BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017
Neonatal outcomes of deliveries in occiput posterior position when delayed pushing is practiced: a cohort study.
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.
Dahlqvist Kristina, Jonsson Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To examine the impact of occiput posterior position, compared to occiput anterior position, on neonatal outcomes in a setting where delayed pushing is practiced. The specific aim was to estimate the risk of acidaemia.
METHODS: Cohort study from a university hospital in Sweden between 2004 and 2012. Information was collected from a local database of 35,546 births. Umbilical artery sampling was routine. Outcomes were: umbilical artery pH < 7.00 and <7.10 and short-term neonatal morbidity. The association between occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes was examined using logistic regression analysis, presented as adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Of 27,648 attempted vaginal births, 1292 (4.7%) had occiput posterior position. Compared with occiput anterior, there was no difference in pH < 7.00 (0.4% vs. 0.5%) but a higher rate of pH < 7.10 in occiput posterior births (3.8 vs. 5.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed no increased risk of pH < 7.10 (AOR 1.28 95% CI 0.93-1.74) when occiput posterior was compared with occiput anterior births but, an increased risk of Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (AOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.11-3.05); neonatal care admission (AOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.17-2.42) and composite morbidity (AOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19-2.31).
CONCLUSIONS: With delayed pushing, birth in occiput posterior compared with anterior position is not associated with acidaemia. The higher risk of neonatal morbidity is of concern and any long-term consequences need to be investigated in future studies.
METHODS: Cohort study from a university hospital in Sweden between 2004 and 2012. Information was collected from a local database of 35,546 births. Umbilical artery sampling was routine. Outcomes were: umbilical artery pH < 7.00 and <7.10 and short-term neonatal morbidity. The association between occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes was examined using logistic regression analysis, presented as adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Of 27,648 attempted vaginal births, 1292 (4.7%) had occiput posterior position. Compared with occiput anterior, there was no difference in pH < 7.00 (0.4% vs. 0.5%) but a higher rate of pH < 7.10 in occiput posterior births (3.8 vs. 5.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed no increased risk of pH < 7.10 (AOR 1.28 95% CI 0.93-1.74) when occiput posterior was compared with occiput anterior births but, an increased risk of Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (AOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.11-3.05); neonatal care admission (AOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.17-2.42) and composite morbidity (AOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19-2.31).
CONCLUSIONS: With delayed pushing, birth in occiput posterior compared with anterior position is not associated with acidaemia. The higher risk of neonatal morbidity is of concern and any long-term consequences need to be investigated in future studies.