhan; Gene Chang; Everett F Magann; Nancy W Hendrix
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Is prenatal identification of fetal macrosomia useful?

Authors:  Françoise Vendittelli; Olivier Rivière; Gérard Bréart
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell.

Authors:  D Sadeh-Mestechkin; A Walfisch; R Shachar; I Shoham-Vardi; H Vardi; M Hallak
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 2.344

9.  Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk.

Authors:  Sheree L Boulet; Greg R Alexander; Hamisu M Salihu; MaryAnn Pass
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 10.  Prevention, management, and outcomes of macrosomia: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  A Cristina Rossi; Patrick Mullin; Federico Prefumo
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.347

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cesarean section on a rise-Does advanced maternal age explain the increase? A population register-based study.

Authors:  Eva Rydahl; Eugene Declercq; Mette Juhl; Rikke Damkjær Maimburg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Fetal macrosomia in home and birth center births in the United States: Maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes.

Authors:  Sabrina Pillai; Melissa Cheyney; Courtney L Everson; Marit L Bovbjerg
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.689

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.