Literature DB >> 34773367

Maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth: a cohort study of 17 530 waterbirths and 17 530 propensity score-matched land births.

M L Bovbjerg1, M Cheyney2, A B Caughey3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, with propensity score matching to address confounding.
SETTING: Community births, United States. SAMPLE: Medical records-based registry data from low-risk births were used to create waterbirth and land birth groups (n = 17 530 each), propensity score-matched on >80 demographic and pregnancy risk covariables.
METHODS: Logistic regression models compared outcomes between the matched waterbirth and land birth groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal: immediate postpartum transfer to a hospital, any genital tract trauma, severe (3rd/4th degree) trauma, haemorrhage >1000 mL, diagnosed haemorrhage regardless of estimated blood loss, uterine infection, uterine infection requiring hospitalisation, any hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks. Neonatal: umbilical cord avulsion; immediate neonatal transfer to a hospital; respiratory distress syndrome; any hospitalisation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, or neonatal infection in the first 6 weeks; and neonatal death.
RESULTS: Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37-1.82). Our results are concordant with other studies: waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Natural childbirth; propensity score; water birth; waterbirth

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34773367      PMCID: PMC9035022          DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   7.331


  42 in total

1.  Effects of intrapartum hydrotherapy on labour related parameters.

Authors:  I A Aird; M J Luckas; W M Buckett; P Bousfield
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 2.100

2.  Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Ethel E Burns; Mary G Boulton; Elizabeth Cluett; Victoria R Cornelius; Lesley A Smith
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 3.689

3.  Outcomes of care in birth centers: demonstration of a durable model.

Authors:  Susan Rutledge Stapleton; Cara Osborne; Jessica Illuzzi
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 2.388

4.  Electronic Fetal Monitoring Documentation: Connecting Points for Quality Care and Communication.

Authors:  Rebecca L Cypher
Journal:  J Perinat Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2018 Jan/Mar       Impact factor: 1.638

5.  Water birth. Pooling information.

Authors:  E Burns; K Greenish
Journal:  Nurs Times       Date:  1993 Feb 24-Mar 2

6.  Perspectives on risk: Assessment of risk profiles and outcomes among women planning community birth in the United States.

Authors:  Marit L Bovbjerg; Melissa Cheyney; Jennifer Brown; Kim J Cox; Lawrence Leeman
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 3.689

7.  Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Following Waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort.

Authors:  Marit L Bovbjerg; Melissa Cheyney; Courtney Everson
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.388

8.  Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Alvaro Alonso; Roger Logan; Francine Grodstein; Karin B Michels; Walter C Willett; Joann E Manson; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Planned Home VBAC in the United States, 2004-2009: Outcomes, Maternity Care Practices, and Implications for Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Kim J Cox; Marit L Bovbjerg; Melissa Cheyney; Lawrence M Leeman
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 3.689

10.  Potential implications of missing income data in population-based surveys: an example from a postpartum survey in California.

Authors:  Soowon Kim; Susan Egerter; Catherine Cubbin; Eugene R Takahashi; Paula Braveman
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.