Cargando…

Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis

BACKGROUND: The correct dating of pregnancy is critical to support timely decisions and provide obstetric care during birth. The early obstetric ultrasound assessment before 14 weeks is considered the best reference to assist in determining gestational age (GA), with an accuracy of ±5 to 7 days. How...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira, Gaspar, Juliano De Souza, Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira, Abrantes, Vitor Barbosa, de-Souza, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca, Moreira, Maria Tereza Silveira, Lopes Pessoa Aguiar, Regina Amélia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293572
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/14109
_version_ 1783527849221685248
author Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
Gaspar, Juliano De Souza
Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Abrantes, Vitor Barbosa
de-Souza, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca
Moreira, Maria Tereza Silveira
Lopes Pessoa Aguiar, Regina Amélia
author_facet Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
Gaspar, Juliano De Souza
Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Abrantes, Vitor Barbosa
de-Souza, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca
Moreira, Maria Tereza Silveira
Lopes Pessoa Aguiar, Regina Amélia
author_sort Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The correct dating of pregnancy is critical to support timely decisions and provide obstetric care during birth. The early obstetric ultrasound assessment before 14 weeks is considered the best reference to assist in determining gestational age (GA), with an accuracy of ±5 to 7 days. However, this information is limited in many settings worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the association between the obstetric interventions during childbirth and the quality of GA determination, according to the first antenatal ultrasound assessment, which assisted the calculation. METHODS: This is a hospital-based cohort study using medical record data of 2113 births at a perinatal referral center. The database was separated into groups and subgroups of analyses based on the reference used by obstetricians to obtain GA at birth. Maternal and neonatal characteristics, mode of delivery, oxytocin augmentation, and forceps delivery were compared between groups of pregnancies with GA determination at different reference points: obstetric ultrasound assessment 14 weeks, 20 weeks, and ≥20 weeks or without antenatal ultrasound (suboptimal dating). Ultrasound-based GA information was associated with outcomes between the interest groups using chi-square tests, odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI, or the Mann-Whitney statistical analysis. RESULTS: The chance of nonspontaneous delivery was higher in pregnancies with 14 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.35-1.98) and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.31-1.90) when compared to the pregnancies with ≥20 weeks ultrasound-based GA or without any antenatal ultrasound. The use of oxytocin for labor augmentation was higher for 14 weeks and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA, OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.09-1.82) and OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.04-1.72), respectively, when compared to those suboptimally dated. Moreover, maternal blood transfusion after birth was more frequent in births with suboptimal ultrasound-based GA determination (20/657, 3.04%) than in the other groups (14 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 17/1163, 1.46%, P=.02; 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 25/1456, 1.71%, P=.048). Cesarean section rates between the suboptimal dating group (244/657, 37.13%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 475/1163, 40.84%, P=.12; 20 weeks: 584/1456, 40.10%, P=.20) were similar. In addition, forceps delivery rates between the suboptimal dating group (17/657, 2.6%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 42/1163, 3.61%, P=.24; 20 weeks: 46/1456, 3.16%, P=.47) were similar. Neonatal intensive care unit admission was more frequent in newborns with suboptimal dating (103/570, 18.07%) when compared with the other groups (14 weeks: 133/1004, 13.25%, P=.01; 20 weeks: 168/1263, 13.30%, P=.01), excluding stillbirths and major fetal malformations. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis highlighted relevant points of health care to improve obstetric assistance, confirming the importance of early access to technologies for pregnancy dating as an essential component of quality antenatal care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7191349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71913492020-05-01 Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira Gaspar, Juliano De Souza Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Abrantes, Vitor Barbosa de-Souza, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca Moreira, Maria Tereza Silveira Lopes Pessoa Aguiar, Regina Amélia JMIR Pediatr Parent Original Paper BACKGROUND: The correct dating of pregnancy is critical to support timely decisions and provide obstetric care during birth. The early obstetric ultrasound assessment before 14 weeks is considered the best reference to assist in determining gestational age (GA), with an accuracy of ±5 to 7 days. However, this information is limited in many settings worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the association between the obstetric interventions during childbirth and the quality of GA determination, according to the first antenatal ultrasound assessment, which assisted the calculation. METHODS: This is a hospital-based cohort study using medical record data of 2113 births at a perinatal referral center. The database was separated into groups and subgroups of analyses based on the reference used by obstetricians to obtain GA at birth. Maternal and neonatal characteristics, mode of delivery, oxytocin augmentation, and forceps delivery were compared between groups of pregnancies with GA determination at different reference points: obstetric ultrasound assessment 14 weeks, 20 weeks, and ≥20 weeks or without antenatal ultrasound (suboptimal dating). Ultrasound-based GA information was associated with outcomes between the interest groups using chi-square tests, odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI, or the Mann-Whitney statistical analysis. RESULTS: The chance of nonspontaneous delivery was higher in pregnancies with 14 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.35-1.98) and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.31-1.90) when compared to the pregnancies with ≥20 weeks ultrasound-based GA or without any antenatal ultrasound. The use of oxytocin for labor augmentation was higher for 14 weeks and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA, OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.09-1.82) and OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.04-1.72), respectively, when compared to those suboptimally dated. Moreover, maternal blood transfusion after birth was more frequent in births with suboptimal ultrasound-based GA determination (20/657, 3.04%) than in the other groups (14 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 17/1163, 1.46%, P=.02; 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 25/1456, 1.71%, P=.048). Cesarean section rates between the suboptimal dating group (244/657, 37.13%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 475/1163, 40.84%, P=.12; 20 weeks: 584/1456, 40.10%, P=.20) were similar. In addition, forceps delivery rates between the suboptimal dating group (17/657, 2.6%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 42/1163, 3.61%, P=.24; 20 weeks: 46/1456, 3.16%, P=.47) were similar. Neonatal intensive care unit admission was more frequent in newborns with suboptimal dating (103/570, 18.07%) when compared with the other groups (14 weeks: 133/1004, 13.25%, P=.01; 20 weeks: 168/1263, 13.30%, P=.01), excluding stillbirths and major fetal malformations. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis highlighted relevant points of health care to improve obstetric assistance, confirming the importance of early access to technologies for pregnancy dating as an essential component of quality antenatal care. JMIR Publications 2020-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7191349/ /pubmed/32293572 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/14109 Text en ©Zilma Silveira Nogueira Silveira Nogueira Reis, Juliano De Souza Gaspar, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Vitral, Vitor Barbosa Abrantes, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca De-Souza, Maria Tereza Silveira Moreira, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa Aguiar. Originally published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (http://pediatrics.jmir.org), 15.04.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://pediatrics.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
Gaspar, Juliano De Souza
Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Abrantes, Vitor Barbosa
de-Souza, Ingrid Michelle Fonseca
Moreira, Maria Tereza Silveira
Lopes Pessoa Aguiar, Regina Amélia
Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title_full Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title_fullStr Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title_short Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis
title_sort quality of pregnancy dating and obstetric interventions during labor: retrospective database analysis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293572
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/14109
work_keys_str_mv AT reiszilmasilveiranogueira qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT gasparjulianodesouza qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT vitralgabrielaluizanogueira qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT abrantesvitorbarbosa qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT desouzaingridmichellefonseca qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT moreiramariaterezasilveira qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis
AT lopespessoaaguiarreginaamelia qualityofpregnancydatingandobstetricinterventionsduringlaborretrospectivedatabaseanalysis