Search

Abstract Background There are limited data describing adverse infant outcomes in infants born to women with a low risk of complications during pregnancy, such as those who may be enrolled in maternal immunization trials. This retrospective study estimated incidence proportions of infant outcomes in different cohorts of liveborn infants in England between 2005 and 2017. Methods The incidence proportions of 10 infant outcomes were calculated for liveborn infants from pregnancies represented in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Mother-Baby Link (MBL) and linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Three infant cohorts were designed: (1) the all pregnancies infants cohort (N = 185,119), (2) the all pregnancies with a gestational age (GA) ≥ 24 weeks infants cohort (N = 183,869), and (3) the low-risk pregnancies infants cohort (LR infants cohort, N = 121,871), which included pregnancies with a GA ≥ 24 weeks and no diagnosis of predefined high-risk medical conditions until 24 weeks GA. Results The most common adverse infant outcome in the three infant cohorts was macrosomia (e.g., 1,085.9/10,000 live births in the LR infants cohort), followed by minor congenital anomalies (e.g., 800.6/10,000 in the LR infants cohort), very low/low birth weight (e.g., 400.6/10,000 in the LR infants cohort), and major congenital anomalies (e.g., 270.4/10,000 in the LR infants cohort). The incidence proportions for early-onset sepsis, very low/low birth weight, and minor and major congenital anomalies were lower in the LR infants than in the other cohorts (non-overlapping confidence intervals [CIs]). The incidence proportions of neonatal death, infant death, late-onset sepsis, macrosomia, small for GA, and large for GA were similar between cohorts (overlapping CIs). Conclusions This study generated background rates of adverse infant outcomes from liveborn infants of all and low-risk pregnancies represented in the CPRD Pregnancy Register MBL and linkage to HES. The results indicate lower incidence proportions of several adverse infant outcomes in infants from low-risk pregnancies compared to all pregnancies, illustrating the importance of considering maternal risk factors. These background rates may facilitate the interpretation of safety data from maternal immunization trials and of pharmacovigilance data from maternal vaccines. They may also be of interest for other interventions studied in pregnant women.

Abstract Background Maternal characteristics like medical history and health-related risk factors can influence the incidence of pregnancy outcomes and pregnancy-related events of interest (EIs). Data on the incidence of these endpoints in low-risk pregnant women are needed for appropriate external safety comparisons in maternal immunization trials. To address this need, this study estimated the incidence proportions of pregnancy outcomes and pregnancy-related EIs in different pregnancy cohorts (including low-risk pregnancies) in England, contained in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Pregnancy Register linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 2005 and 2017. Methods The incidence proportions of 7 pregnancy outcomes and 15 EIs were calculated for: (1) all pregnancies (AP) represented in the CPRD Pregnancy Register linked to HES (AP cohort; N = 298 155), (2) all pregnancies with a gestational age (GA) ≥ 24 weeks (AP24+ cohort; N = 208 328), and (3) low-risk pregnancies (LR cohort; N = 137 932) with a GA ≥ 24 weeks and no diagnosis of predefined high-risk medical conditions until 24 weeks GA. Results Miscarriage was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the AP cohort (1 379.5 per 10 000 pregnancies) but could not be assessed in the other cohorts because these only included pregnancies with a GA ≥ 24 weeks, and miscarriages with GA ≥ 24 weeks were reclassified as stillbirths. Preterm delivery (

Abstract Background The COVID-19 social restrictions have increased the risk for depression compared to the previous period in Italian women with Low-Risk Pregnancy (LRP). lLess is known about the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on High-Risk Pregnancy (HRP). This study aimed: 1) to explore levels of depression in women who become pregnant before and during COVID-19 pandemic, distinguishing between LRP and HRP; 2) to analyze the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on pregnancy experience in LRP and HRP. Methods A before-during COVID-19 pandemic cross-sectional study was carried out on 155 pregnant women (Mean age = 34.18), between 23 and 32 weeks of gestation. 77 women were recruited before COVID-19 pandemic (51.9% LRP; 48.1% HRP) and 78 women were recruited during COVID-19 pandemic (51.3% LRP; 48.7% HRP). HRP group was enrolled during hospitalization for high-risk pregnancy. Participants filled out Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Moreover, only COVID-19 group answered an open-ended question about the impact of restriction on pregnancy experience. Results HRP women reported higher levels of depressive symptoms than LRP. No difference emerged for COVID (before/during) but an interaction effect between COVID-19 and obstetric condition was found. The qualitative results showed the impact of restrictions on emotions and concerns. Conclusion Respect to the previous period, LRP women during COVID-19 presented an increased risk for depressive symptoms than HRP. The HRP women during COVID-19 seemed to use hospitalization as a resource to find a social support network with other pregnant women and to be reassured on the clinical ongoing of pregnancy.

Abstract Background For healthy women entering birth after uneventful pregnancy, midwife-led models of care have the potential to reduce interventions and increase the vaginal birth rate. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in consultant-led obstetric units. Alongside midwifery units (AMU) have been established in 2003. We compared the outcome of women registered for planned birth in the AMU at our hospital with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in standard obstetric care during the same period of time. Methods We used a retrospective cohort study design. The study group consisted of all women admitted to labor ward who had registered for birth in AMU from 2010 to 2017. For the control group, low-risk women were selected; additionally, matching was performed for parity. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter for the mother. For the neonate, a composite primary outcome (5-min Apgar

Abstract Background Midwife-led maternity care is shown to be safe for women with low-risk during pregnancy. In Ireland, two midwife-led units (MLUs) were introduced in 2004 when a randomised controlled trial (the MidU study) was performed to compare MLU care with consultant-led care (CLU). Following study completion the two MLUs have remained as a maternity care option in Ireland. The aim of this study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes and transfer rates during six years in the larger of the MLU sites. Methods MLU data for the six years 2008–2013 were retrospectively analysed, following ethical approval. Rates of transfer, reasons for transfer, mode of birth, and maternal and fetal outcomes were assessed. Linear-by-Linear Association trend analysis was used for categorical data to evaluate trends over the years and one-way ANOVA was used when comparing continuous variables. Results During the study period, 3,884 women were registered at the MLU. The antenatal transfer rate was 37.4% and 2,410 women came to labour in the MLU. Throughout labour and birth, 567 women (14.6%) transferred to the CLU, of which 23 were transferred after birth due to need for suturing or postpartum hemorrhage. The most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were meconium stained liquor/abnormal fetal heart rate (30.3%), delayed labour progress in first or second stage (24.9%) and woman’s wish for epidural analgesia (15.1%). Of the 1,903 babies born in the MLU, 1,878 (98.7%) were spontaneous vaginal births and 25 (1.3%) were instrumental (ventouse/forceps). Only 25 babies (1.3%) were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit. All spontaneous vaginal births from the MLU registered population, occurring in the study period in both the MLU and CLU settings (n = 2,785), were compared. In the MLU more often 1–2 midwives (90.9% vs 69.7%) cared for the women during birth, more women had three vaginal examinations or fewer (93.6% vs 79.9%) and gave birth in an upright position (standing, squatting or kneeling) (52.0% vs 9.4%), fewer women had an amniotomy (5.9% vs 25.9%) or episiotomy (3.4% vs 9.7%) and more women had a physiological management of third stage of labour (50.9% vs 4.6%). Conclusions Midwife-led care is a safe option that could be offered to a large proportion of healthy pregnant women. With strict transfer criteria there are very few complications during labour and birth. Maternity units without the option of MLU care should consider its introduction.

Background: Midwife-led maternity care is shown to be safe for women with low-risk during pregnancy. In Ireland, two midwife-led units (MLUs) were introduced in 2004 when a randomised controlled trial (the MidU study) was performed to compare MLU care with consultant-led care (CLU). Following study completion the two MLUs have remained as a maternity care option in Ireland. The aim of this study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes and transfer rates during six years in the larger of the MLU sites., Methods: MLU data for the six years 2008-2013 were retrospectively analysed, following ethical approval. Rates of transfer, reasons for transfer, mode of birth, and maternal and fetal outcomes were assessed. Linear-by-Linear Association trend analysis was used for categorical data to evaluate trends over the years and one-way ANOVA was used when comparing continuous variables., Results: During the study period, 3,884 women were registered at the MLU. The antenatal transfer rate was 37.4% and 2,410 women came to labour in the MLU. Throughout labour and birth, 567 women (14.6%) transferred to the CLU, of which 23 were transferred after birth due to need for suturing or postpartum hemorrhage. The most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were meconium stained liquor/abnormal fetal heart rate (30.3%), delayed labour progress in first or second stage (24.9%) and woman's wish for epidural analgesia (15.1%). Of the 1,903 babies born in the MLU, 1,878 (98.7%) were spontaneous vaginal births and 25 (1.3%) were instrumental (ventouse/forceps). Only 25 babies (1.3%) were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit. All spontaneous vaginal births from the MLU registered population, occurring in the study period in both the MLU and CLU settings (n = 2,785), were compared. In the MLU more often 1-2 midwives (90.9% vs 69.7%) cared for the women during birth, more women had three vaginal examinations or fewer (93.6% vs 79.9%) and gave birth in an upright position (standing, squatting or kneeling) (52.0% vs 9.4%), fewer women had an amniotomy (5.9% vs 25.9%) or episiotomy (3.4% vs 9.7%) and more women had a physiological management of third stage of labour (50.9% vs 4.6%)., Conclusions: Midwife-led care is a safe option that could be offered to a large proportion of healthy pregnant women. With strict transfer criteria there are very few complications during labour and birth. Maternity units without the option of MLU care should consider its introduction.

Background: Current clinical guidelines and national policy in England support offering 'low risk' women a choice of birth setting, but despite an increase in provison of midwifery units in England the vast majority of women still give birth in obstetric units and there is uncertainty around how best to configure services. There is therefore a need to better understand women's birth place preferences. The aim of this review was to summarise the recent quantitative evidence on UK women's birth place preferences with a focus on identifying the service attributes that 'low risk' women prefer and on identifying which attributes women prioritise when choosing their intended maternity unit or birth setting., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Science Index, CINAHL and ASSIA to identify quantitative studies published in scientific journals since 1992 and designed to describe and explore women's preferences in relation to place of birth. We included experimental stated preference studies, surveys and mixed-methods studies containing relevant quantitative data, where participants were 'low risk' or 'unselected' groups of women with experience of UK maternity services., Results: We included five experimental stated preference studies and four observational surveys, including a total of 4201 respondents. Most studies were old with only three conducted since 2000. Methodological quality was generally poor. The attributes and preferences most commonly explored related to pain relief, continuity of midwife, involvement/availability of medical staff, 'homely' environment/atmosphere, decision-making style, distance/travel time and need for transfer. Service attributes that were almost universally valued by women included local services, being attended by a known midwife and a preference for a degree of control and involvement in decision-making. A substantial proportion of women had a strong preference for care in a hospital setting where medical staff are not necessarily involved in their care, but are readily available., Conclusions: The majority of women appear to value some service attributes while preferences differ for others. Policy makers, commissioners and service providers might usefully consider how to extend the availability of services that most women value while offering a choice of options that enable women to access services that best fit their needs and preferences.