硬膜外镇痛对剖宫产后阴道分娩结局的影响。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Tamar Eshkoli, Merav Jacobs, Alla Saban, Yael Baumfeld, Renana Ben Shushan-Amor, Zehava Yohay, Adi Y Weintraub
{"title":"硬膜外镇痛对剖宫产后阴道分娩结局的影响。","authors":"Tamar Eshkoli, Merav Jacobs, Alla Saban, Yael Baumfeld, Renana Ben Shushan-Amor, Zehava Yohay, Adi Y Weintraub","doi":"10.1007/s00404-025-07959-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>To assess the association between Epidural Analgesia (EA) during Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) and delivery mode (spontaneous or instrumental vaginal delivery). Secondary objectives include maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective population-based cohort study, all women who underwent a VBAC with and without EA, between the years 1996-2016 at the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC) were included. Women who delivered by cesarean section (elective and non-elective) and those who gave birth to a newborn with chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations, and multifetal gestations were excluded. Demographical, clinical, and obstetrical characteristics were recorded, and pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes were compared between the groups. The primary outcome was the type of delivery. Univariate analysis was followed by a multivariate analysis to control for confounders. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 17,516 women who have had a previous CS met the inclusion criteria, of which 15% (n = 2652) used EA during labor, while the rest of the cohort 85% (n = 14,864) were non-EA users. Women in the EA group had higher rates of instrumental delivery and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as well as higher rates of oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor. The use of EA was found to be an independent risk factor for instrumental delivery after controlling for maternal age, ethnicity, parity, DM (diabetes mellitus), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, oxytocin augmentation, prolonged second stage of labor, induction of labor, fertility treatments and oligohydramnios. However, no significant differences were observed regarding neonatal outcomes including perinatal mortality, birth weight, Apgar scores and shoulder dystocia rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EA for women undergoing a VBAC was associated with higher rates of instrumental delivery and PPH, oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor compared with women without EA. However, neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of epidural analgesia on outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Tamar Eshkoli, Merav Jacobs, Alla Saban, Yael Baumfeld, Renana Ben Shushan-Amor, Zehava Yohay, Adi Y Weintraub\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00404-025-07959-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>To assess the association between Epidural Analgesia (EA) during Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) and delivery mode (spontaneous or instrumental vaginal delivery). Secondary objectives include maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective population-based cohort study, all women who underwent a VBAC with and without EA, between the years 1996-2016 at the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC) were included. Women who delivered by cesarean section (elective and non-elective) and those who gave birth to a newborn with chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations, and multifetal gestations were excluded. Demographical, clinical, and obstetrical characteristics were recorded, and pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes were compared between the groups. The primary outcome was the type of delivery. Univariate analysis was followed by a multivariate analysis to control for confounders. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 17,516 women who have had a previous CS met the inclusion criteria, of which 15% (n = 2652) used EA during labor, while the rest of the cohort 85% (n = 14,864) were non-EA users. Women in the EA group had higher rates of instrumental delivery and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as well as higher rates of oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor. The use of EA was found to be an independent risk factor for instrumental delivery after controlling for maternal age, ethnicity, parity, DM (diabetes mellitus), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, oxytocin augmentation, prolonged second stage of labor, induction of labor, fertility treatments and oligohydramnios. However, no significant differences were observed regarding neonatal outcomes including perinatal mortality, birth weight, Apgar scores and shoulder dystocia rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EA for women undergoing a VBAC was associated with higher rates of instrumental delivery and PPH, oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor compared with women without EA. However, neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-07959-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-07959-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主要目的:评估剖宫产后阴道分娩(VBAC)时硬膜外镇痛(EA)与分娩方式(自然分娩或器械分娩)之间的关系。次要目标包括孕产妇和新生儿结局。方法:在这项以人群为基础的回顾性队列研究中,纳入了1996-2016年间在索罗卡大学医学中心(SUMC)接受VBAC的所有女性,无论是否伴有EA。经剖宫产(选择性和非选择性)分娩的妇女、新生儿有染色体异常或重大畸形以及多胎妊娠的妇女被排除在外。记录人口统计学、临床和产科特征,并比较两组之间的妊娠并发症和不良围产期结局。主要结果是分娩的类型。单因素分析后进行多因素分析以控制混杂因素。结果的p值:在研究期间,17,516名既往有过CS的妇女符合纳入标准,其中15% (n = 2652)在分娩期间使用EA,而其余85% (n = 14,864)未使用EA。EA组的妇女有更高的器械分娩率和产后出血(PPH),以及更高的催产素增加率和更长的第二产程。在控制了产妇年龄、种族、胎次、DM(糖尿病)、妊娠高血压疾病、催产素增强、延长第二产程、引产、生育治疗和羊水过少等因素后,发现EA的使用是器械分娩的独立危险因素。然而,在新生儿结局方面,包括围产期死亡率、出生体重、Apgar评分和肩难产率,没有观察到显著差异。结论:与没有EA的女性相比,接受VBAC的女性EA与更高的辅助分娩率、PPH、催产素增加和更长的第二产程相关。然而,新生儿结局在两组之间没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of epidural analgesia on outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

Primary objective: To assess the association between Epidural Analgesia (EA) during Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) and delivery mode (spontaneous or instrumental vaginal delivery). Secondary objectives include maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: In this retrospective population-based cohort study, all women who underwent a VBAC with and without EA, between the years 1996-2016 at the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC) were included. Women who delivered by cesarean section (elective and non-elective) and those who gave birth to a newborn with chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations, and multifetal gestations were excluded. Demographical, clinical, and obstetrical characteristics were recorded, and pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes were compared between the groups. The primary outcome was the type of delivery. Univariate analysis was followed by a multivariate analysis to control for confounders. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: During the study period, 17,516 women who have had a previous CS met the inclusion criteria, of which 15% (n = 2652) used EA during labor, while the rest of the cohort 85% (n = 14,864) were non-EA users. Women in the EA group had higher rates of instrumental delivery and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as well as higher rates of oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor. The use of EA was found to be an independent risk factor for instrumental delivery after controlling for maternal age, ethnicity, parity, DM (diabetes mellitus), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, oxytocin augmentation, prolonged second stage of labor, induction of labor, fertility treatments and oligohydramnios. However, no significant differences were observed regarding neonatal outcomes including perinatal mortality, birth weight, Apgar scores and shoulder dystocia rates.

Conclusion: EA for women undergoing a VBAC was associated with higher rates of instrumental delivery and PPH, oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor compared with women without EA. However, neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信