OBJECTIVE: To compare midwife-led and obstetrician-led care and their relation to caesarean section rates and obstetric and neonatal outcomes in low-risk births. DESIGN: Hospital registry based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care women's hospital in Kaunas, Lithuania. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1384 and 1283 low-risk delivering women in 2012 and 2014, respectively. METHODS: The women choose either a midwife as their lead carer (midwife-led group), or an obstetrician-gynaecologist (obstetrician-led group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included instrumental vaginal births, amniotomy, augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, perineal trauma, labour duration, birthweight and Apgar score < 7 at 5 min. RESULTS: The proportion of caesarean births was 4.4% in the midwife-led and 10.7% in the obstetrician-led group (p < 0.001) in 2012, and 5.2% and 11.8% (p < 0.001) in 2014, respectively. Younger maternal age (≤34 years) and midwife-led care was associated with a significantly decreased odds for caesarean section and nulliparity with a significantly increased odds for caesarean birth. Women in the midwife-led group had fewer amniotomies and labour augmentations compared with the obstetrician-led group. Episiotomy, perineal trauma, duration of labour and neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Midwife-led care for women with low-risk birth reduced the caesarean section and several medical interventions with no apparent increase in immediate adverse neonatal outcomes compared with obstetrician-led care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Midwife-led care for low-risk women should be encouraged in countries with health care system where obstetrician-led care births dominates.
OBJECTIVE: To compare midwife-led and obstetrician-led care and their relation to caesarean section rates and obstetric and neonatal outcomes in low-risk births. DESIGN: Hospital registry based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care women's hospital in Kaunas, Lithuania. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1384 and 1283 low-risk delivering women in 2012 and 2014, respectively. METHODS: The women choose either a midwife as their lead carer (midwife-led group), or an obstetrician-gynaecologist (obstetrician-led group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included instrumental vaginal births, amniotomy, augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, perineal trauma, labour duration, birthweight and Apgar score < 7 at 5 min. RESULTS: The proportion of caesarean births was 4.4% in the midwife-led and 10.7% in the obstetrician-led group (p < 0.001) in 2012, and 5.2% and 11.8% (p < 0.001) in 2014, respectively. Younger maternal age (≤34 years) and midwife-led care was associated with a significantly decreased odds for caesarean section and nulliparity with a significantly increased odds for caesarean birth. Women in the midwife-led group had fewer amniotomies and labour augmentations compared with the obstetrician-led group. Episiotomy, perineal trauma, duration of labour and neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Midwife-led care for women with low-risk birth reduced the caesarean section and several medical interventions with no apparent increase in immediate adverse neonatal outcomes compared with obstetrician-led care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Midwife-led care for low-risk women should be encouraged in countries with health care system where obstetrician-led care births dominates.