| Literature DB >> 29347926 |
Godofreda V Dalmacion1,2,3, Ramon T Reyles4, Antonia E Habana5, Lalaine Mae V Cruz6, Maricelle C Chua4, Analyn T Ngo7, Milagros J Tia-Jocson8, Emmanuel S Baja9,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The major causes of maternal and neonatal mortality in the Philippines are hemorrhages and obstructed labor due to placental implantation abnormalities (PIAs), twin pregnancies and fetal malpresentations. All of which are all easily detected by ultrasound. However, women in rural areas and low-income groups do not have access to ultrasound during their prenatal care. We aimed to provide additional evidence on the benefits of handheld ultrasound (HU) for screening pregnancy related abnormalities in order to avert maternal and neonatal deaths.Entities:
Keywords: Access to prenatal care; Handheld ultrasound; Maternal and neonatal mortality; Screening
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29347926 PMCID: PMC5774122 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-1658-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Characteristics of study population from two regions in the Philippines (N = 460)
| Characteristic | Rural Tagum ( | Urban Parañaque ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), | 25.0 [6.2] | 26.0 [6.4] | 0.09 |
| Age of 1st menstruation (years), | 13.1 [1.6] | 13.4 [1.7] | 0.053 |
| Smoking status, | |||
| Ever | 31 (14.8) | 36 (14.4) | 0.91 |
| Never | 179 (85.2) | 214 (85.6) | |
| Contraceptive usage, | |||
| Ever | 108 (51.4) | 121 (48.4) | 0.52 |
| Never | 102 (48.6) | 129 (51.6) | |
| Menstrual cycle, | |||
| Irregular | 22 (10.5) | 27 (10.8) | 0.91 |
| Normal | 188 (89.5) | 223 (89.2) | |
| Had a pap smear procedure, | |||
| Yes | 31 (15.7) | 34 (13.6) | 0.55 |
| No | 166 (84.3) | 214 (85.6) | |
| Missing | 13 | ||
aSD Standard deviation; bIrregular menstrual cycle: < 28 days or >35 days
Maternal deaths and neonatal deaths possibly averted in Parañaque City and Tagum City
| Health Outcome | Total ( | Urban Parañaque ( | Rural Tagum ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound findings (%) | ||||
| Normal scans | 68.3 | 62.4 | 75.2 | < 0.01 |
| Abnormal scans | 31.7 | 37.6 | 24.8 | |
| Maternal deaths possibly averteda (%) | ||||
| Normal | 93.7 | 91.2 | 96.6 | 0.02 |
| Abnormal placentation | ||||
| Low lying | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | |
| Placenta previa | 1.3 | 2.0 | 0.5 | |
| Fetal malpresentation | ||||
| Transverse | 2.6 | 4.4 | 0.5 | |
| Neonatal deaths possibly avertedb (%) | ||||
| Normal | 74.6 | 71.2 | 78.6 | 0.02 |
| Fetal malpresentation | ||||
| Breech | 24.1 | 26.8 | 20.9 | |
| Oligohydramnios | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.5 | |
| Polyhydramnios | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | |
| Twinsc | 1.3 | 2.4 | 0.0 | |
amaternal deaths averted = maternal deaths due to bleeding from abnormal placental localization and transverse lie; bneonatal deaths averted = neonatal deaths due to fetal malpresentation; cneonatal deaths averted for twins = actual number of twins × 2
Health facility referral and place of delivery based on study site
| Outcome parameter | Total ( | Urban Parañaque ( | Rural Tagum ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health facility referral (%) | ||||
| Hospital | 52.4 | 56.8 | 47.1 | 0.11 |
| Birthing facility / Lying in | 40.6 | 36.4 | 45.7 | |
| Home | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.2 | |
| Place of delivery (%) | ||||
| Hospital | ||||
| Normal cases | 32.6 | 32.4 | 32.9 | 0.046 |
| Abnormal cases | 19.8 | 24.4 | 14.3 | |
| Birthing facility / Lying in | ||||
| Normal cases | 30.7 | 24.8 | 37.6 | 0.02 |
| Abnormal cases | 10.0 | 11.6 | 8.1 | |
| Home | ||||
| Normal cases | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 0.70 |
| Abnormal cases | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.4 | |
Types of birth attendants according to study site
| Outcome parameter | Total ( | Urban Parañaque ( | Rural Tagum ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obstetrician (%) | ||||
| Normal cases | 33.3 | 32.4 | 34.3 | 0.03 |
| Abnormal cases | 19.7 | 24.4 | 14.3 | |
| Total | 53.0 | 56.8 | 48.6 | |
| Midwife (%) | ||||
| Normal cases | 30.0 | 24.8 | 36.2 | 0.03 |
| Abnormal cases | 10.0 | 11.6 | 8.1 | |
| Total | 40.0 | 36.4 | 44.3 | |
| Traditional birth attendant (%) | ||||
| Normal cases | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 0.70 |
| Abnormal cases | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.4 | |
| Total | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.2 | |
Agreement between the handheld ultrasound and the reference bigger ultrasound machine for selected Obstetrical ultrasound parameters (N = 460)a
| Ultrasound parameter | In agreement [N, (%)] | Not in agreement [N, (%)] |
|---|---|---|
| Fetal presentation | 440 (95.7%) | 20 (4.3%)b |
| Amniotic fluid | 458 (99.6%) | 2 (0.4%) |
| Location | 459 (99.8%) | 1 (0.2%) |
| Fetal number | 460 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
aHandheld ultrasound: GE VScan and Reference standard ultrasound: GE Logic 5 Premium
bNot in agreement breakdown: Cephalic-Breech (9), Cephalic-Transverse (4), Breech-Transverse (3), Transverse-Breech (2), and Breech-Cephalic (2)
Cost of intervention for the two study sites
| Outcome parameters | Total | Urban Parañaque | Rural Tagum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost in PhP | |||
| Equipment | 700,000.00 | 350,000.00 | 350,000.00 |
| Training | 570,000.00 | 285,000.00 | 285,000.00 |
| Travel | 292,000.00 | 15,000.00 | 277,000.00 |
| Consultants | 138,000.00 | 69,000.00 | 69,000.00 |
| Total | 1,700,000.00 | 719,000.00 | 981,000.00 |