Suppr超能文献

由注册助产士接生的计划在家分娩与由助产士或医生接生的计划在医院分娩的结局比较。

Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician.

作者信息

Janssen Patricia A, Saxell Lee, Page Lesley A, Klein Michael C, Liston Robert M, Lee Shoo K

机构信息

School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

出版信息

CMAJ. 2009 Sep 15;181(6-7):377-83. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081869. Epub 2009 Aug 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians.

METHODS

We included all planned home births attended by registered midwives from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2004, in British Columbia, Canada (n = 2889), and all planned hospital births meeting the eligibility requirements for home birth that were attended by the same cohort of midwives (n = 4752). We also included a matched sample of physician-attended planned hospital births (n = 5331). The primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality; secondary outcomes were obstetric interventions and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

The rate of perinatal death per 1000 births was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-1.03) in the group of planned home births; the rate in the group of planned hospital births was 0.57 (95% CI 0.00-1.43) among women attended by a midwife and 0.64 (95% CI 0.00-1.56) among those attended by a physician. Women in the planned home-birth group were significantly less likely than those who planned a midwife-attended hospital birth to have obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.29-0.36; assisted vaginal delivery, RR 0.41, 95% 0.33-0.52) or adverse maternal outcomes (e.g., third- or fourth-degree perineal tear, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.59; postpartum hemorrhage, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.77). The findings were similar in the comparison with physician-assisted hospital births. Newborns in the home-birth group were less likely than those in the midwife-attended hospital-birth group to require resuscitation at birth (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.37) or oxygen therapy beyond 24 hours (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24-0.59). The findings were similar in the comparison with newborns in the physician-assisted hospital births; in addition, newborns in the home-birth group were less likely to have meconium aspiration (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.93) and more likely to be admitted to hospital or readmitted if born in hospital (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.85).

INTERPRETATION

Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.

摘要

背景

由注册助产士接生的计划在家分娩的研究受到数据不完整、抽样不具代表性、统计效力不足以及无法排除非计划在家分娩等因素的限制。我们比较了由助产士接生的计划在家分娩与由助产士或医生接生的计划在医院分娩的结局。

方法

我们纳入了2000年1月1日至2004年12月31日在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省由注册助产士接生的所有计划在家分娩(n = 2889),以及由同一批助产士接生的所有符合在家分娩资格要求的计划在医院分娩(n = 4752)。我们还纳入了一个与医生接生的计划在医院分娩相匹配的样本(n = 5331)。主要结局指标是围产期死亡率;次要结局是产科干预措施以及孕产妇和新生儿不良结局。

结果

计划在家分娩组每1000例分娩的围产期死亡率为0.35(95%置信区间[CI] 0.00 - 1.03);在由助产士接生的计划在医院分娩组中,该率为0.57(95% CI 0.00 - 1.43),在由医生接生的组中为0.64(95% CI 0.00 - 1.56)。计划在家分娩组的妇女比计划由助产士接生在医院分娩的妇女进行产科干预(如电子胎儿监护,相对危险度[RR] 0.32,95% CI 0.29 - 0.36;阴道助产,RR 0.41,95% 0.33 - 0.52)或出现孕产妇不良结局(如会阴三度或四度撕裂,RR 0.41,95% CI 0.28 - 0.59;产后出血,RR 0.62,95% CI 0.49 - 0.77)的可能性显著更低。与医生辅助的医院分娩相比,结果相似。在家分娩组的新生儿比在助产士接生的医院分娩组的新生儿出生时需要复苏(RR 0.23,95% CI 0.14 - 0.37)或出生24小时后需要吸氧治疗(RR 0.37,95% CI 0.24 - 0.59)的可能性更低。与医生辅助的医院分娩中的新生儿相比,结果相似;此外,在家分娩组的新生儿胎粪吸入的可能性更低(RR 0.45,95% CI 0.21 - 0.93),如果在医院出生则住院或再次住院的可能性更高(RR 1.39,95% CI 1.09 - 1.85)。

解读

与由助产士或医生接生的计划在医院分娩相比,由注册助产士接生的计划在家分娩与极低且相当的围产期死亡率相关,并且产科干预措施和其他围产期不良结局的发生率降低。

相似文献

6
Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States.美国计划在家分娩的围产期风险。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):350.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.021. Epub 2014 Oct 15.

引用本文的文献

6
9
Cost analysis of planned out-of-hospital births in Italy.意大利计划性院外分娩的成本分析。
Acta Biomed. 2022 Aug 31;93(4):e2022227. doi: 10.23750/abm.v93i4.12923.

本文引用的文献

10
Birth at home.在家分娩。
Pract Midwife. 1999 Jul-Aug;2(7):35-9.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验