Tag: labour and delivery

Categories : Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

Having the Choice of Birth Position is Key in Satisfaction of Expectant Mothers

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Duda Oliveira

Whether supine, all-fours position, sitting upright or squatting – women adopt different birthing positions during childbirth. But until now, how the final birthing position affects the satisfaction of the woman giving birth had not been known. Researchers in Germany investigated the relationship. In particular, they also took into account whether the choice of birthing position was voluntary. The results, which appear in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, showed that having the choice counted the most for mothers’ satisfaction.

Around three quarters of those surveyed were lying during the birth and were particularly dissatisfied if they felt that they had not made this choice themselves. But if the expectant mothers had chosen the supine or lateral supine position themselves, the position actually tended to make them more satisfied.

For a long time, the supine position was the most common birth position in Western countries, giving obstetricians unhindered access to the woman and child.  In various cultures, however, upright birthing positions, such as sitting or squatting, are also widespread. Which position is best for expectant mothers and the unborn child is controversial in the literature.

“Until today, international guidelines usually only recommend that women should adopt their preferred birthing position,” explains Prof Dr Nadine Scholten, professor in psychosomatic and psycho-oncological health services research at the University of Bonn. With regard to birthing positions, the German guideline also states that women should adopt the position that seems most comfortable to them. However, they should also be encouraged to adopt an upright position in the final phase of birth.

“In reality, whether they ultimately lie, sit or squat depends on the wishes of the expectant mothers themselves, but also on the suggestions of the midwives, obstetricians and sometimes necessary medical measures,” explains Prof Dr Brigitte Strizek, Director of the Clinic for Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine at the University Hospital Bonn (UKB).

Focus on women’s satisfaction

A team led by Prof Scholten, who carried out the study at the Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Research (IMVR) at the University of Cologne and the UKB, wanted to find out which birthing position women were most satisfied with afterwards. Almost 800 mothers were asked about their final birthing position and how satisfied they were with the birth overall using an anonymous questionnaire. All of the data analysed here was from women who had given birth vaginally in a hospital without the use of a vacuum extraction or forceps, and who had given birth eight to twelve months previously at the time of the survey. In their study, the researchers also asked about the satisfaction of the mothers – depending on whether the birth position was freely chosen or not. The reasons for not choosing a free position were also asked.

It was found that over three quarters of mothers gave birth to their child lying on their side or on their back. Of these women, up to 40% stated that they had not chosen the birth position voluntarily. “The most common reason given by respondents was instructions from medical staff,” explains Prof Scholten, first and corresponding author. The most common position assigned by obstetricians was the supine position. It was striking that women were more satisfied with their birth if they were allowed to choose the position voluntarily – especially if they chose the supine position themselves. Women who were not free to choose their birthing position were particularly dissatisfied if the medical staff specified this and not the CTG to record the heart rate of the unborn child and labour activity or the epidural, the anaesthetic to relieve pain, prevented the desired position.

Self-determination not always given in the delivery room

“The number of women who did not choose the birth position themselves is particularly striking, as is the associated lower level of satisfaction with the birth,” summarises co-author Prof Strizek. However, the team cannot confirm whether an increased voluntary choice of birth position in the future would result in fewer women giving birth in the supine position. “In order to increase women’s subjective satisfaction with their birth experience, they should be given the opportunity to adopt their preferred position,” appeals lead author Prof Scholten. “The first step is to increase the awareness of medical staff and empower women to understand and better communicate their preferences.”

Prof Strizek adds: “If a certain position would be advantageous for the woman giving birth from a medical point of view, we as obstetric teams need to explain this better to the women so that they rarely have the feeling that they have not determined the birth position themselves.”

Source: Universitatsklinikum Bonn

Categories : Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

New Intrauterine Device Rapidly Controls Postpartum Haemorrhage

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Jonathan Borba on Unsplash

A study led by Columbia University obstetricians has shown that a new intrauterine device can rapidly control postpartum haemorrhage, a major cause of severe maternal morbidity and death, in real-world situations.

“Our findings show that the device is an important new tool in managing postpartum bleeding,” says Dena Goffman, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Columbia University and senior author of the study, which is published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“We had previously shown that the device worked well with patients who were experiencing relatively minor bleeding, so it’s really reassuring to see that the device worked almost as well among a wider range of patients and when used by many different doctors.”

Overall, the device succeeded in controlling haemorrhage in 93% of vaginal deliveries and 84% of caesarean deliveries.

Major cause of severe maternal morbidity and death

Shortly after birth and delivery of the placenta, the uterus contracts and closes off the blood vessels that nourished the placenta. Failure of the uterus to contract after delivery can result in prolonged and excessive blood loss, which may necessitate blood transfusions, ICU admission, or surgery to try to stop the bleeding and, if needed, removal of the uterus.

“Less than 10% of people who give birth will have excessive postpartum bleeding, but when it happens, it can get really serious really fast,” says Goffman, who co-authored the most recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.

Current treatment options not ideal for all patients

To stop excessive bleeding, clinicians usually start by manually stimulating the uterus and giving medications that help the uterus contract, but some of these drugs are not safe for patients with hypertension or asthma. When medication fails or isn’t an option, patients may be treated with a balloon-like tamponade device that is inserted into the uterus and controls bleeding by placing pressure on the uterine wall.

Balloon tamponade devices have a high success rate, but this treatment has an impact on the patient and family experience. “The balloon often stays in the uterus for 12 to 24 hours until the uterus is well-contracted, and during that time the patient can’t sit up in bed, can’t walk around, can’t easily care for the baby,” Goffman says.

New device approved in 2020

In 2020, the FDA approved a new intrauterine device to control postpartum bleeding that uses low-level suction to promote uterine contractions.

“With postpartum haemorrhage being one of the most preventable causes of maternal morbidity and mortality, practice-changing innovation was needed to better equip our teams and care for our patients,” says Mary D’Alton, MD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and national leader of the clinical trial that first tested the safety and efficacy of the device.

In that initial trial, which led to FDA approval, the device controlled bleeding in a median of 3 minutes among 106 patients experiencing relatively minor blood loss after childbirth and was removed about 3 hours after insertion. Most patients in the trial delivered vaginally. The trial also excluded patients with preterm births < 34 weeks.

Highly effective in real-world conditions

The current study, which included more than 800 patients giving birth at 16 hospitals, was designed to study the effectiveness of the new device outside of a controlled clinical trial. One third of the patients in the new study had a caesarean, and 50 patients had a preterm birth < 34 weeks.

Median blood loss volume before device insertion was also higher in the new study, reflecting a greater range in blood loss, with some patients losing substantial amounts of blood (up to 3000mL). Most patients had been treated with medications to manage postpartum bleeding prior to device insertion.

Treatment with the new device was successful in 93% of patients who had a vaginal birth and 84% of patients who had a caesarean birth (similar to efficacy with intrauterine balloon devices). For most patients, the device brought bleeding under control in five minutes. Treatment success rates were higher in patients with less blood loss prior to device insertion.

Next steps

The researchers say that early recognition of postpartum hemorrhage and timely intervention are crucial in managing the condition and preventing potentially life-threatening complications.

“Postpartum haemorrhage is a treatable condition,” Goffman says. “Delivery teams need to be attuned to recognising it quickly and managing it in a seamless and sequential manner before a patient experiences significant blood loss.”

Additional studies comparing the new device with other treatments for postpartum haemorrhage are being planned to determine if using the device earlier produces better outcomes.

“Until we have more data, we’re using the new intrauterine device after medications have been tried,” Goffman says. “But for patients with underlying conditions who cannot be treated with one or more of our available medications, the device is a critically important tool to have.”

Source: Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Categories : Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

Labour Induction in 39th Week Does not Decrease Risk of Needing Caesarean

On By ModernMedia

In recent years, experts have debated the benefits of labour induction once at a certain stage of pregnancy. But a new US study suggests that inducing labour at the 39th week of pregnancy for those having their first births with a single baby in a head down position, or low risk, doesn’t necessarily reduce the risk of caesarean births. In fact, for some, it may even have the opposite effect if hospitals don’t take a thoughtful approach to induction policies.

“Some people in the field have suggested that after 39 weeks of gestation, medical induction should be standard practice,” said lead author Elizabeth Langen, MD, a high-risk maternal fatal medicine physician and researcher at University of Michigan Health Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital, of Michigan Medicine.

“We collaborated with peer hospitals to better understand how labour induction may influence caesarean birth outcomes in real world maternity units outside of a clinical trial. In our study sample, we found inducing labour in this population of women and birthing people did not reduce their risk of caesarean birth.”

The new research, published in the American Journal of Perinatology, was based on more than 14 135 deliveries in 2020 analysed through a statewide maternity care quality collaborative registry.

Results conflict with national trial findings

The study was conducted in response to published research in 2018 from a multicentre trial known as “ARRIVE” (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management.)

Findings from ARRIVE indicated that medical induction at 39 weeks gestation in first time low risk pregnancies resulted in a lower rate of caesarean deliveries compared to expectant management – or waiting for labour to occur on its own or for a medical need for labour induction.

Michigan researchers mimicked the same framework used in the national trial and analysed data from the collaborative’s data registry, comparing 1558 patients who underwent a proactively induced labour versus 12 577 who experienced expectant management. However, their results failed to support a link between elective induced labour in late pregnancy and a reduction in caesarean births.

In fact, results from the general Michigan sample were contradictory to the ARRIVE trial: Women who underwent elective induction were more likely to have a caesarean birth compared with those who underwent expectant management (30% versus 24%.)

In a subset of the sample, matching patient characteristics for a more refined analysis, there were no differences in c-section rates. Authors noted that time between admission and delivery was also longer for those induced.

Expectantly managed women were also less likely to have a postpartum haemorrhage (8 % versus 10 %) or operative vaginal delivery (9 % versus 11 %), whereas women who underwent induction were less likely to have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (6 % versus 9%.) There were no other differences in neonatal outcomes.

Authors point to several possible explanations for why the two studies had conflicting results. One key difference was that the Michigan study collected data after births for the purpose of quality improvement in a general population of low-risk births. The ARRIVE trial, however, used data collected in real time as part of a research study.

A significant difference between clinical trial participants and the general birthing population, Low says, may revolve around shared decision-making. Before trial enrolment, participants undergo a thorough informed consent process from trained study team members.

For the ARRIVE trial, this meant 72% of women approached to be in the study declined participation. Meanwhile, previous research has indicated that women in the general U.S. population often may feel pressured into agreeing to have their labour induced.

“Better outcomes may have occurred in the trial because the participants were fully accepting of this process,” Low said.

“Further research is needed to identify best practices to support people undergoing labour induction,” she added. “Prior to initiating an elective induction of labour policy, clinicians should also ensure resources and a process to fully support shared decision-making.”

Source: Michigan Medicine – University of Michigan