Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, OLVG hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Apr;99(4):546-554. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13767. Epub 2019 Dec 11.
Midwife-led models of care have been the subject of debate for many years. We conducted a study to compare intrapartum and neonatal mortality rates in midwife-led (primary) vs obstetrician-led (secondary) care at the onset of labor in low-risk term women.
We performed an unmatched and a propensity score matched cohort study using data from the national perinatal audit registry (PAN) and from the national perinatal registry (PERINED) of the Netherlands. We included women with singleton pregnancies (without congenital anomalies or antepartum fetal death) who gave birth at term between 2010 and 2012. We excluded the following major risk factors: non-vertex position of the fetus, previous cesarean birth, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, prolonged rupture of membranes (≥24 hours), vaginal bleeding in the second half of pregnancy, nonspontaneous start of labor and post-term pregnancy (≥42 weeks). The primary outcome was intrapartum or neonatal mortality up to 28 days after birth. Secondary outcome measures were mode of delivery and a 5-minute Apgar score <7.
We included 259 211 women. There were 100/206 642 (0.48‰) intrapartum and neonatal deaths in the midwife group and 23/52 569 (0.44‰) in the obstetrician group (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.70-1.74). Propensity score matched analysis showed mortality rates of 0.49‰ (26/52 569) among women in midwife-led care and 0.44‰ (23/52 569) for women in obstetrician-led care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.98). In the midwife group there were significantly lower rates of vaginal instrumental deliveries (8.4% vs 13.0%; matched OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.67) and intrapartum cesarean sections (2.6% vs 8.2%; matched OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.30-0.34), and fewer neonates with low Apgar scores (<7 after 5 minutes) (0.69% vs 1.11%; matched OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.69).
Among low-risk term women, there were comparable intrapartum and neonatal mortality rates for women starting labor in midwife-led vs obstetrician-led care, with lower intervention rates and fewer low Apgar scores in the midwife group.
多年来,助产士主导的护理模式一直是争议的主题。我们进行了一项研究,比较了低危足月产妇在分娩开始时由助产士(初级)和产科医生(二级)主导的护理模式的产时和新生儿死亡率。
我们使用来自荷兰全国围产期审计登记处(PAN)和全国围产期登记处(PERINED)的数据,进行了一项未匹配和倾向评分匹配的队列研究。我们纳入了在 2010 年至 2012 年间足月单胎妊娠(无先天畸形或产前胎儿死亡)且分娩的妇女。我们排除了以下主要危险因素:胎儿非头位、既往剖宫产、高血压、糖尿病、胎膜破裂时间延长(≥24 小时)、妊娠后半期阴道出血、自发性临产和过期妊娠(≥42 周)。主要结局是分娩期间或出生后 28 天内的死亡。次要结局指标是分娩方式和 5 分钟 Apgar 评分<7。
我们纳入了 259211 名妇女。在助产士组中有 100/206642(0.48‰)的产时和新生儿死亡,在产科医生组中有 23/52569(0.44‰)(比值比[OR]1.11,95%置信区间[CI]0.70-1.74)。倾向评分匹配分析显示,在助产士主导的护理组中,死亡率为 0.49‰(26/52569),在产科医生主导的护理组中,死亡率为 0.44‰(23/52569)(OR 1.13,95% CI 0.65-1.98)。在助产士组中,阴道器械分娩率显著降低(8.4% vs 13.0%;匹配 OR 0.65,95% CI 0.62-0.67),产时剖宫产率降低(2.6% vs 8.2%;匹配 OR 0.32,95% CI 0.30-0.34),新生儿低 Apgar 评分(<7 分)的比例也降低(0.69% vs 1.11%;匹配 OR 0.61,95% CI 0.53-0.69)。
在低危足月产妇中,由助产士和产科医生主导的分娩开始时,产时和新生儿死亡率相似,助产士组的干预率较低,Apgar 评分较低的新生儿较少。