Search

Objective Design Setting Sample Methods Main outcome measures Results Conclusion Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth.Cohort study with non‐inferiority design.Twenty‐six UK NHS maternity services.A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth.Non‐inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems.Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth.Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one‐sided 95% CI, −∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.79).Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maternal preference for warm water immersion (WWI) and waterbirth is increasing, but adoption into obstetric guidelines and clinical practice remains limited. Concerns regarding safety and a paucity of evidence have been cited as reasons for the limited adoption and uptake. Aim: The aim was to investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes after WWI and/or waterbirth compared with land birth. Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in an Australian public maternity hospital between 2019 and 2020. Maternal and neonatal outcomes for 1665 women who had a vaginal birth were studied. Primary outcome was admission to the neonatal unit (NNU). Secondary outcomes included neonatal antibiotic administration, maternal intrapartum fever, epidural use and perineal injury. Multivariate logistical regression analyses compared the outcomes between three groups: waterbirth, WWI only and land birth. Results: NNU admissions for a suspected infectious condition were significantly higher in the land birth group (P = 0.035). After accounting for labour duration, epidural use and previous birth mode, no significant difference was detected between groups in the odds of NNU admission (P = 0.167). No babies were admitted to NNU with water inhalation or drowning. Women birthing on land were more likely to be febrile (2 vs 0%; P = 0.007); obstetric anal sphincter injury and postpartum haemorrhage were similar between groups. Regional analgesia use was significantly lower in the WWI group compared to the land birth group (21.02 vs 38.58%; P = <0.001). There was one cord avulsion in the waterbirth group (0.41%). Conclusion: Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups, with no increased risk evident in the waterbirth and WWI groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention‐to‐treat analysis, and per‐protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage. Results: 1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention‐to‐treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per‐protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage. Conclusions: A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention‐to‐treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Our aim was to compare the outcomes of waterbirths and conventional births in a Finnish hospital setting for the first time. Methods: This retrospective study compared waterbirths with conventional low‐risk deliveries from September 2018 to March 2021 at a level‐two hospital in Finland. Cases and controls were collected from the patient records database. Results: The study comprised 78 waterbirths and 1623 matched conventional births. Mothers in the waterbirth group only required a quarter of the amount of pain medication required by those in the control group. Babies born in water had slightly lower birth temperatures than those born conventionally (36.6 versus 36.8°C). Umbilical cord artery and vein pH were slightly higher in the waterbirth group than in the control group (artery 7.31 versus 7.28 and vein 7.38 versus 7.35). The Apgar scores did not differ. Hospital stays were shorter in the waterbirth group than in the conventional birth group (1.90 versus 2.33 days). Babies in the waterbirth group were significantly less likely to require formula than those in the conventional birth group during their hospital stay. Conclusion: Waterbirth decreased the requirement for maternal pain medication and favoured greater breastfeeding and earlier discharge. Prospective studies must confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth. Design: Retrospective cohort study, with propensity score matching to address confounding. Setting: Community births, United States. Sample: Medical records‐based registry data from low‐risk births were used to create waterbirth and land birth groups (n = 17 530 each), propensity score‐matched on >80 demographic and pregnancy risk covariables. Methods: Logistic regression models compared outcomes between the matched waterbirth and land birth groups. Main outcome measures: Maternal: immediate postpartum transfer to a hospital, any genital tract trauma, severe (3rd/4th degree) trauma, haemorrhage >1000 mL, diagnosed haemorrhage regardless of estimated blood loss, uterine infection, uterine infection requiring hospitalisation, any hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks. Neonatal: umbilical cord avulsion; immediate neonatal transfer to a hospital; respiratory distress syndrome; any hospitalisation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, or neonatal infection in the first 6 weeks; and neonatal death. Results: Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31–1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05–1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37–1.82). Our results are concordant with other studies: waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH. New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Research to understand factors associated with normal physiologic birth (unassisted vaginal birth, spontaneous labor onset without epidural analgesia, spinal, or general anesthetic, without episiotomy) is required. Laboring and/or giving birth in water has been shown to be associated with a high proportion of physiologic birth but with little understanding of factors that may influence this outcome. This study explored factors associated with normal physiologic birth for women who labored in water. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a UK‐based prospective observational study of 8064 women at low risk of childbirth complications who labored in water. Consecutive women were recruited from birth settings in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Planned place of birth, maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were measured. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression modelling explored factors associated with normal physiologic birth. Results: In total, 5758 (71.4%) of women who labored in water had a normal physiologic birth. Planned birth in the community (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 2.22‐2.99) or at an alongside midwifery unit (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04‐1.41) was positively associated with normal physiologic birth compared with planned birth in an obstetric unit. Duration of second stage (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62‐0.70), duration in the pool [aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90‐0.96), and birth weight of the neonate (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65‐0.85) were negatively associated with normal physiologic birth. Parity was not associated with normal physiologic birth in multivariate analyses. Discussion: Our findings largely reflected wider research, both in and out of water. We found midwifery‐led birth settings may increase the likelihood of normal physiologic birth among healthy women who labor in water, irrespective of parity. This association supports growing evidence demonstrating the importance of planned place of birth on reducing intervention rates and adds to research on labor and birth in water. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Water immersion during labor is an effective comfort measure; however, outcomes for waterbirth in the hospital setting have not been well documented. Our objective was to report the outcomes from two nurse‐midwifery services that provide waterbirth within a tertiary care hospital setting in the United States. Methods: This study is a retrospective, observational, matched comparison design. Data were collected from two large midwifery practices in tertiary care centers using information recorded at the time of birth for quality assurance purposes. Land birth cases were excluded if events would have precluded them from waterbirth (epidural, meconium stained fluid, chorioamnionitis, estimated gestational age < 37 weeks, or body mass index > 40). Neonatal outcomes included Apgar score and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Maternal outcomes included perineal lacerations and postpartum hemorrhage. Results: A total of 397 waterbirths and 2025 land births were included in the analysis. There were no differences in outcomes between waterbirth and land birth for Apgar scores or neonatal intensive care admissions (1.8% vs 2.5%). Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to sustain a first‐ or second‐degree laceration. Postpartum hemorrhage rates were similar for both groups. Similar results were obtained using a land birth subset matched on insurance, hospital location, and parity using propensity scores. Discussion: In this study, waterbirth was not associated with increased risk to neonates, extensive perineal lacerations, or postpartum hemorrhage. Fewer women in the waterbirth group sustained first‐ or second‐degree lacerations requiring sutures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse‐midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6‐week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi‐square) with a significance level of P <.05. Results: Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P =.03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P =.045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups. Discussion: The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low‐risk women and their neonates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most waterbirth studies have been conducted outside the United States with a primary focus on birth outcomes. Studies to date provide limited information about how often women choosing waterbirth end water immersion before the birth and about the reasons for tub exit. This study examines a cohort of women intending a hospital‐based waterbirth and documents the timing and reasons for tub exit. Demographic, clinical, and intrapartum care provider characteristics among women completing waterbirth were compared with those who exited the water prior to birth. Methods: This is a collaborative, multisite study from 2 health systems (8 hospitals) using retrospective electronic health records from August 2014 through December 2017. Results: Of 576 women who entered the waterbirth tub, 48% exited prior to the birth. The primary reasons for exit were maternal choice (50%), medical indication (32%), and provider decision (13%). Women exiting in the first stage did so primarily by choice (57%), whereas medical indication (42%) was the most common reason among women exiting in the second stage. Women who completed waterbirth did not differ from those who exited prior to birth with regard to age, race, ethnicity, country of origin, language, marital status, or intrapartum care provider specialty. Women completing waterbirth were more likely to have previously given birth (72% vs 47%) and to have a provider with more water immersion births during the study period (65% vs 55%). Discussion: Giving birth in the tub was associated with parity and intrapartum care provider experience. Half of the women intending waterbirth in this study exited the tub, with variation in exit reason by stage and provider type. It is important for women to understand that they or their provider may change the birth plan based on labor progress and maternal experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research supports water immersion for labour if women are healthy, with no obstetric or medical risk factors. Aims: To evaluate the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of women intending to use immersion in water for labour or birth. Methods: Retrospective audit of clinical outcomes for women intending to labour or birth in water conducted between July 2015 and June 2016, at a tertiary maternity hospital in Western Australia. Obstetric and neonatal data were collected from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was utilised to investigate women who laboured in water stratified by those who birthed in water. Results: A total of 502 women intended to labour or birth in water; 199 (40%) did not and 303 (60%) did. The majority of women using water immersion (179 of 303; 59%) birthed in water. Multiparous women were more likely than primparous to birth in water (73% vs 46%; P < 0.001). Women who birthed in water were at increased odds of: a first stage labour ≤240 min (odds ratio (OR) 2.56, 95% CI 1.34–4.87, P = 0.004); a second stage ≤60 min (OR 3.53, 95% CI 1.82–6.84, P < 0.000); a third stage labour of 11–30 min (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.23–3.78, P = 0.008); and having an intact perineum (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.70–5.64, P < 0.000). Conclusion: Not all women who set out to labour and birth in water achieve their aim. There is a need for high‐quality collaborative research into this option of labour and birth, so women can make an informed choice around this birth option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The literature describes advantages for mothers giving birth in water, but waterbirth is controversial in Sweden and has not been offered at hospitals until recently. This study aimed to describe and compare the characteristics and outcome of waterbirths with those of spontaneous vaginal births at the same clinics.Material and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all waterbirths at two maternity units in Sweden from March 2014 to November 2015 (n = 306), and a consecutively selected comparison group of 306 women having conventional spontaneous vaginal births. Logistic regression was used to analyze the primary outcome; second-degree perineal tears.Results: Women giving birth in water had a lower risk of second-degree perineal tears [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9]). Their labor was shorter (6 h 3 min vs. 7 h 52 min) and there were significantly fewer interventions than in the comparison group; amniotomy (13.7 vs. 35.3%), internal cardiotocography (11.1 vs. 56.8%), and augmentation with oxytocin (5.2 vs. 31.3%). There were no differences in Apgar scores or admissions to neonatal intensive care unit. The experience of childbirth, measured with a numeric rating scale, was higher in the waterbirth group indicating a more positive birth experience. Three newborns born in water had an umbilical cord avulsion.Conclusions: In this low-risk population, waterbirth is associated with positive effects on perineal tears, the frequency of interventions, the duration of labor and women's birth experience. Midwives handling waterbirth should be aware of the risk of umbilical cord avulsion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking. Methods We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity. Results Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001). Discussion Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]