足月选择性重复剖宫产的时机:解决争议

M. Ramadan, A. Abdulrahim, S. Itani, Mohamad Hourani, F. Mirza
{"title":"足月选择性重复剖宫产的时机:解决争议","authors":"M. Ramadan, A. Abdulrahim, S. Itani, Mohamad Hourani, F. Mirza","doi":"10.14740/JCGO.V8I1.526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although most professional societies recommend scheduling elective repeat cesarean deliveries (ERCDs) at 39 weeks, some care providers have started to practice scheduling at earlier timing for various reasons. The objective of our study was to compare the outcomes of scheduling ERCDs at 3 different weeks at term. Methods: In a prospective, observational cohort study conducted over a 2-year period, 339 parturients were scheduled for ERCD at 37, 38 or 39 weeks. In an intention-to-treat approach, we are reporting the rates of delivery before schedule, maternal and neonatal morbidity corresponding to each of these three decisions. Results: A total of 5.3% of deliveries scheduled at 37 weeks were performed before schedule, compared to 16.1% and 46.7% of those scheduled at 38 and 39 weeks, respectively (P < 0.0001). Likewise, delivery outside working hours demonstrated a trend that increased with gestation but was only statistically significant between 38 versus 39 weeks. As expected, a significant improvement was identified for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and respiratory morbidity between 37 versus 39 weeks but was minimal between 38 versus 39 weeks. There was no difference in maternal outcome parameters among the three categories. Conclusions: Individualizing patients, according to their risk of spontaneous labor, added obstetric complications if progressed in pregnancy and maternity resources should be integrated in the decision of scheduling ERCD. Scheduling at 38 weeks might curb unplanned delivery rate at the expense of a marginal, though non-significant, increase of neonatal respiratory morbidity. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2019;8(1):1-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo526","PeriodicalId":87296,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gynecology and obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Timing of an Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery at Term: Addressing the Controversy\",\"authors\":\"M. Ramadan, A. Abdulrahim, S. Itani, Mohamad Hourani, F. Mirza\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/JCGO.V8I1.526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although most professional societies recommend scheduling elective repeat cesarean deliveries (ERCDs) at 39 weeks, some care providers have started to practice scheduling at earlier timing for various reasons. The objective of our study was to compare the outcomes of scheduling ERCDs at 3 different weeks at term. Methods: In a prospective, observational cohort study conducted over a 2-year period, 339 parturients were scheduled for ERCD at 37, 38 or 39 weeks. In an intention-to-treat approach, we are reporting the rates of delivery before schedule, maternal and neonatal morbidity corresponding to each of these three decisions. Results: A total of 5.3% of deliveries scheduled at 37 weeks were performed before schedule, compared to 16.1% and 46.7% of those scheduled at 38 and 39 weeks, respectively (P < 0.0001). Likewise, delivery outside working hours demonstrated a trend that increased with gestation but was only statistically significant between 38 versus 39 weeks. As expected, a significant improvement was identified for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and respiratory morbidity between 37 versus 39 weeks but was minimal between 38 versus 39 weeks. There was no difference in maternal outcome parameters among the three categories. Conclusions: Individualizing patients, according to their risk of spontaneous labor, added obstetric complications if progressed in pregnancy and maternity resources should be integrated in the decision of scheduling ERCD. Scheduling at 38 weeks might curb unplanned delivery rate at the expense of a marginal, though non-significant, increase of neonatal respiratory morbidity. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2019;8(1):1-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo526\",\"PeriodicalId\":87296,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gynecology and obstetrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gynecology and obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCGO.V8I1.526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gynecology and obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCGO.V8I1.526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:尽管大多数专业协会建议将选择性重复剖宫产(ERCD)安排在39周,但由于各种原因,一些护理提供者已经开始提前安排。我们研究的目的是比较在学期的3个不同周安排ERCD的结果。方法:在一项为期2年的前瞻性观察性队列研究中,339名产妇在37、38或39周时接受了ERCD检查。在意向治疗方法中,我们报告了与这三个决定中的每一个相对应的提前分娩率、孕产妇和新生儿发病率。结果:计划在37周分娩的婴儿中,5.3%在计划前分娩,而计划在38周和39周分娩的儿童分别为16.1%和46.7%(P<0.0001)。同样,工作时间外分娩的趋势随着妊娠期的增加而增加,但仅在38周与39周之间具有统计学意义。正如预期的那样,新生儿重症监护室(NICU)的入院率和呼吸系统发病率在37周与39周之间有了显著改善,但在38周与39周之间的改善很小。这三个类别的产妇结局参数没有差异。结论:个体化患者,根据其顺产风险,如果妊娠期进展,会增加产科并发症,应将产科资源纳入ERCD的安排决策中。安排在38周分娩可能会以新生儿呼吸系统发病率的轻微(尽管不显著)增加为代价来抑制计划外分娩率。《临床妇科产科杂志》。2019年;8(1):1-8 doi:https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo526
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Timing of an Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery at Term: Addressing the Controversy
Background: Although most professional societies recommend scheduling elective repeat cesarean deliveries (ERCDs) at 39 weeks, some care providers have started to practice scheduling at earlier timing for various reasons. The objective of our study was to compare the outcomes of scheduling ERCDs at 3 different weeks at term. Methods: In a prospective, observational cohort study conducted over a 2-year period, 339 parturients were scheduled for ERCD at 37, 38 or 39 weeks. In an intention-to-treat approach, we are reporting the rates of delivery before schedule, maternal and neonatal morbidity corresponding to each of these three decisions. Results: A total of 5.3% of deliveries scheduled at 37 weeks were performed before schedule, compared to 16.1% and 46.7% of those scheduled at 38 and 39 weeks, respectively (P < 0.0001). Likewise, delivery outside working hours demonstrated a trend that increased with gestation but was only statistically significant between 38 versus 39 weeks. As expected, a significant improvement was identified for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and respiratory morbidity between 37 versus 39 weeks but was minimal between 38 versus 39 weeks. There was no difference in maternal outcome parameters among the three categories. Conclusions: Individualizing patients, according to their risk of spontaneous labor, added obstetric complications if progressed in pregnancy and maternity resources should be integrated in the decision of scheduling ERCD. Scheduling at 38 weeks might curb unplanned delivery rate at the expense of a marginal, though non-significant, increase of neonatal respiratory morbidity. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2019;8(1):1-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo526
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信