自然分娩和阴道手术分娩在分娩时间上的差异。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1055/a-2442-7396
Christopher X Hong, Mariana Masteling, Clarice G Zhou, Matthew K Janssen, Jourdan E Triebwasser
{"title":"自然分娩和阴道手术分娩在分娩时间上的差异。","authors":"Christopher X Hong, Mariana Masteling, Clarice G Zhou, Matthew K Janssen, Jourdan E Triebwasser","doi":"10.1055/a-2442-7396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> Previous studies have identified an association between obstetric interventions and the time of day in which they are performed; however, they do not account for granular variations in the temporality of delivery interventions, which is influenced by both health care providers and resource availability. We sought to assess differences in time of birth among spontaneous vaginal births (SVBs) versus operative (forceps- and vacuum-assisted) vaginal births (OVBs).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This cross-sectional study used birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System from 2016 to 2021, which includes the time of birth and delivery method for recorded U.S. births. The number of SVBs and OVBs at each minute was normalized relative to the total births within each delivery group to facilitate balanced comparisons between groups. Logistic regression analysis assessed the odds of OVBs per time of day.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 15,412,129 subjects who underwent vaginal birth were included in this analysis, 690,905 (4.5%) of whom underwent OVBs. Compared to births at other time intervals, those between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. were more likely to be OVBs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.14). Conversely, births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. were less likely to be OVBs (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88). After adjusting for adjusting for maternal age, gestational age, and induction of labor, births between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. remained more likely to be OVBs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10) and births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. remained less likely to be OVBs (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.92).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> In this population-based study, we identified temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs with increased use of instrumentation during the late afternoon and reduced use in the early morning. These findings prompt further investigation into the indications for OVBs and root causes of these temporal variations, which are likely multifactorial and involve provider and resource availability.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· This study identifies temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs.. · Compared to SVBs, operative births are more likely in the late afternoon.. · OVBs are also less likely in the early morning.. · These temporal trends suggest the influence of provider and resource availability..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Time of Birth between Spontaneous and Operative Vaginal Births.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher X Hong, Mariana Masteling, Clarice G Zhou, Matthew K Janssen, Jourdan E Triebwasser\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2442-7396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> Previous studies have identified an association between obstetric interventions and the time of day in which they are performed; however, they do not account for granular variations in the temporality of delivery interventions, which is influenced by both health care providers and resource availability. We sought to assess differences in time of birth among spontaneous vaginal births (SVBs) versus operative (forceps- and vacuum-assisted) vaginal births (OVBs).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This cross-sectional study used birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System from 2016 to 2021, which includes the time of birth and delivery method for recorded U.S. births. The number of SVBs and OVBs at each minute was normalized relative to the total births within each delivery group to facilitate balanced comparisons between groups. Logistic regression analysis assessed the odds of OVBs per time of day.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 15,412,129 subjects who underwent vaginal birth were included in this analysis, 690,905 (4.5%) of whom underwent OVBs. Compared to births at other time intervals, those between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. were more likely to be OVBs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.14). Conversely, births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. were less likely to be OVBs (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88). After adjusting for adjusting for maternal age, gestational age, and induction of labor, births between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. remained more likely to be OVBs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10) and births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. remained less likely to be OVBs (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.92).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> In this population-based study, we identified temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs with increased use of instrumentation during the late afternoon and reduced use in the early morning. These findings prompt further investigation into the indications for OVBs and root causes of these temporal variations, which are likely multifactorial and involve provider and resource availability.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· This study identifies temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs.. · Compared to SVBs, operative births are more likely in the late afternoon.. · OVBs are also less likely in the early morning.. · These temporal trends suggest the influence of provider and resource availability..</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"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-2442-7396\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2442-7396","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

摘要

目的 以往的研究发现,产科干预与一天中进行干预的时间有关;但是,这些研究并没有考虑到分娩干预时间上的细微差别,而这种细微差别受到医疗服务提供者和资源可用性的影响。我们试图评估自然阴道分娩(SVB)与手术(产钳和真空辅助)阴道分娩(OVB)在分娩时间上的差异。研究设计 这项横断面研究使用了 2016-2021 年美国国家生命统计系统(National Vital Statistics System)中的出生证明数据,其中包括有记录的美国新生儿的出生时间和分娩方式。每分钟 SVB 和 OVB 的数量相对于每个分娩组的总出生人数进行了归一化处理,以便于在组间进行平衡比较。逻辑回归分析评估了每天不同时间发生 OVB 的几率。结果 共有15,412,129名经阴道分娩的受试者参与了此次分析,其中690,905人(4.5%)进行了OVB。与其他时间段的分娩相比,下午 4:30-7:30 之间的分娩更有可能是经阴道分娩(几率比 [OR] 1.13,95% CI 1.12-1.14)。相反,在凌晨 3:00-6:00 之间出生的婴儿不太可能是 OVB(OR 0.87,95% CI 0.86-0.88)。在对产妇年龄、胎龄和引产进行调整后,下午 4:30-7:30 之间的分娩仍然更有可能是 OVB(调整后的几率比 [aOR] 1.09,95% CI 1.08-1.10),而凌晨 3:00-6:00 之间的分娩仍然不太可能是 OVB(aOR 0.91,95% CI 0.90-0.92)。结论 在这项基于人群的研究中,我们发现了自然分娩和手术阴道分娩之间的时间差异,在傍晚时使用器械的情况增多,而在清晨时使用的情况减少。这些发现促使我们进一步研究 OVB 的适应症以及这些时间差异的根本原因,这些原因可能是多因素的,涉及到提供者和资源的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Differences in Time of Birth between Spontaneous and Operative Vaginal Births.

Objective:  Previous studies have identified an association between obstetric interventions and the time of day in which they are performed; however, they do not account for granular variations in the temporality of delivery interventions, which is influenced by both health care providers and resource availability. We sought to assess differences in time of birth among spontaneous vaginal births (SVBs) versus operative (forceps- and vacuum-assisted) vaginal births (OVBs).

Study design:  This cross-sectional study used birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System from 2016 to 2021, which includes the time of birth and delivery method for recorded U.S. births. The number of SVBs and OVBs at each minute was normalized relative to the total births within each delivery group to facilitate balanced comparisons between groups. Logistic regression analysis assessed the odds of OVBs per time of day.

Results:  A total of 15,412,129 subjects who underwent vaginal birth were included in this analysis, 690,905 (4.5%) of whom underwent OVBs. Compared to births at other time intervals, those between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. were more likely to be OVBs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.14). Conversely, births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. were less likely to be OVBs (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88). After adjusting for adjusting for maternal age, gestational age, and induction of labor, births between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. remained more likely to be OVBs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10) and births between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. remained less likely to be OVBs (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.92).

Conclusion:  In this population-based study, we identified temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs with increased use of instrumentation during the late afternoon and reduced use in the early morning. These findings prompt further investigation into the indications for OVBs and root causes of these temporal variations, which are likely multifactorial and involve provider and resource availability.

Key points: · This study identifies temporal differences between SVBs and OVBs.. · Compared to SVBs, operative births are more likely in the late afternoon.. · OVBs are also less likely in the early morning.. · These temporal trends suggest the influence of provider and resource availability..

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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