Abenhaim Haim A, Benjamin Alice, Koby Robert D, Kinch Robert A, Kramer Michael S
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Que.
CMAJ. 2007 Aug 14;177(4):352-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060920.
The question "will you be delivering my baby?" is one that pregnant women frequently ask their physicians. We sought to determine whether obstetric outcomes differed between women whose babies were delivered by their own obstetrician (regular-care obstetrician) and those attended by an on-call obstetrician who did not provide antenatal care.
We performed a cohort study of all live singleton term births between 1991 and 2001 at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montréal. We excluded breech deliveries, elective cesarean sections and deliveries with placenta previa or prolapse of the umbilical cord. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare obstetric outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery and episiotomy) between the regular-care and on-call obstetricians after adjustment for potential confounders.
A total of 28,332 eligible deliveries were attended by 26 obstetricians: 21,779 (76.9%) by the patient's own obstetrician and 6553 (23.1%) by the on-call obstetrician. Compared with women attended by their regular-care obstetrician, those attended by an on-call obstetrician had higher rates of cesarean delivery (11.9% v. 11.4%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, p < 0.01) and of third-or fourth-degree tears (7.9% v. 6.4%, adjusted OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07-1.36, p < 0.01) but lower rates of episiotomy (38.5% v. 42.9%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82, p < 0.001). No differences were observed between the groups in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery. The increase in the overall rate of cesarean delivery among women attended by an on-call obstetrician was due mainly to an increase in cesarean deliveries during the first stage of labour because of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing (2.9% v. 1.7%, adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.49-2.15, p < 0.001). The time of day of delivery did not modify the observed effects.
The type of attending obstetrician (regular care v. on call) had a minor effect on obstetric outcomes.
“你会为我接生吗?”是孕妇经常问医生的一个问题。我们试图确定由自己的产科医生(常规护理产科医生)接生的产妇与由未提供产前护理的值班产科医生接生的产妇的产科结局是否存在差异。
我们对1991年至2001年在蒙特利尔皇家维多利亚医院出生的所有单胎足月活产进行了队列研究。我们排除了臀位分娩、择期剖宫产以及前置胎盘或脐带脱垂的分娩。在对潜在混杂因素进行调整后,使用逻辑回归分析比较常规护理产科医生和值班产科医生的产科结局(例如剖宫产、器械助产阴道分娩和会阴切开术)。
26位产科医生共接生了28332例符合条件的分娩:患者自己的产科医生接生21779例(76.9%),值班产科医生接生6553例(23.1%)。与由常规护理产科医生接生的产妇相比,由值班产科医生接生的产妇剖宫产率更高(11.9%对11.4%,调整后的优势比[OR]为1.13,95%置信区间[CI]为1.03 - 1.24,p < 0.01)以及三度或四度会阴裂伤率更高(7.9%对6.4%,调整后的OR为1.21,95% CI为1.07 - 1.36,p < 0.01),但会阴切开术率更低(38.5%对42.9%,OR为0.77,95% CI为0.72 - 0.82,p < 0.001)。两组在器械助产阴道分娩率方面未观察到差异。值班产科医生接生的产妇剖宫产总体率的增加主要是由于第一产程中因胎儿心率监测异常导致的剖宫产增加(2.9%对1.7%,调整后的OR为1.79,95% CI为1.49 - 2.15,p < 0.001)。分娩时间并未改变观察到的影响。
接生产科医生的类型(常规护理与值班)对产科结局有较小影响。