Objective
To compare neonatal outcomes between water births, births with immersion only during labour, and births in which immersion was never used.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was performed including mother-baby dyads attended between 2009 and 2019 at the Hospital do Salnés regional hospital (Pontevedra, Spain). These women were categorised into 3 groups: water birth; immersion only during dilation; and women who never used immersion. Several sociodemographic-obstetric variables were studied and the main outcome was the admission of the neonate to the intensive care unit (NICU). Permission was obtained from the responsible provincial ethics committee. Descriptive statistics were used and between-group comparisons were performed using variance for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was performed with backward stepwise logistic regression and incidence risk ratios with 95%CI were calculated for each independent variable. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS® statistical software.
Results
A total of 1,191 cases were included. 404 births without immersions; 397 immersions only during the first stage of labor; and 390 waterbirths were included. No differences were found in the need to transfer new-borns to a NICU (P = .735). In the waterbirth cohort, neonatal resuscitation (P < .001, OR: 0,1), as well as respiratory distress (P = .005 OR: 0,2) or neonatal problems during admission (P < .001, OR: 0,2), were lower. In the immersion only during labor cohort, less neonatal resuscitation (P =.003; OR: 0,4) and respiratory distress (P = .019; OR: 0,4) were found. The probability of not breastfeeding upon discharge was higher for the land birth cohort (P < .001, OR: 0,4;).
Conclusions
The results of this study indicated that water birth did not influence the need for NICU admission, but was associated with fewer adverse neonatal outcomes, such as resuscitation, respiratory distress, or problems during admission.