Association of Recorded Estimated Fetal Weight and Cesarean Delivery in Attempted Vaginal Delivery at Term

被引:31
作者
Froehlich, Rosemary J.
Sandoval, Grecio
Bailit, Jennifer L.
Grobman, William A.
Reddy, Uma M.
Wapner, Ronald J.
Varner, Michael W.
Thorp, John M., Jr.
Prasad, Mona
Tita, Alan T. N.
Saade, George
Sorokin, Yoram
Blackwell, Sean C.
Tolosa, Jorge E.
机构
[1] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Dept Obstet, Providence, RI USA
[2] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Dept Gynecol, Providence, RI USA
[3] Case Western Reserve Univ, MetroHlth Med Ctr, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[4] Columbia Univ, New York, NY USA
[5] Univ Utah, Hlth Sci Ctr, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[6] Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[7] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[8] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA
[9] Wayne State Univ, Detroit, MI USA
[10] Brown Univ, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[11] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Childrens Mem Hermann Hosp, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[12] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[13] George Washington Univ, Biostat Ctr, Washington, DC USA
[14] Eunice Kennedy Shriver Natl Inst Child Hlth & Hum, Bethesda, MD USA
关键词
MACROSOMIA; PREDICTION;
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0000000000001571
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between documentation of estimated fetal weight, and its value, with cesarean delivery. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter observational cohort of 115,502 deliveries from 2008 to 2011. Data were abstracted by trained and certified study personnel. We included women at 37 weeks of gestation or greater attempting vaginal delivery with live, nonanomalous, singleton, vertex fetuses and no history of cesarean delivery. Rates and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for women with ultrasonography or clinical estimated fetal weight compared with women without documentation of estimated fetal weight. Further subgroup analyses were performed for estimated fetal weight categories (less than 3,500, 3,500-3,999, and 4,000 g or greater) stratified by diabetic status. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for important potential confounding variables. RESULTS: We included 64,030 women. Cesarean delivery rates were 18.5% in the ultrasound estimated fetal weight group, 13.4% in the clinical estimated fetal weight group, and 11.7% in the no documented estimated fetal weight group (P<.001). After adjustment (including for birth weight), the adjusted OR of cesarean delivery was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.58, P<.001) for women with ultrasound estimated fetal weight and 1.08 for clinical estimated fetal weight (95% CI 1.01-1.15, P=.017) compared with women with no documented estimated fetal weight (referent). The highest estimates of fetal weight conveyed the greatest odds of cesarean delivery. When ultrasound estimated fetal weight was 4,000 g or greater, the adjusted OR was 2.15 (95% CI 1.55-2.98, P<.001) in women without diabetes and 9.00 (95% CI 3.65-22.17, P<.001) in women with diabetes compared to those with estimated fetal weight less than 3,500 g. CONCLUSION: In this contemporary cohort of women attempting vaginal delivery at term, documentation of estimated fetal weight (obtained clinically or, particularly, by ultrasonography) was associated with increased odds of cesarean delivery. This relationship was strongest at higher fetal weight estimates, even after controlling for the effects of birth weight and other factors associated with increased cesarean delivery risk.
引用
收藏
页码:487 / 494
页数:8
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest? [J].
Blackwell, Sean C. ;
Refuerzo, Jerrie ;
Chadha, Rati ;
Carreno, Carlos A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 200 (03) :340.e1-340.e3
[2]   Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery [J].
Caughey, Aaron B. ;
Cahill, Alison G. ;
Guise, Jeanne-Marie ;
Rouse, Dwight J. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (03) :179-193
[3]   Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors [J].
Coonrod, Dean V. ;
Drachman, David ;
Hobson, Paula ;
Manriquez, Maria .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 198 (06) :694.e1-694.e11
[4]  
Gregory Kimberly D, 2012, Am J Perinatol, V29, P7, DOI 10.1055/s-0031-1285829
[5]  
Grobman W A, 2014, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V211
[6]   Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery? [J].
Little, Sarah E. ;
Edlow, Andrea G. ;
Thomas, Ann M. ;
Smith, Nicole A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 207 (04) :309.e1-309.e6
[7]   Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality [J].
Molina, George ;
Weiser, Thomas G. ;
Lipsitz, Stuart R. ;
Esquivel, Micaela M. ;
Uribe-Leitz, Tarsicio ;
Azad, Tej ;
Shah, Neel ;
Semrau, Katherine ;
Berry, William R. ;
Gawande, Atul A. ;
Haynes, Alex B. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (21) :2263-2270
[8]   Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: 2012-2013 [J].
Osterman, Michelle J. K. ;
Kochanek, Kenneth D. ;
MacDorman, Marian F. ;
Strobino, Donna M. ;
Guyer, Bernard .
PEDIATRICS, 2015, 135 (06) :1115-1125
[9]  
Parry S, 2000, J REPROD MED, V45, P17
[10]   Large-for-Gestational-Age Ultrasound Diagnosis and Risk for Cesarean Delivery in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus [J].
Scifres, Christina M. ;
Feghali, Maisa ;
Dumont, Tina ;
Althouse, Andrew D. ;
Speer, Paul ;
Caritis, Steve N. ;
Catov, Janet M. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 126 (05) :978-986