Perinatal Outcomes of Women Intending to Give Birth in Birth Centers in Australia

Abstract: Background: A recent Australian study showed perinatal mortality was lower among women who gave birth in a birth center than in a comparable low‐risk group of women who gave birth in a hospital. The current study used the same large population database to investigate whether perinatal outcomes were improved for women intending to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor, regardless of the actual place of birth. Methods: Data were obtained from the National Perinatal Data Collection (NPDC) in Australia. The study included 822,955 mothers who gave birth during the 5‐year period, 2001 to 2005, and their 836,919 babies. Of these, 22,222 women (2.7%) intended to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor. Maternal and perinatal factors and outcomes were compared according to the intended place of birth. Data were not available on congenital anomalies, or cause, or timing of death. Results: Women intending to give birth in a birth center at the onset of labor had lower rates of intervention and of adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women intending to give birth in a hospital, including less preterm birth and low birthweight. No statistically significant difference was found in perinatal mortality for term babies of mothers intending to give birth in a birth center compared with term babies of low‐risk women intending to give birth in a hospital (1.3 per 1,000 births [99% CI = 0.66, 1.95] vs 1.7 per 1,000 births [99% CI = 1.50, 1.80], respectively). Conclusions: Term babies of women who intended to give birth in a birth center were less likely to be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery, and no significant difference was found in other perinatal outcomes compared with term babies of low‐risk women who intended to give birth in a hospital labor ward. Birth center care remains a viable option for eligible women giving birth at term. (BIRTH 37:1 March 2010)     

Neonatal Outcomes in the Birth Center Setting: A Systematic Review

Introduction

This systematic review investigates the effect of the birth center setting on neonatal mortality in economically developed countries to aid women and clinicians in decision making.

Methods

We searched the Google Scholar, CINAHL, and PubMed databases using key terms birth/birthing center or out of hospital with perinatal/neonatal outcomes. Ancestry searches identified additional studies, and an alert was set for new publications. We included primary source studies in English, published after 1980, conducted in a developed country, and researching planned birth in centers with guidelines similar to American Association of Birth Centers standards. After initial review, we conducted a preliminary analysis, assessing which measures of neonatal health, morbidity, and mortality were included across studies.

Results

Neonatal mortality was selected as the sole summary measure as other measures were sporadically reported or inconsistently defined. Seventeen studies were included, representing at least 84,500 women admitted to a birth center in labor. There were substantial differences of study design, sampling techniques, and definitions of neonatal outcomes across studies, limiting conclusive statements of the effect of intrapartum care in a birth center. No reviewed study found a statistically increased rate of neonatal mortality in birth centers compared to low‐risk women giving birth in hospitals, nor did data suggest a trend toward higher neonatal mortality in birth centers. As in all birth settings, nulliparous women, women aged greater than 35 years, and women with pregnancies of more than 42 weeks’ gestation may have an increased risk of neonatal mortality.

Discussion

There are substantial flaws in the literature concerning the effect of birth center care on neonatal outcomes. More research is needed on subgroups at risk of poor outcomes in the birth center environment. To expedite research, consistent use of national and international definitions of perinatal and neonatal mortality within data registries and greater detail on adverse outcomes would be beneficial.     

In‐Hospital Birth Center with the Same Medical Guidelines as Standard Care: A Comparative Study of Obstetric Interventions and Outcomes

Background: A challenge of obstetric care is to optimize maternal and infant health outcomes and the mother’s experience of childbirth with the least possible intervention in the normal process. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of modified birth center care on obstetric procedures during delivery and on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: In a cohort study 2,555 women who signed in for birth center care during pregnancy were compared with all 9,382 low‐risk women who gave birth in the standard delivery ward in the same hospital from March 2004 to July 2008. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) and adjusted for maternal background characteristics, elective cesarean section, and gestational age. Results: The modified birth center group included fewer emergency cesarean sections (primiparas: OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83; multiparas: OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23–0.51), and in multiparas the vacuum extraction rate was reduced (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26–0.67). In addition, epidural analgesia was used less frequently (primiparas: OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.41–0.53; multiparas: OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.20–0.32). Fetal distress was less frequently diagnosed in the modified birth center group (primiparas: OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.87; multiparas: OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29–0.69), but no statistically significant differences were found in neonatal hypoxia, low Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, or proportion of perinatal deaths (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–1.13). Anal sphincter tears were reduced (primiparas: OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.98; multiparas: OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20–0.83). Conclusion: Midwife‐led comprehensive care with the same medical guidelines as in standard care reduced medical interventions without jeopardizing maternal and infant health. (BIRTH 38:2 June 2011)     

Birth Centers in Australia: A National Population‐Based Study of Perinatal Mortality Associated with Giving Birth in a Birth Center

ABSTRACT: Background: Perinatal mortality is a rare outcome among babies born at term in developed countries after normal uncomplicated pregnancies; consequently, the numbers involved in large databases of routinely collected statistics provide a meaningful evaluation of these uncommon events. The National Perinatal Data Collection records the place of birth and information on the outcomes of pregnancy and childbirth for all women who give birth each year in Australia. Our objective was to describe the perinatal mortality associated with giving birth in “alongside hospital” birth centers in Australia during 1999 to 2002 using nationally collected data. Methods: This population‐based study included all 1,001,249 women who gave birth in Australia during 1999 to 2002. Of these women, 21,800 (2.18%) gave birth in a birth center. Selected perinatal outcomes (including stillbirths and neonatal deaths) were described for the 4‐year study period separately for first‐time mothers and for women having a second or subsequent birth. A further comparison was made between deaths of low‐risk term babies born in hospitals compared with deaths of term babies born in birth centers. Results: The total perinatal death rate attributed to birth centers was significantly lower than that attributed to hospitals (1.51/1,000 vs 10.03/1,000). The perinatal mortality rate among term births to primiparas in birth centers compared with term births among low‐risk primiparas in hospitals was 1.4 versus 1.9 per 1,000; the perinatal mortality rate among term births to multiparas in birth centers compared with term births among low‐risk multiparas in hospitals was 0.6 versus 1.6 per 1,000. Conclusions: This study using Australian national data showed that the overall rate of perinatal mortality was lower in alongside hospital birth centers than in hospitals irrespective of the mother’s parity. (BIRTH 34:3 September 2007)     

Outcomes of Planned Hospital Birth Attended by Midwives Compared with Physicians in British Columbia

ABSTRACT: Background: The impact of midwifery versus physician care on perinatal outcomes in a population of women planning birth in hospital has not yet been explored. We compared maternal and newborn outcomes between women planning hospital birth attended by a midwife versus a physician in British Columbia, Canada. Methods: All women planning a hospital birth attended by a midwife during the 2‐year study period who were of sufficiently low‐risk status to meet eligibility requirements for home birth as defined by the British Columbia College of Midwives were included in the study group (n =488). The comparison group included women meeting the same eligibility requirements but planning a physician‐attended birth in hospitals where midwives also practiced (n =572). Outcomes were ascertained from the British Columbia Reproductive Care Program Perinatal Registry to which all hospitals in the province submit data. Results: Adjusted odds ratios for women planning hospital birth attended by a midwife versus a physician were significantly reduced for exposure to cesarean section (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.86), narcotic analgesia (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18–0.37), electronic fetal monitoring (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.16–0.30), amniotomy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98), and episiotomy (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42–0.93). The odds of adverse neonatal outcomes were not different between groups, with the exception of reduced use of drugs for resuscitation at birth (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04–0.83) in the midwifery group. Conclusions: A shift toward greater proportions of midwife‐attended births in hospitals could result in reduced rates of obstetric interventions, with similar rates of neonatal morbidity. (BIRTH 34:2 June 2007)     

Outcomes Associated with Planned Home and Planned Hospital Births in Low‐Risk Women Attended by Midwives in Ontario,Canada, 2003–2006: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Midwives in Ontario, Canada, provide care in the home and hospital and are required to submit data for all births to the Ontario Ministry of Health database. The purpose of this study was to compare maternal and perinatal/neonatal mortality and morbidity and intrapartum intervention rates for women attended by Ontario midwives who planned a home birth compared with similar low‐risk women who planned a hospital birth between 2003 and 2006. Methods: The database provided outcomes for all women planning a home birth at the onset of labor (n = 6,692) and for a cohort, stratified by parity, of similar low‐risk women planning a hospital birth. Results: The rate of perinatal and neonatal mortality was very low (1/1,000) for both groups, and no difference was shown between groups in perinatal and neonatal mortality or serious morbidity (2.4% vs 2.8%; relative risk [RR], 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.84 [0.68–1.03]). No maternal deaths were reported. All measures of serious maternal morbidity were lower in the planned home birth group as were rates for all interventions including cesarean section (5.2% vs 8.1%; RR [95% CI]: 0.64 [0.56, 0.73]). Nulliparas were less likely to deliver at home, and had higher rates of ambulance transport from home to hospital than multiparas planning home birth and had rates of intervention and outcomes similar to, or lower than, nulliparas planning hospital births. Conclusions: Midwives who were integrated into the health care system with good access to emergency services, consultation, and transfer of care provided care resulting in favorable outcomes for women planning both home or hospital births.