4.3 Article

Labor induction and augmentation in women with multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 1182-1189

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458512474090

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; cohort studies; labor; birth; pregnancy; childbirth

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-106607]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
  4. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  5. University of British Columbia MS/MRI Research Group
  6. Dr. Donald Paty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Fatigue and pelvic organ dysfunction are common among women with multiple sclerosis (MS), which may prolong labor and increase the risk of labor induction and/or augmentation. Objective: We set out to investigate the association between MS and related clinical factors (disease duration and the Expanded Disability Status Scale, EDSS) with labor induction/augmentation. Methods: Data from the British Columbia (BC) MS database were linked with the BC Perinatal Database Registry. Multivariable models were used to compare the likelihood of labor induction and augmentation between attempted vaginal deliveries (1998-2009) in women with MS (n=381) and the general population (n=2615). Results: In the MS cohort, 94/381 deliveries (25%) required labor induction and 147/381 deliveries (39%) required labor augmentation. Having MS was not associated with labor induction (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.68-1.22, p=0.54) or augmentation (adjusted OR=0.91; 95% CI=0.72-1.15, p=0.43), but was associated with multiple methods of labor induction (OR=1.94; 95% CI=1.23-3.06, p=0.004). A higher EDSS score was associated with an increased risk of labor induction (adjusted p=0.04), but not labor augmentation (adjusted p > 0.5). Disease duration was not associated with either outcome (adjusted p > 0.2). Conclusions: Greater intervention may be required to initiate labor for women with a higher degree of disability due to MS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据