Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology最新文献_第9页

Main Program 主程序

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13072

H. Sherrell, V. Clifton, Sailesh Kumar

引用次数: 0

Induction of labour at 39 weeks should be routinely offered to low‐risk women 39周引产应常规提供给低风险妇女

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12980

B. D. de Vries, A. Gordon

{"title":"Induction of labour at 39 weeks should be routinely offered to low‐risk women","authors":"B. D. de Vries, A. Gordon","doi":"10.1111/ajo.12980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12980","url":null,"abstract":"Then, in 2007, a poster was presented from the new Cochrane systematic review, which showed that in lowrisk pregnancies, induction of labour (IOL) before 40 weeks’ gestational age prevented caesarean section. The risk ratio was 0.68 (95% CI 0.34–0.99).1 I was astounded. The authors proposed an Australian randomised controlled trial among lowrisk women for improving perinatal outcomes. It was not undertaken, but the USA ARRIVE Trial was published in 2018. A total of 6106 lowrisk nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies were randomised to planned IOL at 39+0–39+4 weeks or expectant management.2 Severe perinatal complications occurred in 4.3% infants in the IOL group and 5.4% in the expectant group (P = 0.049). Caesarean section occurred in 18.6% of women in the IOL group and 22.2% in the expectant group (P < 0.001). Almost immediately, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated ‘it is reasonable for obstetricians and healthcare facilities to offer elective induction of labor to lowrisk nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation’, a view endorsed by the Society for MaternalFetal Medicine.3 However, the trial also drew criticism based on the perceived lack of generalisability, discrepancies with observational data, availability of other methods to reduce caesarean section rates and unknown costeffectiveness.4–6 Should women be able to choose IOL at 39 weeks, thereby acknowledging a woman's right to autonomy? Or is IOL at 39 weeks so obviously wrong that it should not be discussed as an option, or even actively refused if requested? The aim of this opinion article is to argue the case for offering IOL 39 weeks’ gestational age to lowrisk women.","PeriodicalId":8599,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82369516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Static Posters 静态海报

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13066

引用次数: 0

Sleep in multiple pregnancy: Obstructive sleep apnoea and beyond 多胎妊娠期的睡眠:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停及其他

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12985

Y. Bin, J. Ford, P. Cistulli

{"title":"Sleep in multiple pregnancy: Obstructive sleep apnoea and beyond","authors":"Y. Bin, J. Ford, P. Cistulli","doi":"10.1111/ajo.12985","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12985","url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor, We read with great interest a most engaging and pragmatic clinical guideline for decreased fetal movements (DFM).1 Between 30– 55% of women who experience a stillbirth retrospectively noted DFM in the preceding week.2 This presumed negative clinical incident has long been perceived as opportunity for intervention. The AFFIRM study, recently published (November, 2018), was to be the first randomised trial involving 409 175 pregnancies that used a similar intervention package as in Norway (subjective perception of DFM by a patient in a contemporaneous setting) and was expected to deliver a 30% reduction in the rate of stillbirths.2 The results of the AFFIRM study have been disappointing to the supporters of intervention for reduced fetal movements. There was no statistically significant reduction in the stillbirth rate but rather an increase in induction and caesarean section rates, and average neonatal length of stay in neonatal intensive care.2 Also, in the intervention group there was a higher rate of post neonatal deaths. In our exuberance to prevent stillbirths, have we violated the principle of nonmaleficence? Alternatively, as suggested by Walker and Thornton, it might be safer to retain our current approach but rather place limits on awareness campaigns to gestations greater than 37 weeks.3 Reflecting upon the negative or null findings of the AFFIRM study, should the local guideline have an immediate addendum to clarify that there is no robust scientific approach to reduced fetal movements while awaiting further evidence?","PeriodicalId":8599,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86006746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Reduced fetal movements – First do no harm 胎动减少-首先对胎儿无害

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12976

A. Saunders, C. Griffin

{"title":"Reduced fetal movements – First do no harm","authors":"A. Saunders, C. Griffin","doi":"10.1111/ajo.12976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12976","url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor, We read with great interest a most engaging and pragmatic clinical guideline for decreased fetal movements (DFM).1 Between 30– 55% of women who experience a stillbirth retrospectively noted DFM in the preceding week.2 This presumed negative clinical incident has long been perceived as opportunity for intervention. The AFFIRM study, recently published (November, 2018), was to be the first randomised trial involving 409 175 pregnancies that used a similar intervention package as in Norway (subjective perception of DFM by a patient in a contemporaneous setting) and was expected to deliver a 30% reduction in the rate of stillbirths.2 The results of the AFFIRM study have been disappointing to the supporters of intervention for reduced fetal movements. There was no statistically significant reduction in the stillbirth rate but rather an increase in induction and caesarean section rates, and average neonatal length of stay in neonatal intensive care.2 Also, in the intervention group there was a higher rate of post neonatal deaths. In our exuberance to prevent stillbirths, have we violated the principle of nonmaleficence? Alternatively, as suggested by Walker and Thornton, it might be safer to retain our current approach but rather place limits on awareness campaigns to gestations greater than 37 weeks.3 Reflecting upon the negative or null findings of the AFFIRM study, should the local guideline have an immediate addendum to clarify that there is no robust scientific approach to reduced fetal movements while awaiting further evidence?","PeriodicalId":8599,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85294294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Journal Editorial Board 期刊编辑委员会

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12860

引用次数: 0

A Reply to: Sleep in multiple pregnancy: Obstructive sleep apnoea and beyond 多胎妊娠中的睡眠:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停及其他

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13007

M. Rees

引用次数: 1

ANZSREI consensus statement on elective oocyte cryopreservation ANZSREI关于选择性卵母细胞冷冻保存的共识声明

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13028

Raelia Lew, J. Foo, Ben Kroon, C. Boothroyd, M. Chapman

引用次数: 8

Men's lived experiences of perinatal loss: A review of the literature 男性围产期损失的生活经历:文献综述

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-08-15 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13041

Van Nguyen, M. Temple-Smith, J. Bilardi

引用次数: 19

Journal Editorial Board 期刊编辑委员会

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-08-01 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12858

引用次数: 0