Incidence of decision to delivery interval delay in emergency LSCS and its impact on fetal and maternal outcome: a prospective observational study

Priya T. Singh, Karishma Salana, Meetali Nehate
{"title":"Incidence of decision to delivery interval delay in emergency LSCS and its impact on fetal and maternal outcome: a prospective observational study","authors":"Priya T. Singh, Karishma Salana, Meetali Nehate","doi":"10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Caesarean delivery is a complex multidisciplinary procedure. Decision to delivery interval is supposed to play a significant role in maternal and neonatal outcomes. The present study was undertaken to determine the incidence of DDI delay among pregnant women undergoing Emergency LSCS in tertiary care centres.\nMethods: This study was conducted on 400 subjects who underwent emergency LSCS in category I and category II during a period from November 2020 to August 2021.\nResults: The maximum patients were from the age group of 25-29 years (43%), primigravida (59.1%), gestational age between 37-40 weeks (78%). 29% have undergone category-1 LCSC and 71.2% have undergone category-2 LSCS. Out of 116 patients underwent category-1 LSCS, 11 (9.5%) patient delay was present whereas in category-2 LSCS out of 284,12 (4.2%) patient delay was present. Among Category-I LSCS the most common indication was Fetal distress and among Category-II LSCS the major indication was non reassuring CTG. Maximum babies have APGAR scores between 7-10 at 1 (N=369) and 5 min (N=398). The mean cord PH was 7.31, ranged from 6.9-7.47. 98 babies required NICU admission and most of them admitted for respiratory distress. 11 patients required blood transfusion. There was no significant association found between various parameters and DDI delay, (p>0.05).\nConclusions: In the present study, the interval between the decision to delivery interval has no significant impact on feto-maternal outcome in Category-I LSCS. Among Category-II LSCS there was a delay in 12 cases, among them 7 babies required NICU admission, the complications among neonates were significantly more when DDI was >75 minutes.","PeriodicalId":14225,"journal":{"name":"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology","volume":"36 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Caesarean delivery is a complex multidisciplinary procedure. Decision to delivery interval is supposed to play a significant role in maternal and neonatal outcomes. The present study was undertaken to determine the incidence of DDI delay among pregnant women undergoing Emergency LSCS in tertiary care centres. Methods: This study was conducted on 400 subjects who underwent emergency LSCS in category I and category II during a period from November 2020 to August 2021. Results: The maximum patients were from the age group of 25-29 years (43%), primigravida (59.1%), gestational age between 37-40 weeks (78%). 29% have undergone category-1 LCSC and 71.2% have undergone category-2 LSCS. Out of 116 patients underwent category-1 LSCS, 11 (9.5%) patient delay was present whereas in category-2 LSCS out of 284,12 (4.2%) patient delay was present. Among Category-I LSCS the most common indication was Fetal distress and among Category-II LSCS the major indication was non reassuring CTG. Maximum babies have APGAR scores between 7-10 at 1 (N=369) and 5 min (N=398). The mean cord PH was 7.31, ranged from 6.9-7.47. 98 babies required NICU admission and most of them admitted for respiratory distress. 11 patients required blood transfusion. There was no significant association found between various parameters and DDI delay, (p>0.05). Conclusions: In the present study, the interval between the decision to delivery interval has no significant impact on feto-maternal outcome in Category-I LSCS. Among Category-II LSCS there was a delay in 12 cases, among them 7 babies required NICU admission, the complications among neonates were significantly more when DDI was >75 minutes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前瞻性观察研究:紧急产科急诊中决定分娩间隔延迟的发生率及其对胎儿和产妇结局的影响
背景:剖腹产是一项复杂的多学科手术。从决定到分娩的时间间隔对产妇和新生儿的预后起着重要作用。本研究旨在确定在三级医疗中心接受急诊 LSCS 的孕妇中 DDI 延迟的发生率:本研究的对象是在 2020 年 11 月至 2021 年 8 月期间接受 I 类和 II 类急诊 LSCS 的 400 名受试者:最多的患者来自 25-29 岁年龄组(43%)、初产妇(59.1%)、孕龄在 37-40 周之间(78%)。29%的患者接受了 1 类 LSCS,71.2%的患者接受了 2 类 LSCS。在接受第一类 LSCS 的 116 名患者中,有 11 名(9.5%)患者出现延迟,而在接受第二类 LSCS 的 284 名患者中,有 12 名(4.2%)患者出现延迟。在 I 类 LSCS 中,最常见的指征是胎儿窘迫,而在 II 类 LSCS 中,主要指征是 CTG 无法令人放心。最多婴儿在 1 分钟(369 人)和 5 分钟(398 人)时的 APGAR 评分为 7-10 分。脐带 PH 平均值为 7.31,范围在 6.9-7.47 之间。98 名婴儿需要入住新生儿重症监护室,其中大部分因呼吸窘迫而入院。11 名患者需要输血。各种参数与 DDI 延迟之间无明显关联(P>0.05):在本研究中,从决定到分娩的间隔时间对 I 类 LSCS 的胎儿-产妇结局没有明显影响。在第二类 LSCS 中,有 12 例出现了延迟,其中 7 名婴儿需要入住新生儿重症监护室,当 DDI >75 分钟时,新生儿的并发症明显增多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy as primary and associated indications for caesarean section Tracking immunization milestones: a community-based survey of child vaccination compliance from birth to one year age in India Menstrual hygiene among the undergraduate medical college students in Churachandpur Medical College, Manipur, North Eastern state of India A study on feto-maternal outcome in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes Modes and timing of delivery along with maternal and neonatal conditions for preeclamptic patients of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1