4.5 Article

Significant effects on neonatal morbidity and mortality after regional change in management of post-term pregnancy

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01019.x

关键词

Post-term pregnancy; management; neonatal morbidity; neonatal mortality

资金

  1. Evy and Gunnar Sandberg Foundation
  2. Birgit and Sven Hakan Olsson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the effects on neonatal morbidity of a regional change in induction policy for post-term pregnancy from 43(+0) to 42(+0) gestational weeks (GWs). Design and setting. Nationwide retrospective register study between 2000 and 2007. Population. All singleton pregnancies with a gestational age of >41(+2) GW (n = 119,198). Methods. All Swedish counties were divided into three groups where study group allocation was designated by the proportion of pregnancies >42(+2) GW among all pregnancies of >41(+2) GW. Stockholm county formed a separate group. Main outcome measures. Perinatal morbidity. Results. In counties with the most active management, 19% of pregnancies >41(+2) GW were delivered at >42(+2) GW during 2000-2004 compared to 7.1% in 2005-2007. In the least active counties, corresponding figures were 21.0% compared to 19.4%. During 2005-2007, the odds ratios for meconium aspiration and 5-minute Apgar score of <= 6 in the least compared to most active counties, were 1.55 (95% CI: 1.03-2.33) and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.06-1.51). In Stockholm >42(+2)GW seen among pregnancies of >41(+2) decreased from 21.0% in 2000-2004 to 5.9% in 2005-2007. Reduced perinatal death risks by 48%, meconium aspiration of 51% and low Apgar scores by 31% in 2005-2007 compared with 2000-2004 were observed. Rates of operative deliveries at >41(+2) GW in Stockholm were unaltered. Conclusion. A significant reduction in perinatal morbidity was found, with no influence on operative delivery rates for post-term pregnancy in Stockholm. We advocate a nationwide change toward more active management of post-term pregnancies.

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

4.5
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