选择性重复剖宫产前自然分娩对妊娠结局的影响:一项前瞻性队列研究

M. Ramadan, Ibtissam Jarjour, Manal Hubeish, S. Itani, S. Mneimneh, D. Badr
{"title":"选择性重复剖宫产前自然分娩对妊娠结局的影响:一项前瞻性队列研究","authors":"M. Ramadan, Ibtissam Jarjour, Manal Hubeish, S. Itani, S. Mneimneh, D. Badr","doi":"10.1097/FM9.0000000000000115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: To investigate the effects of spontaneous labor before elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) on short-term maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. All consecutive ERCDs, occurring at ≥37  weeks of gestation between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 in Makassed General Hospital, were evaluated. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of 183 laboring women undergoing unscheduled repeat cesarean delivery (URCD) group were compared with those of 204 women undergoing cesarean delivery (CD) without spontaneous labor (ERCD) group. Primary outcomes were “composite adverse maternal outcome” and “composite adverse neonatal outcome.” Fisher's exact and Student's t tests were used to assess the significance of differences in dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Two logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors with most significant influence on the rate of composite adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: “Composite adverse maternal outcome” was significantly more common in women who underwent spontaneous labor ((40/183) 21.9% vs. (19/204) 9.3%, P = 0.001, relative risk (RR): 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–4.90). Similarly, “composite adverse neonatal outcome” was significantly increased in the URCD group ((24/183) 13.1% vs. (12/204) 5.9%, P = 0.014, RR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.18–4.98). These adverse effects persisted after adjustment for confounders. Multivariate regression models revealed that, besides labor, CD-order impacted maternal outcome (RR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.02–2.30, P = 0.036), while CD-order and teenage pregnancy influenced neonatal outcome (RR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.29–3.38, P = 0.003, and RR: 16.5, 95%CI: 2.09–129.80, P = 0.008, respectively). Conclusion: In our study, spontaneous labor before ERCD, including deliveries at term, was associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, indicating that it is preferable to conduct ERCD before the onset of labor. Screening women with MRCD may identify those at increased risk for spontaneous labor for whom CD could be scheduled 1–2 weeks earlier. Further large prospective studies to assess the effects of such an approach on maternal and neonatal outcomes are strongly warranted.","PeriodicalId":74121,"journal":{"name":"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Spontaneous Labor Before Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery on Pregnancy Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"M. Ramadan, Ibtissam Jarjour, Manal Hubeish, S. Itani, S. Mneimneh, D. Badr\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/FM9.0000000000000115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: To investigate the effects of spontaneous labor before elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) on short-term maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. All consecutive ERCDs, occurring at ≥37  weeks of gestation between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 in Makassed General Hospital, were evaluated. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of 183 laboring women undergoing unscheduled repeat cesarean delivery (URCD) group were compared with those of 204 women undergoing cesarean delivery (CD) without spontaneous labor (ERCD) group. Primary outcomes were “composite adverse maternal outcome” and “composite adverse neonatal outcome.” Fisher's exact and Student's t tests were used to assess the significance of differences in dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Two logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors with most significant influence on the rate of composite adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: “Composite adverse maternal outcome” was significantly more common in women who underwent spontaneous labor ((40/183) 21.9% vs. (19/204) 9.3%, P = 0.001, relative risk (RR): 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–4.90). Similarly, “composite adverse neonatal outcome” was significantly increased in the URCD group ((24/183) 13.1% vs. (12/204) 5.9%, P = 0.014, RR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.18–4.98). These adverse effects persisted after adjustment for confounders. Multivariate regression models revealed that, besides labor, CD-order impacted maternal outcome (RR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.02–2.30, P = 0.036), while CD-order and teenage pregnancy influenced neonatal outcome (RR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.29–3.38, P = 0.003, and RR: 16.5, 95%CI: 2.09–129.80, P = 0.008, respectively). Conclusion: In our study, spontaneous labor before ERCD, including deliveries at term, was associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, indicating that it is preferable to conduct ERCD before the onset of labor. Screening women with MRCD may identify those at increased risk for spontaneous labor for whom CD could be scheduled 1–2 weeks earlier. Further large prospective studies to assess the effects of such an approach on maternal and neonatal outcomes are strongly warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/FM9.0000000000000115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/FM9.0000000000000115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的:探讨选择性重复剖宫产术(ERCD)前顺产对产妇和新生儿短期结局的影响。方法:这是一项前瞻性队列研究。所有连续的ERCD,发生在≥37  对2017年7月1日至2019年12月31日在马卡塞斯综合医院的妊娠周进行了评估。将183名接受计划外重复剖宫产(URCD)的分娩妇女的产妇和新生儿结局与204名接受无自然分娩(ERCD)的剖宫产妇女的产妇及新生儿结局进行比较。主要结果为“母体复合不良反应结果”和“新生儿复合不良反应”。Fisher精确检验和Student t检验分别用于评估二分变量和连续变量差异的显著性。构建了两个逻辑回归模型,以确定对孕产妇和新生儿复合不良结局发生率影响最大的风险因素。结果:“复合不良产妇结局”在顺产妇女中更为常见((40/183)21.9%对(19/204)9.3%,P = 0.001,相对风险(RR):2.7,95%置信区间(CI):1.50–4.90)。同样,URCD组的“新生儿综合不良反应”显著增加((24/183)13.1%对(12/204)5.9%,P = 0.014,RR:2.4,95%CI:1.18-4.98)。这些不良反应在校正混杂因素后持续存在。多变量回归模型显示,除分娩外,CD顺序还影响产妇结局(RR:1.5,95%CI:1.02–2.30,P = 0.036),而CD顺序和青少年妊娠影响新生儿结局(RR:2.1,95%CI:1.29-3.38,P = 0.003,RR:16.5,95%CI:2.09-129.80,P = 分别为0.008)。结论:在我们的研究中,ERCD前的顺产,包括足月分娩,与不良的孕产妇和新生儿结局有关,表明最好在分娩前进行ERCD。对患有MRCD的妇女进行筛查可以确定那些自发性分娩风险增加的妇女,可以提前1-2周安排CD。有必要进一步进行大型前瞻性研究,以评估这种方法对孕产妇和新生儿结局的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Spontaneous Labor Before Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery on Pregnancy Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study
Abstract Objective: To investigate the effects of spontaneous labor before elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) on short-term maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. All consecutive ERCDs, occurring at ≥37  weeks of gestation between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 in Makassed General Hospital, were evaluated. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of 183 laboring women undergoing unscheduled repeat cesarean delivery (URCD) group were compared with those of 204 women undergoing cesarean delivery (CD) without spontaneous labor (ERCD) group. Primary outcomes were “composite adverse maternal outcome” and “composite adverse neonatal outcome.” Fisher's exact and Student's t tests were used to assess the significance of differences in dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Two logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors with most significant influence on the rate of composite adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: “Composite adverse maternal outcome” was significantly more common in women who underwent spontaneous labor ((40/183) 21.9% vs. (19/204) 9.3%, P = 0.001, relative risk (RR): 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–4.90). Similarly, “composite adverse neonatal outcome” was significantly increased in the URCD group ((24/183) 13.1% vs. (12/204) 5.9%, P = 0.014, RR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.18–4.98). These adverse effects persisted after adjustment for confounders. Multivariate regression models revealed that, besides labor, CD-order impacted maternal outcome (RR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.02–2.30, P = 0.036), while CD-order and teenage pregnancy influenced neonatal outcome (RR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.29–3.38, P = 0.003, and RR: 16.5, 95%CI: 2.09–129.80, P = 0.008, respectively). Conclusion: In our study, spontaneous labor before ERCD, including deliveries at term, was associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, indicating that it is preferable to conduct ERCD before the onset of labor. Screening women with MRCD may identify those at increased risk for spontaneous labor for whom CD could be scheduled 1–2 weeks earlier. Further large prospective studies to assess the effects of such an approach on maternal and neonatal outcomes are strongly warranted.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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