Elderhorst Erica, Ahmed Rashid J, Hutton Eileen K, Darling Elizabeth K
McMaster Midwifery Research Centre, Hamilton, ON.
McMaster Midwifery Research Centre, Hamilton, ON; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Oct;41(10):1444-1452. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.024. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
This study sought to compare clinical outcomes of midwifery clients who had postdates induction of labour with oxytocin under midwifery care with those transferred to obstetrical care.
This was a retrospective cohort study using 2006-2009 Ontario Midwifery Program data. All low-risk Ontario midwifery clients who had postdates oxytocin induction were included. Groups were established according to the planned care provider at onset of induction. The primary outcome was Cesarean section (CS). The secondary outcome was a composite of stillbirth, neonatal death, or serious morbidity. Other outcomes included assisted vaginal delivery, pharmaceutical pain relief, and use of episiotomy. We stratified by parity and used logistic regression to conduct analyses controlling for maternal age (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2).
For nulliparas, postdates induction with oxytocin under midwifery care decreased the odds of interventions including assisted vaginal delivery (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48-0.97), episiotomy (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.70), and pharmaceutical pain relief (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.90), with no difference in odds of neonatal morbidity or mortality (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.25-2.04) when compared with induction under obstetrical care. For multiparas, the use of pharmaceutical pain relief was significantly lower in the midwifery group (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.96).
For low-risk midwifery clients at 41 weeks or more gestation, the odds of Caesarean section and neonatal morbidity and mortality are similar when induction of labour with oxytocin under the care of a midwife is compared with induction of labour under obstetrical care, and rates of intervention are decreased.
本研究旨在比较在助产护理下使用缩宫素进行过期引产的产妇与转至产科护理的产妇的临床结局。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,使用了2006 - 2009年安大略省助产项目的数据。纳入了所有在安大略省进行过期缩宫素引产的低风险助产产妇。根据引产开始时计划的护理提供者进行分组。主要结局是剖宫产(CS)。次要结局是死产、新生儿死亡或严重发病的综合情况。其他结局包括辅助阴道分娩、药物止痛和会阴切开术的使用。我们按产次分层,并使用逻辑回归进行分析,控制产妇年龄(加拿大工作组分类II - 2)。
对于初产妇,在助产护理下使用缩宫素进行过期引产降低了包括辅助阴道分娩(OR 0.68;95% CI 0.48 - 0.97)、会阴切开术(OR 0.49;95% CI 0.34 - 0.70)和药物止痛(OR 0.57;95% CI 0.36 - 0.90)等干预措施的几率,与产科护理下引产相比,新生儿发病或死亡几率无差异(OR 0.71;95% CI 0.25 - 2.04)。对于经产妇,助产组药物止痛的使用显著较低(OR 0.65;95% CI 0.44 - 0.96)。
对于妊娠41周及以上的低风险助产产妇,与产科护理下引产相比,助产士护理下使用缩宫素引产时剖宫产、新生儿发病和死亡的几率相似,且干预率降低。