Background: Expediting delivery in the second stage of labour often involves a choice between a caesarean section at full dilatation or mid-cavity instrumental delivery. Accumulating evidence suggests that the mode of delivery may influence the risk of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy.
Aims:To directly compare first birth caesarean section at full dilatation with midcavity instrumental delivery for the risk of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy (second birth). A further aim was to identify predictive factors associated with these index modes of delivery.
Materials and Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study involving three maternity hospitals in western Sydney over the period of 2006-2017. Inclusion criteria were nulliparous women with a singleton term cephalic first birth delivered by caesarean section at full dilatation or mid-cavity instrumental delivery, and whose second birth also occurred under our care. Data were analysed separately for first and second births.Results: There were 425 caesarean section at full dilatation and 874 mid-cavity instrumental cases which met inclusion criteria. The risk of preterm birth in the second birth was 5.7% compared to 3.2%, respectively (risk ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.04-3.00; P = 0.035). After excluding causes of preterm birth not related to previous mode of delivery, the risk of spontaneous preterm birth was 4.3% compared to 2.0%, respectively (risk ratio 2.18; 1.14-4.19; P = 0.019).
Conclusion:Caesarean section at full dilatation is associated with a significantly higher rate of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy compared to a mid-cavity instrumental delivery. This should be considered in second-stage mid-cavity decision-making.
K E Y W O R D Scaesarean section, full dilatation, instrumental delivery, preterm birth, second stage of labour
BackgroundAcute post-partum anaemia can be associated with significant morbidity including a predisposition for postnatal depression. Lack of clear practice guidelines means a number of women are treated with multiple blood transfusions. Intravenous iron has the potential to limit the need for multiple blood transfusions but its role in the post-partum setting is unclear.Methods/designIIBAPPA is a multi-centre randomised non-inferiority trial. Women with a primary post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) >1000 mL and resultant haemoglobin (Hb) 5.5-8.0 g/dL after resuscitation with ongoing symptomatic anaemia who are otherwise stable (no active bleeding) are eligible to participate. Patients with sepsis or conditions necessitating rapid Hb restoration are excluded. Eligible participants are randomised to receive a blood transfusion or a single dose of intravenous iron polymaltose calculated using the Ganzoni formula. Primary outcome measures include Hb, Ferritin and C-Reactive Protein levels on Day 7. Secondary outcomes evaluate (i) Hb, Ferritin and CRP levels on Day 14, 28, (ii) anaemia symptoms on Day 0, 7, 14 and 28 using structured health related quality of life questionnaires, (iii) treatment safety by assessing adverse reactions and infection endpoints and (iv) the quantitative impact of anaemia on breast feeding quality using a hospital designed questionnaire.DiscussionIf equivalence in Hb and ferritin levels, symptom scores and safety endpoints is demonstrated, intravenous iron may become the preferred treatment for women with acute post-partum anaemia to minimise transfusion reactions and costs.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12615001370594 on 16th December, 2015 (prospective approval).
When used for cervical ripening, a silicone Foley catheter is associated with a higher rate of acROM than a latex catheter but a lower rate of insertion failure. It may, therefore, be reasonable to attempt insertion with a latex catheter initially and manage insertion failures with a silicone catheter.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.