Search

The author discusses the impact of health care changes on the U.S. medical practice. Topics discussed include the continuity of health care, the introduction of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, the revolution of the diagnosis and treatment of erythroblastosis fetalis, and the pressures to health care system.

The authors discuss the benefits from cesarean delivery. According to the authors, an analysis reveals that the increase in cesarean delivery is widespread and suggests that multiple, convergent factors are responsible. They added that changes such as weight and age of parturients, and increase in the number of premature and low-birth-weight neonates, have been associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

Background: Active management of labor is a multifaceted program that, as implemented at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, is associated with a lower rate of cesarean delivery than the rate usually found in the United States. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of this approach in lowering the rate of cesarean section among women delivering their first babies. Methods: We randomly assigned 1934 nulliparous women at low risk of complications of pregnancy, before 30 weeks' gestation, to active management of labor or to a usual-care group. The components of active management were customized childbirth classes; strict criteria for the diagnosis of labor; standardized management of labor, including early amniotomy and treatment with high-dose oxytocin; and one-to-one nursing. A low-risk subgroup was defined as including women with full-term, uncomplicated pregnancies who spontaneously went into labor (the protocol-eligible subgroup). Women meeting these criteria who had been randomly assigned to the active-management group were admitted to a separate unit where their labor was managed by trained, certified nurse-midwives. Results: There was no difference between groups in the rate of cesarean section either among all women (active management, 19.5 percent; usual care, 19.4 percent) or in the protocol-eligible subgroup (active management, 10.9 percent; usual care, 11.5 percent). In the protocol-eligible subgroup, the median duration of labor was shortened by 2.7 hours by active management (from 8.9 to 6.2 hours), and the rate of maternal fever was lower (7 percent vs. 11 percent, P = 0.007). The percentage of women in whom labor lasted longer than 12 hours was three times higher in the usual-care group than in the active-management group (26 percent vs. 9 percent, P<0.001). Conclusions: Active management of labor did not reduce the rate of cesarean section in nulliparous women but was associated with a somewhat shorter duration of labor and less maternal fever. (N Engl J Med 1995;333:745-50.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many clinicians advocate routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy to detect congenital anomalies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, fetal growth disorders, placental abnormalities, and errors in the estimation of gestational age. However, it is not known whether the detection of these conditions through screening leads to interventions that improve perinatal outcome. Methods: We conducted a randomized trial involving 15,151 pregnant women at low risk for perinatal problems to determine whether ultrasound screening decreased the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes. The women randomly assigned to the ultrasound-screening group underwent one sonographic examination at 15 to 22 weeks of gestation and another at 31 to 35 weeks. The women in the control group underwent ultrasonography only for medical indications, as identified by their physicians. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as fetal death, neonatal death, or neonatal morbidity such as intraventricular hemorrhage. Results: The mean numbers of sonograms obtained per woman in the ultrasound-screening and control groups were 2.2 and 0.6, respectively. The rate of adverse perinatal outcome was 5.0 percent among the infants of the women in the ultrasound-screening group and 4.9 percent among the infants of the women in the control group (relative risk, 1.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.2; P = 0.85). The rates of preterm delivery and the distribution of birth weights were nearly identical in the two groups. The ultrasonographic detection of congenital anomalies had no effect on perinatal outcome. There were no significant differences between the groups in perinatal outcome in the subgroups of women with post-date pregnancies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, or infants who were small for gestational age. Conclusions: Screening ultrasonography did not improve perinatal outcome as compared with the selective use of ultrasonography on the basis of clinician judgment. (N Engl J Med 1993;329:821-7.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]