Foundation for Health Care Quality and the Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Northwest Hospital & Medical Center, and Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1056-1065. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003521.
To compare midwife and obstetrician labor practices and birth outcomes in women with low-risk pregnancies delivered in the hospital.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of singleton births of 37 0/7-42 6/7 weeks of gestation at 11 hospitals between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Exclusions included intrapartum transfer from home-birth center, antepartum stillbirth, previous cesarean delivery, practitioner other than midwife or obstetrician, prelabor cesarean, prepregnancy maternal disease, and pregnancy complications or risk factors. Interventions (induction, artificial rupture of membranes, epidural, oxytocin, and episiotomy), mode of delivery, maternal outcomes (third- or fourth-degree laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, and severe maternal morbidity), and newborn outcomes (shoulder dystocia, 5-minute Apgar score less than 7, resuscitation at delivery, birth trauma, and neonatal intensive care unit admission) were examined by practitioner type. We used modified Poisson regression models adjusted for individual confounders to assess risk ratios, stratified by parity, for health care provider type and perinatal outcomes.
The study cohort comprised 23,100 births (3,816 midwife and 19,284 obstetrician). Compared with obstetricians, midwifery patients had significantly lower intervention rates, an approximately 30% lower risk of cesarean delivery in nulliparous patients (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.68; 95th% CI 0.57-0.82), and an approximately 40% lower risk of cesarean in multiparous patients (aRR 0.57; 95th% CI 0.36-0.89). Operative vaginal birth was also less common in nulliparous patients (aRR 0.73; 95th% CI 0.57-0.93) and multiparous patients (aRR 0.30; 95th% CI 0.14-0.63). Shoulder dystocia was more common in multiparous patients receiving midwifery care (aRR 1.42; 95th% CI 1.04-1.92).
In low-risk pregnancies, midwifery care in labor was associated with decreased intervention, decreased cesarean and operative vaginal births, and, in multiparous women, an increased risk for shoulder dystocia. Greater integration of midwifery care into maternity services in the United States may reduce intervention in labor and potentially even cesarean delivery, in low-risk pregnancies. Larger research studies are needed to evaluate uncommon but important maternal and newborn outcomes.
比较低危妊娠产妇在医院分娩时助产士与产科医生的产时实践和分娩结局。
我们对 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日 11 家医院 37 0/7-42 6/7 孕周单胎分娩进行了回顾性队列研究。排除标准包括从家庭分娩中心转入、产前死胎、既往剖宫产、非助产士或产科医生执业、产前期剖宫产、孕前母体疾病以及妊娠并发症或危险因素。干预措施(引产、人工破膜、硬膜外麻醉、催产素和会阴切开术)、分娩方式、产妇结局(三度或四度裂伤、产后出血、输血和严重产妇发病率)和新生儿结局(肩难产、5 分钟 Apgar 评分<7 分、分娩时复苏、分娩创伤和新生儿重症监护病房入院)按执业类型进行检查。我们使用修正泊松回归模型,根据个体混杂因素进行调整,评估健康护理提供者类型和围产儿结局的风险比,并按产次分层。
研究队列包括 23100 例分娩(3816 例助产士和 19284 例产科医生)。与产科医生相比,助产士患者的干预率显著降低,初产妇剖宫产风险降低约 30%(调整后相对风险 [aRR]0.68;95%CI0.57-0.82),多产妇剖宫产风险降低约 40%(aRR0.57;95%CI0.36-0.89)。初产妇产钳助产分娩也较少(aRR0.73;95%CI0.57-0.93),多产妇较少(aRR0.30;95%CI0.14-0.63)。肩难产在接受助产士护理的多产妇中更为常见(aRR1.42;95%CI1.04-1.92)。
在低危妊娠中,分娩时助产士护理与减少干预、减少剖宫产和产钳助产分娩有关,并且在多产妇中,肩难产的风险增加。在美国,更大程度地将助产士护理纳入产妇服务可能会减少分娩时的干预,甚至可能降低低危妊娠的剖宫产率。需要更大规模的研究来评估罕见但重要的产妇和新生儿结局。