RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2451-9197
Impact of Attempted Mode of Delivery on Neonatal Outcomes in Nulliparous Individuals According to Body Mass Index
Funding None.
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes based on the attempted mode of delivery, stratified by prepregnancy body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) in nulliparous individuals.
Study Design
This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of U.S. vital statistics Live Birth and Infant Death-linked data from 2011 to 2020. The analysis was restricted to nulliparas with singleton pregnancies and cephalic presentation who delivered at term. Our primary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome. We also examined a composite maternal outcome. We compared outcomes between individuals who attempted labor and those who opted for nonlabor cesarean delivery, categorized by BMI (<18.5, 18.5–24.9, 25–29.9, 30–39.9, ≥40). To account for significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, Coarsened Exact Matching was applied using a k-to-k solution. We employed modified Poisson regression and calculated a difference-in-difference (DID) to compare differences in predicted proportions across BMI categories.
Results
Out of 9,709,958 individuals, 1,083,332 were included in the matched analysis. Compared with attempted vaginal delivery, nonlabor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome across all BMI categories. However, the increase in risk was less pronounced in higher BMI categories compared with the reference group (BMI 18.5–24.9). For maternal outcomes, nonlabor cesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of the composite maternal outcome in the BMI 18.5–24.9 and 25–29.9 categories. In contrast, the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with nonlabor cesarean delivery was lower in higher BMI groups compared with the reference group, with DID values ranging from −0.12 in the BMI 30–39.9 group to −0.16 in the BMI ≥40 group.
Conclusion
Nonlabor cesarean delivery, as compared with attempted vaginal delivery, was associated with adverse neonatal outcomes across all BMI categories, though the relative increase in risk was diminished in higher BMI groups.
Key Points
-
Compared with attempting vaginal delivery, nonlabor cesarean was associated with an increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome in all BMI classes (range of absolute risk difference 1.27–2.35%).
-
The increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome was less pronounced in nulliparous individuals with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater.
-
Even for individuals with high BMI, attempting vaginal delivery is reasonable.
Keywords
absolute risk difference - attempting labor - cesarean delivery - difference-in-difference - morbid obesity - neonatal deathNote
This paper was presented at the 44th Annual Meeting—The Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Gaylord National Harbor in National Harbor, MD, February 11–14, 2024.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 17. September 2024
Angenommen: 24. Oktober 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
25. Oktober 2024
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. November 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Driscoll AK, Gregory ECW. Increases in prepregnancy obesity: United States, 2016-2019. NCHS Data Brief 2020; 392 (392) 1-8
- 2 Sturm R, Hattori A. Morbid obesity rates continue to rise rapidly in the United States. Int J Obes (Lond) 2013; 37 (06) 889-891
- 3 Chu SY, Kim SY, Schmid CH. et al. Maternal obesity and risk of cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2007; 8 (05) 385-394
- 4 Barau G, Robillard PY, Hulsey TC. et al. Linear association between maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index and risk of caesarean section in term deliveries. BJOG 2006; 113 (10) 1173-1177
- 5 Cedergren MI. Non-elective caesarean delivery due to ineffective uterine contractility or due to obstructed labour in relation to maternal body mass index. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 145 (02) 163-166
- 6 Perlow JH, Morgan MA. Massive maternal obesity and perioperative cesarean morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (02) 560-565
- 7 Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D. et al; FASTER Research Consortium. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate–a population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (04) 1091-1097
- 8 Hall LF, Neubert AG. Obesity and pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2005; 60 (04) 253-260
- 9 Yamasato K, Yoshino K, Chang AL, Caughey AB, Tsai PJ. Cesarean delivery complications in women with morbid obesity. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (23) 3885-3888
- 10 Conner SN, Verticchio JC, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Maternal obesity and risk of postcesarean wound complications. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (04) 299-304
- 11 Vegel AJ, Benden DM, Borgert AJ, Kallies KJ, Kothari SN. Impact of obesity on cesarean delivery outcomes. WMJ 2017; 116 (04) 206-209
- 12 Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 90 (01) 10-15
- 13 Robinson HE, O'Connell CM, Joseph KS, McLeod NL. Maternal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by obesity. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (06) 1357-1364
- 14 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
- 15 MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an “intention-to-treat” model. Birth 2008; 35 (01) 3-8
- 16 Clark-Ganheart CA, Reddy UM, Kominiarek MA, Huang CC, Landy HJ, Grantz KL. Pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring by attempted mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (05) 987-993
- 17 Subramaniam A, Jauk VC, Goss AR, Alvarez MD, Reese C, Edwards RK. Mode of delivery in women with class III obesity: planned cesarean compared with induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (06) 700.e1-700.e9
- 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. User Guide to the 2021 Natality Public Use File. 2022 . Accessed September 6, 2023 at: https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/DVS/natality/UserGuide2021.pdf
- 19 National Vital Statistics System Birth Data. Birth data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed September 6, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/births.htm
- 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Attachment to the Facility Worksheet for the Live Birth Certificate for Multiple Births. 2017 . Accessed September 6, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/multiple-births-worksheet-2016.pdf
- 21 Black D, Bogomolniy F, Robson ME, Offit K, Barakat RR, Boyd J. Evaluation of germline PTEN mutations in endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 96 (01) 21-24
- 22 Blackwell M, Iacus S, King G, Porro G. Cem: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata J 2009; 9 (04) 524-546
- 23 Jindal S, Steer PJ, Savvidou M. et al. Risk factors for a serious adverse outcome in neonates: a retrospective cohort study of vaginal births. BJOG 2023; 130 (12) 1521-1530
- 24 Kawakita T, Bowers K, Hazrati S. et al. Increased neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with gestational and pregestational diabetes: a retrospective study. Am J Perinatol 2017; 34 (11) 1160-1168
- 25 Bastek JA, Sammel MD, Paré E, Srinivas SK, Posencheg MA, Elovitz MA. Adverse neonatal outcomes: examining the risks between preterm, late preterm, and term infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (04) 367.e1-367.e8
- 26 Hamilton I, Martin N, Liu J, DeFranco E, Rossi R. Gestational age and birth outcomes in term singleton pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (08) e2328335
- 27 Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159 (07) 702-706
- 28 Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97 (03) 439-442
- 29 Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The association of placenta previa with history of cesarean delivery and abortion: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (05) 1071-1078
- 30 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. First-birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth(1). Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97 (5 pt 1): 765-769
- 31 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (06) 1226-1232
- 32 Creasy RK, Resnik R, Greene MF, Iams JD, Lockwood CJ. eds. Creasy and Resnik's Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 7th edition. Elsevier/Saunders;; 2014
- 33 Hemminki E. Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy–a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996; 10 (04) 366-379
- 34 Paidas Teefey C, Reforma L, Koelper NC. et al. Risk factors associated with cesarean delivery after induction of labor in women with class III obesity. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (03) 542-549
- 35 Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Medicine. Communicating statistical information. Science 2000; 290 (5500) 2261-2262
- 36 The Joint Commission. Specifications manual for Joint Commission National Quality Measures (v2016A1). Measure Information Form. 2016 . Accessed October 23, 2023 at: https://manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2016A1/MIF0167.html
- 37 Mustafa G, David RJ. Comparative accuracy of clinical estimate versus menstrual gestational age in computerized birth certificates. Public Health Rep 2001; 116 (01) 15-21
- 38 Alexander GR, Tompkins ME, Petersen DJ, Hulsey TC, Mor J. Discordance between LMP-based and clinically estimated gestational age: implications for research, programs, and policy. Public Health Rep 1995; 110 (04) 395-402
- 39 Strauss LT, Freedman MA, Gunter N, Powell-Griner E, Smith JC. Experiences with linked birth and infant death certificates from the NIMS project. Public Health Rep 1987; 102 (02) 204-210
- 40 Gregory ECW, Martin JA, Argov EL, Osterman MJK. Assessing the Quality of Medical and Health Data from the 2003 Birth Certificate Revision: Results From New York City. . Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019 :68; 1-20 . Accessed November 4, 2024 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_02.pdf