分娩方式与妊娠合并早产产妇不良结局的关系

R. Wiley, Han-Yang Chen, S. Wagner, Megha Gupta, S. Chauhan
{"title":"分娩方式与妊娠合并早产产妇不良结局的关系","authors":"R. Wiley, Han-Yang Chen, S. Wagner, Megha Gupta, S. Chauhan","doi":"10.1080/14767058.2022.2050897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction To determine the impact of route of delivery on maternal outcomes among individuals who deliver preterm (before 37 weeks). Materials and methods This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the U.S. vital statistics datasets on Period Linked Birth-Infant Death Data from 2014 to 2018. The study population was restricted to live births from women with non-anomalous singletons who delivered at 24–36 weeks of gestation. The main explanatory variable for this study was route of delivery, which was categorized as: (i) vaginal delivery, (ii) cesarean delivery with labor, and (iii) cesarean delivery without labor. The primary outcome was composite maternal adverse outcome, which encompassed any of the following: admission to the intensive care unit, maternal blood transfusion, uterine rupture, or unplanned hysterectomy. The results were presented as adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Over the study period 1,440,510 live births met the inclusion criteria, and the overall composite maternal adverse outcome was 14.38 per 1,000 live births. After multivariable adjustment, compared to women who underwent a vaginal delivery, the risk of composite maternal adverse outcome was higher in women who had a cesarean delivery with labor (aRR 3.70; 95% CI 3.52–3.90) and those who had a cesarean delivery without labor (aRR 4.79; 95% CI 4.59–4.98). Conclusion With preterm birth, cesarean delivery without labor has higher rate of composite maternal morbidity than cesarean during labor or vaginal delivery.","PeriodicalId":22921,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","volume":"128 1","pages":"9694 - 9701"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between route of delivery and maternal adverse outcomes in pregnancies complicated by preterm birth\",\"authors\":\"R. Wiley, Han-Yang Chen, S. Wagner, Megha Gupta, S. Chauhan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14767058.2022.2050897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Introduction To determine the impact of route of delivery on maternal outcomes among individuals who deliver preterm (before 37 weeks). Materials and methods This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the U.S. vital statistics datasets on Period Linked Birth-Infant Death Data from 2014 to 2018. The study population was restricted to live births from women with non-anomalous singletons who delivered at 24–36 weeks of gestation. The main explanatory variable for this study was route of delivery, which was categorized as: (i) vaginal delivery, (ii) cesarean delivery with labor, and (iii) cesarean delivery without labor. The primary outcome was composite maternal adverse outcome, which encompassed any of the following: admission to the intensive care unit, maternal blood transfusion, uterine rupture, or unplanned hysterectomy. The results were presented as adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Over the study period 1,440,510 live births met the inclusion criteria, and the overall composite maternal adverse outcome was 14.38 per 1,000 live births. After multivariable adjustment, compared to women who underwent a vaginal delivery, the risk of composite maternal adverse outcome was higher in women who had a cesarean delivery with labor (aRR 3.70; 95% CI 3.52–3.90) and those who had a cesarean delivery without labor (aRR 4.79; 95% CI 4.59–4.98). Conclusion With preterm birth, cesarean delivery without labor has higher rate of composite maternal morbidity than cesarean during labor or vaginal delivery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"volume\":\"128 1\",\"pages\":\"9694 - 9701\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2022.2050897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2022.2050897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨分娩方式对早产(37周前)孕妇结局的影响。材料和方法这是一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究,使用2014年至2018年期间相关出生-婴儿死亡数据的美国生命统计数据集。研究人群限于在妊娠24-36周分娩的非异常单胎妇女的活产。本研究的主要解释变量是分娩途径,其分类为:(i)阴道分娩,(ii)剖宫产分娩,(iii)剖宫产分娩。主要结局是综合产妇不良结局,包括以下任何一项:入住重症监护病房、产妇输血、子宫破裂或计划外子宫切除术。结果以校正相对危险度(aRR)表示,置信区间为95%。结果在研究期间,1440510例活产符合纳入标准,总体复合产妇不良结局为14.38 / 1000。多变量调整后,与阴道分娩的妇女相比,剖宫产伴分娩的妇女出现综合孕产妇不良结局的风险更高(aRR 3.70;95% CI 3.52-3.90)和无分娩剖宫产(aRR 4.79;95% ci 4.59-4.98)。结论对于早产,无产剖宫产的产妇综合发病率高于顺产剖宫产和阴道分娩。
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
Association between route of delivery and maternal adverse outcomes in pregnancies complicated by preterm birth
Abstract Introduction To determine the impact of route of delivery on maternal outcomes among individuals who deliver preterm (before 37 weeks). Materials and methods This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the U.S. vital statistics datasets on Period Linked Birth-Infant Death Data from 2014 to 2018. The study population was restricted to live births from women with non-anomalous singletons who delivered at 24–36 weeks of gestation. The main explanatory variable for this study was route of delivery, which was categorized as: (i) vaginal delivery, (ii) cesarean delivery with labor, and (iii) cesarean delivery without labor. The primary outcome was composite maternal adverse outcome, which encompassed any of the following: admission to the intensive care unit, maternal blood transfusion, uterine rupture, or unplanned hysterectomy. The results were presented as adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Over the study period 1,440,510 live births met the inclusion criteria, and the overall composite maternal adverse outcome was 14.38 per 1,000 live births. After multivariable adjustment, compared to women who underwent a vaginal delivery, the risk of composite maternal adverse outcome was higher in women who had a cesarean delivery with labor (aRR 3.70; 95% CI 3.52–3.90) and those who had a cesarean delivery without labor (aRR 4.79; 95% CI 4.59–4.98). Conclusion With preterm birth, cesarean delivery without labor has higher rate of composite maternal morbidity than cesarean during labor or vaginal delivery.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of specialty training and physician attitudes on fetal cardiac counseling Fetoplacental unit involvement in uric acid production in women with severe preeclampsia: a prospective case control pilot study. Causal association of sex hormone-binding globulin on gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study Targeted metabolomic analysis of early-trimester serum identifies potential mechanisms for late-onset preeclampsia Statement of retraction: effect of daily consumption of probiotic yoghurt on lipid profiles in pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical trial
×
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