Kathleen F Brookfield1, Sarah S Osmundson2, Aaron B Caughey1. 1. a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Oregon Health and Science University , Portland , OR , USA. 2. b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, B-1100 Medical Center North , Nashville , TN , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to examine if the method of pregnancy dating at five increasing term gestational ages is associated with increasing neonatal morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of women who underwent elective repeat cesarean delivery at ≥37 weeks' gestation were identified from the NICHD MFMU Network registry. We excluded women who were in labor, those carrying a fetus with a congenital anomaly, those with a non-reassuring fetal heart tracing, and those with preeclampsia, preexisting chronic hypertension or diabetes. Composite neonatal morbidity was defined for our study as any of the following: NICU admission, hypotonia, meconium aspiration, seizures, need for ventilator support, NEC, RDS, TTN, hypoglycemia, or neonatal death. We compared composite neonatal morbidity rates among infants born at five different gestational age cutoffs according to their method of pregnancy dating. RESULTS: At 39 and 40 weeks' gestation, the lowest rate of neonatal complications was seen in pregnancies dated by first trimester ultrasound (5.8% and 5.5%, respectively), while those with the highest neonatal morbidity rates were seen when dated by a second or third trimester ultrasound (8.1% and 6.0%, respectively); p < .001. Additionally within each pregnancy dating category, the neonatal morbidity rates declined from 37 to 40 weeks' gestation and then significantly increased at 41 + 0 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSION: Even with suboptimal dating methods, amongst women undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity was lowest when delivery occurred between 40 and 40 + 6 weeks gestation.
PURPOSE: We sought to examine if the method of pregnancy dating at five increasing term gestational ages is associated with increasing neonatal morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of women who underwent elective repeat cesarean delivery at ≥37 weeks' gestation were identified from the NICHD MFMU Network registry. We excluded women who were in labor, those carrying a fetus with a congenital anomaly, those with a non-reassuring fetal heart tracing, and those with preeclampsia, preexisting chronic hypertension or diabetes. Composite neonatal morbidity was defined for our study as any of the following: NICU admission, hypotonia, meconium aspiration, seizures, need for ventilator support, NEC, RDS, TTN, hypoglycemia, or neonatal death. We compared composite neonatal morbidity rates among infants born at five different gestational age cutoffs according to their method of pregnancy dating. RESULTS: At 39 and 40 weeks' gestation, the lowest rate of neonatal complications was seen in pregnancies dated by first trimester ultrasound (5.8% and 5.5%, respectively), while those with the highest neonatal morbidity rates were seen when dated by a second or third trimester ultrasound (8.1% and 6.0%, respectively); p < .001. Additionally within each pregnancy dating category, the neonatal morbidity rates declined from 37 to 40 weeks' gestation and then significantly increased at 41 + 0 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSION: Even with suboptimal dating methods, amongst women undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity was lowest when delivery occurred between 40 and 40 + 6 weeks gestation.
Authors: K S Joseph; Ling Huang; Shiliang Liu; Cande V Ananth; Alexander C Allen; Reg Sauve; Michael S Kramer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mark B Landon; John C Hauth; Kenneth J Leveno; Catherine Y Spong; Sharon Leindecker; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Marshall Carpenter; Alan M Peaceman; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Baha Sibai; Oded Langer; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer; Steven G Gabbe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hong Yang; Michael S Kramer; Robert W Platt; Béatrice Blondel; Gérard Bréart; Isabelle Morin; Russell Wilkins; Robert Usher Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: J Glavind; S F Kindberg; N Uldbjerg; M Khalil; A M Møller; B B Mortensen; O B Rasmussen; J T Christensen; J S Jørgensen; T B Henriksen Journal: BJOG Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Alan T N Tita; Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Yinglei Lai; Kenneth J Leveno; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Paul J Meis; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Marshall Carpenter; Alan M Peaceman; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; Oded Langer; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Giuseppe Chiossi; Yinglei Lai; Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Dwight J Rouse; Michael W Varner; Steve N Caritis; Yoram Sorokin; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Barbara Prediger; Tim Mathes; Stephanie Polus; Angelina Glatt; Stefanie Bühn; Sven Schiermeier; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Dawid Pieper Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.007