Adverse Outcomes From Vaginal Delivery During Immersion in Water Versus Traditional Vaginal Delivery [25C]

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

At our institution, our Certified Nurse Midwife practice has been practicing vaginal deliveries via immersion in water since 2008. In light of the ACOG committee opinion 594, we conducted a matched-pair analysis to compare the frequency of adverse events during immersion in water versus traditional vaginal delivery.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review was conducted for deliveries occurring at a single urban hospital from 2010–2014. Deliveries were grouped into waterbirths and landbirths. Women who had a waterbirth were matched by parity and gestational age to women having a traditional vaginal delivery. Adverse outcomes assessed included lacerations, episiotomy, hemorrhage, APGAR score, shoulder dystocia, and NICU admission. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS:

Of the 149 matched pairs assessed, the median age was 28; 71% were Caucasian and 20% were Hispanic. Women were similar across delivery groups in age, race, chronic conditions, and number of previous preterm births. The odds of a laceration during waterbirth delivery were observed to be 90% lower when compared with landbirth (aOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01–0.78). Likewise, a poor 1 minute APGAR (<7) was inversely associated with waterbirth, but the association was not statistically significant (aOR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.80–2.61). There was little to no difference in shoulder dystocia, hemorrhage, or NICU admissions across delivery groups.

CONCLUSION:

This study suggests that there were fewer lacerations and higher 1-minute APGAR scores among waterbirth deliveries.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles