美国计划内家庭分娩与计划内分娩中心分娩对低风险分娩者的效果相当。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002074
Marit L Bovbjerg, Melissa Cheyney, Lauren Hoehn-Velasco, Diana Jolles, Jennifer Brown, Jennifer Stapleton, Courtney Everson, Susan Stapleton, Saraswathi Vedam
{"title":"美国计划内家庭分娩与计划内分娩中心分娩对低风险分娩者的效果相当。","authors":"Marit L Bovbjerg, Melissa Cheyney, Lauren Hoehn-Velasco, Diana Jolles, Jennifer Brown, Jennifer Stapleton, Courtney Everson, Susan Stapleton, Saraswathi Vedam","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There are lingering concerns in the United States about home birth. We used 2 large (n = 50,043; n = 62,984), national community birth registries to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned home versus planned birth center births.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To compare outcomes by intended birth site, we used logistic regressions, controlling for demographic and pregnancy risk variables. Maternal outcomes included intrapartum or postpartum transfer to hospital, hospitalization, cesarean, and hemorrhage; neonatal outcomes included neonatal transfer, hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and intrapartum or neonatal death. Analyses were conducted twice, once in each dataset.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Individuals who planned home births had a lower incidence of all types of transfers, compared with those who planned birth center births, but in one dataset only, experienced more cesareans [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (1.02-1.70); 0.95 (0.88-1.03)]. Planned home birth was associated with lower adjusted odds of maternal hospitalization in one dataset but not the other [0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)], and was not associated with hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes likewise were either not associated with a planned birthplace or suggested home birth was safer: hospitalization [0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], neonatal intensive care unit admission [0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]. There was no observable association with intrapartum or neonatal death: 1.07 (0.68-1.67; only calculated once because of small numbers of events).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Planned home births are as safe as planned birth center births for low-risk pregnancies. Current guidelines advising against planned home births are not supported by these data.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planned Home Births in the United States Have Outcomes Comparable to Planned Birth Center Births for Low-Risk Birthing Individuals.\",\"authors\":\"Marit L Bovbjerg, Melissa Cheyney, Lauren Hoehn-Velasco, Diana Jolles, Jennifer Brown, Jennifer Stapleton, Courtney Everson, Susan Stapleton, Saraswathi Vedam\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There are lingering concerns in the United States about home birth. We used 2 large (n = 50,043; n = 62,984), national community birth registries to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned home versus planned birth center births.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To compare outcomes by intended birth site, we used logistic regressions, controlling for demographic and pregnancy risk variables. Maternal outcomes included intrapartum or postpartum transfer to hospital, hospitalization, cesarean, and hemorrhage; neonatal outcomes included neonatal transfer, hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and intrapartum or neonatal death. Analyses were conducted twice, once in each dataset.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Individuals who planned home births had a lower incidence of all types of transfers, compared with those who planned birth center births, but in one dataset only, experienced more cesareans [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (1.02-1.70); 0.95 (0.88-1.03)]. Planned home birth was associated with lower adjusted odds of maternal hospitalization in one dataset but not the other [0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)], and was not associated with hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes likewise were either not associated with a planned birthplace or suggested home birth was safer: hospitalization [0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], neonatal intensive care unit admission [0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]. There was no observable association with intrapartum or neonatal death: 1.07 (0.68-1.67; only calculated once because of small numbers of events).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Planned home births are as safe as planned birth center births for low-risk pregnancies. Current guidelines advising against planned home births are not supported by these data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542973/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002074\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002074","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在美国,人们对在家分娩的担忧挥之不去。我们利用两个大型(n = 50,043; n = 62,984)全国性社区出生登记,比较了计划在家中分娩与计划在分娩中心分娩的产妇和新生儿结局:为了比较不同计划分娩地点的结果,我们使用了逻辑回归法,并控制了人口统计学和妊娠风险变量。产妇结局包括产中或产后转院、住院、剖宫产和大出血;新生儿结局包括新生儿转院、住院、入住新生儿重症监护室和产中或新生儿死亡。分析进行了两次,每个数据集一次:结果:与计划在分娩中心分娩的产妇相比,计划在家中分娩的产妇所有类型的转院发生率都较低,但仅在一个数据集中,计划在家中分娩的产妇经历了更多的剖宫产[调整后的几率比(95% CI):1.32(1.02-1.70);0.95(0.88-1.03)]。在一个数据集中,计划在家分娩与产妇住院的调整后几率较低有关[0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)],但与大出血无关。新生儿结局同样与计划分娩地点无关或表明在家分娩更安全:住院[0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], 入住新生儿重症监护室[0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]。与产中死亡或新生儿死亡无明显关联:1.07(0.68-1.67;由于事件数量少,只计算了一次):结论:对于低风险妊娠,计划内家庭分娩与计划内分娩中心分娩一样安全。这些数据并不支持目前建议不要在家中计划分娩的指导方针。
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
Planned Home Births in the United States Have Outcomes Comparable to Planned Birth Center Births for Low-Risk Birthing Individuals.

Objective: There are lingering concerns in the United States about home birth. We used 2 large (n = 50,043; n = 62,984), national community birth registries to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned home versus planned birth center births.

Methods: To compare outcomes by intended birth site, we used logistic regressions, controlling for demographic and pregnancy risk variables. Maternal outcomes included intrapartum or postpartum transfer to hospital, hospitalization, cesarean, and hemorrhage; neonatal outcomes included neonatal transfer, hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and intrapartum or neonatal death. Analyses were conducted twice, once in each dataset.

Results: Individuals who planned home births had a lower incidence of all types of transfers, compared with those who planned birth center births, but in one dataset only, experienced more cesareans [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (1.02-1.70); 0.95 (0.88-1.03)]. Planned home birth was associated with lower adjusted odds of maternal hospitalization in one dataset but not the other [0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)], and was not associated with hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes likewise were either not associated with a planned birthplace or suggested home birth was safer: hospitalization [0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], neonatal intensive care unit admission [0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]. There was no observable association with intrapartum or neonatal death: 1.07 (0.68-1.67; only calculated once because of small numbers of events).

Conclusions: Planned home births are as safe as planned birth center births for low-risk pregnancies. Current guidelines advising against planned home births are not supported by these data.

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment promotes tendon-bone interface healing in a rabbit model of rotator cuff tears. Oxygen-ozone therapy for myocardial ischemic stroke and cardiovascular disorders. Comparative study on the anti-inflammatory and protective effects of different oxygen therapy regimens on lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide system and development of the heart. Hyperbaric oxygen for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: outcomes 5-8 years after injury.
×
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