Obstetrics and gynecology · 1995
The impact of a policy of amnioinfusion for meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Usta I M, Mercer B M, Aswad N K, Sibai B M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an amnioinfusion (AI) policy for thick or moderate meconium-stained amniotic fluid (AF) on neonatal outcome, specifically meconium-aspiration syndrome and its complications.
METHODS: We reviewed maternal and neonatal charts of 937 vertex, singleton pregnancies complicated by moderate or thick meconium-stained AF during a 3-year period. The patients were divided into groups according to whether AI was performed. Demographic characteristics, risk factors, mode of delivery, pregnancy outcome, and neonatal complications, including meconium-aspiration syndrome, were analyzed.
RESULTS: Four hundred forty patients (47%) received AI (AI group); 497 (53%) did not, for the following reasons: imminent delivery (310 patients), occult meconium (141), or emergency cesarean delivery (46) (no-AI group). Our study did not show any reduction in the incidence of 5-minute Apgar scores of 7 or less (8 versus 7%), meconium below the vocal cords (28 versus 29%), meconium aspiration syndrome (4.5 versus 3.8%), ventilation requirement (4.3 versus 2.4%), or neonatal death (0.7 versus 0.2%) in the AI and no-AI groups, respectively. The AI group had a higher incidence of fetal heart rate abnormalities in labor (48 versus 31%, P < .05), instrumental delivery (15 versus 8%, P < .05), cesarean delivery (28 versus 17%, P < .001), and endometritis (21 versus 13%, P = .004).
CONCLUSIONS: With the policy of routine AI for moderate or thick meconium-stained AF, AI was not clinically feasible in 53% of the cases. We were unable to demonstrate any improvement in neonatal outcome in those who received AI for moderate or thick meconium.
METHODS: We reviewed maternal and neonatal charts of 937 vertex, singleton pregnancies complicated by moderate or thick meconium-stained AF during a 3-year period. The patients were divided into groups according to whether AI was performed. Demographic characteristics, risk factors, mode of delivery, pregnancy outcome, and neonatal complications, including meconium-aspiration syndrome, were analyzed.
RESULTS: Four hundred forty patients (47%) received AI (AI group); 497 (53%) did not, for the following reasons: imminent delivery (310 patients), occult meconium (141), or emergency cesarean delivery (46) (no-AI group). Our study did not show any reduction in the incidence of 5-minute Apgar scores of 7 or less (8 versus 7%), meconium below the vocal cords (28 versus 29%), meconium aspiration syndrome (4.5 versus 3.8%), ventilation requirement (4.3 versus 2.4%), or neonatal death (0.7 versus 0.2%) in the AI and no-AI groups, respectively. The AI group had a higher incidence of fetal heart rate abnormalities in labor (48 versus 31%, P < .05), instrumental delivery (15 versus 8%, P < .05), cesarean delivery (28 versus 17%, P < .001), and endometritis (21 versus 13%, P = .004).
CONCLUSIONS: With the policy of routine AI for moderate or thick meconium-stained AF, AI was not clinically feasible in 53% of the cases. We were unable to demonstrate any improvement in neonatal outcome in those who received AI for moderate or thick meconium.