Impact of Attempted Mode of Delivery on Neonatal Outcomes in Nulliparous Individuals According to Body Mass Index.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1055/a-2451-9197
Rula Atwani, George Saade, Tetsuya Kawakita
{"title":"Impact of Attempted Mode of Delivery on Neonatal Outcomes in Nulliparous Individuals According to Body Mass Index.","authors":"Rula Atwani, George Saade, Tetsuya Kawakita","doi":"10.1055/a-2451-9197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective To compare neonatal and maternal outcomes based on the attempted mode of delivery, stratified by prepregnancy body mass index (BMI kg/m2) in nulliparous individuals. Study Design This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of US vital statistics Live Birth and Infant Death linked data from 2011 to 2020. The analysis was restricted to nulliparas with singleton pregnancies and cephalic presentation who delivered at term. Our primary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome. We also examined a composite maternal outcome. We compared outcomes between individuals who attempted labor and those who opted for non-labor cesarean delivery, categorized by BMI (< 18.5, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, 30-39.9, ≥ 40). To account for significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, Coarsened Exact Matching was applied using a k-to-k solution. We employed modified Poisson regression and calculated a difference-in-difference (DID) to compare differences in predicted proportions across BMI categories. Results Out of 9,709,958 individuals, 1,083,332 were included in the matched analysis. Compared to attempted vaginal delivery, non-labor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome across all BMI categories. However, the increase in risk was less pronounced in higher BMI categories compared to the reference group (BMI 18.5-24.9). For maternal outcomes, non-labor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite maternal outcome in the BMI 18.5-24.9 and 25-29.9 categories. In contrast, the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with non-labor cesarean delivery was lower in higher BMI groups compared to the reference group, with DID values ranging from -0.12 in the BMI 30-39.9 group to -0.16 in the BMI ≥ 40 group. Conclusion Non-labor cesarean delivery, as compared to attempted vaginal delivery, was associated with adverse neonatal outcomes across all BMI categories, though the relative increase in risk was diminished in higher BMI groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2451-9197","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To compare neonatal and maternal outcomes based on the attempted mode of delivery, stratified by prepregnancy body mass index (BMI kg/m2) in nulliparous individuals. Study Design This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of US vital statistics Live Birth and Infant Death linked data from 2011 to 2020. The analysis was restricted to nulliparas with singleton pregnancies and cephalic presentation who delivered at term. Our primary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome. We also examined a composite maternal outcome. We compared outcomes between individuals who attempted labor and those who opted for non-labor cesarean delivery, categorized by BMI (< 18.5, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, 30-39.9, ≥ 40). To account for significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, Coarsened Exact Matching was applied using a k-to-k solution. We employed modified Poisson regression and calculated a difference-in-difference (DID) to compare differences in predicted proportions across BMI categories. Results Out of 9,709,958 individuals, 1,083,332 were included in the matched analysis. Compared to attempted vaginal delivery, non-labor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome across all BMI categories. However, the increase in risk was less pronounced in higher BMI categories compared to the reference group (BMI 18.5-24.9). For maternal outcomes, non-labor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite maternal outcome in the BMI 18.5-24.9 and 25-29.9 categories. In contrast, the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with non-labor cesarean delivery was lower in higher BMI groups compared to the reference group, with DID values ranging from -0.12 in the BMI 30-39.9 group to -0.16 in the BMI ≥ 40 group. Conclusion Non-labor cesarean delivery, as compared to attempted vaginal delivery, was associated with adverse neonatal outcomes across all BMI categories, though the relative increase in risk was diminished in higher BMI groups.

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
根据体重指数,顺产方式对顺产产妇新生儿结局的影响
目的 比较根据孕前体重指数(BMI kg/m2)分层的非足月儿尝试分娩方式所导致的新生儿和产妇结局。研究设计 这是对 2011 年至 2020 年美国生命统计活产和婴儿死亡关联数据的重复横断面分析。分析对象仅限于单胎妊娠、头位分娩且足月分娩的无痛分娩者。我们的主要结果是新生儿的综合结果。我们还检查了产妇的综合结果。我们比较了尝试顺产者和选择非顺产剖宫产者的结局,按体重指数分类(<18.5、18.5-24.9、25-29.9、30-39.9、≥40)。为了考虑到各组间基线特征的显著差异,我们采用了k-to-k方案进行了精确匹配。我们采用了改进的泊松回归,并计算了差异(DID),以比较不同 BMI 类别预测比例的差异。结果 在 9,709,958 人中,1,083,332 人被纳入匹配分析。与尝试阴道分娩相比,在所有 BMI 类别中,非顺产剖宫产与新生儿综合结局风险增加有关。然而,与参照组(BMI 18.5-24.9)相比,BMI 较高组的风险增加较不明显。在孕产妇结局方面,非顺产剖宫产与 BMI 18.5-24.9 和 25-29.9 两组孕产妇的综合结局风险增加有关。与此相反,与参照组相比,BMI 较高组别中与非分娩剖宫产相关的不良产妇结局风险较低,DID 值从 BMI 30-39.9 组的-0.12 到 BMI≥40 组的-0.16 不等。结论 与尝试阴道分娩相比,非顺产剖宫产与所有 BMI 类别的新生儿不良预后相关,但在 BMI 较高的组别中,风险的相对增加有所降低。
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
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Is the Risk of Intrahepatic Cholestasis Increased with Supplemental Progesterone? Management, Utilization, and Outcomes of Preterm Labor in an Integrated Health Care System. Therapeutic Hypothermia for Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy: Reducing Variability in Practice through a Collaborative Telemedicine Initiative. Antenatal Breast Milk Expression Survey of Individuals Whose Pregnancy Was Complicated by Diabetes: Exploring Knowledge, Perceptions, Experiences, and Milk Volume Expressed. Treatment for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Using Nonpharmacological Interventions.
×
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