Article

Unattended Home Labor until Complete Cervical Dilatation Ending with Hospital Delivery: Analysis of 238 Pregnancies

Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Education and Research Hospital, 62000 Ankara, Turkey.
Obstetrics and Gynecology International 02/2013; 2013:196709. DOI: 10.1155/2013/196709
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objectives. Hospital fear and avoidance of the routine hospital obstetrical interventions cause some women with low-risk pregnancies to spend most of the active labor period at home, and subsequently they present to the hospital for delivery. Our aim was to analyze the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies with a planned hospital birth, yet spending the first stage of labor at home without a health provider and completing the delivery in the hospital setting. Methods. We retrospectively compared 238 pregnancies having home labor plus hospital delivery (study group) with 476 pregnancies that had spent the whole labor in the hospital setting, considering various maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results. Cesarean and episiotomy rates were lower (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, resp.), but neonatal intensive care unit admissions of the infants were more prevalent (P < 0.01) in the study group. Other maternal and neonatal outcomes including neonatal mortality were comparable. Conclusion. Although our preliminary data generally do support the safety of home active labor plus hospital delivery for low-risk pregnancies, the clinical implications of current data warrant further prospective trials.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Utku Dogan, Apr 15, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
64 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: to ascertain the reasons why mothers choose to have a home birth and the factors that influence these reasons. this cross-sectional study involved 392 women and was conducted between June and September 2003 in a rural setting in Turkey. The data were collected using a questionnaire developed by the authors. The questionnaire included demographic information, obstetric background, the reasons for deciding to give birth at home as well as questions on who encouraged the decision to give birth at home and who assisted in the home births. the decision to have a home birth is related to economic difficulties and the desire to benefit from the assistance of neighbours. Women who had experienced both planned and unplanned home births reported that home birth was unsafe. preliminary information is provided about women having home births that may inform practitioners' educational efforts and future research.
    Midwifery 04/2007; 25(1):32-8. DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2006.12.009 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity between planned home and planned hospital births, among low-risk women who started their labour in primary care. A nationwide cohort study. The entire Netherlands. A total of 529,688 low-risk women who were in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour. Of these, 321,307 (60.7%) intended to give birth at home, 163,261 (30.8%) planned to give birth in hospital and for 45,120 (8.5%), the intended place of birth was unknown. Analysis of national perinatal and neonatal registration data, over a period of 7 years. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics. Intrapartum death, intrapartum and neonatal death within 24 hours after birth, intrapartum and neonatal death within 7 days and neonatal admission to an intensive care unit. No significant differences were found between planned home and planned hospital birth (adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals: intrapartum death 0.97 (0.69 to 1.37), intrapartum death and neonatal death during the first 24 hours 1.02 (0.77 to 1.36), intrapartum death and neonatal death up to 7 days 1.00 (0.78 to 1.27), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 1.00 (0.86 to 1.16). This study shows that planning a home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low-risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitates this choice through the availability of well-trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system.
    BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 09/2009; 116(9):1177-84. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x · 3.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rather broad definitions used in the database sometimes make interpretation of the severity of the problems in question difficult. For example, the indication ‘fetal distress’ may refer to a life-threatening situation or to a relatively mild irregularity in cardiac rhythm. An abnormal head presentation together with ruptured membranes will not usually lead to complications, but can be associated with a dangerous prolapse of the umbilical cord. A further limitation is that data in the LVR are recorded retrospectively and do not include information on the time line. Hence, it cannot be determined whether a complication such as blood loss is the result or the cause of the policy followed. For example, it is conceivable that a case of ‘fetal distress’ entered into the database was not the reason for referral because it occurred hours after referral of the mother due to failure to progress in labour. Postpartum blood loss can be a reason for referral or can occur only after referral for removal of a retained placenta. All such cases were still regarded as urgent referrals and assigned to category 1. This strict application of the classification rules may have led to overestimation of the number of cases in category 1 and, therefore, to underestimation of cases in category 2.
    BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 04/2008; 115(5):570-8. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01580.x · 3.86 Impact Factor
Show more