Striving for scientific stringency: a re-analysis of a randomised controlled trial considering first-time mothers' obstetric outcomes in relation to birth position

Li Thies-Lagergren, Linda J Kvist, Kyllike Christensson, Ingegerd Hildingsson, Li Thies-Lagergren, Linda J Kvist, Kyllike Christensson, Ingegerd Hildingsson

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare maternal labour and birth outcomes between women who gave birth on a birth seat or in any other position for vaginal birth and further, to study the relationship between synthetic oxytocin augmentation and maternal blood loss, in a stratified sample.

Methods: A re-analysis of a randomized controlled trial in Sweden. An on-treatment analysis was used to study obstetrical outcomes for nulliparous women who gave birth on a birth seat (birth seat group) compared to birth in any other position for vaginal birth (control group). Data were collected between November 2006 and July 2009. The outcome measurements included perineal outcome, post partum blood loss, epidural analgesia, synthetic oxytocin augmentation and duration of labour.

Results: The major findings of this paper were that women giving birth on the birth seat had shorter duration of labour and were significantly less likely to receive synthetic oxytocin for augmentation in the second stage of labour. Significantly more women had an increased blood loss when giving birth on the birth seat, but had no difference in perineal outcomes. Blood loss was increased regardless of birth position if women had been exposed to synthetic oxytocin augmentation during the first stage of labour.

Conclusions: The results of this analysis imply that women with a straightforward birth process may well benefit from giving birth on a birth seat without risk for any adverse obstetrical outcomes. However it is important to bear in mind that, women who received synthetic oxytocin during the first stage of labour may have an increased risk for greater blood loss when giving birth on a birth seat. Finally it is of vital importance to scrutinize the influence of synthetic oxytocin administered during the first stage of labour on blood loss postpartum, since excessive blood loss is a well-documented cause of maternal mortality worldwide and may cause severe maternal morbidity in high-income countries.

Trial registration: Unique Protocol ID: NCT01182038 ( http://register.clinicaltrials.gov).

References

    1. O'dowd MJ, Philipp EE. The history of obstetrics and gynaecology. England: Parthenon Pub Group; 1994.
    1. Lewis G. Saving Mothers’ Lives: The Continuing Benefits for Maternal Health From the United Kingdom (UK) Confidential Enquires Into Maternal Deaths. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36(1):19–26. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2011.09.005.
    1. Van Teijlingen E. A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth. Sociological Research Online. 2005;10(2)
    1. Jordan RG, Murphy PA. Risk assessment and risk distortion: finding the balance. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54(3):191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.02.001.
    1. Tracy SK, Sullivan E, Wang YA, Black D, Tracy M. Birth outcomes associated with interventions in labour amongst low risk women: A population-based study. Women Birth. 2007;20(2):41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2007.03.005.
    1. Kukla R, Wayne K. Pregnancy, Birth, and Medicine. 2011. (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
    1. Lavender T, Mlay R. Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia: RHL commentary. 2006. (The WHO Reproductive Health Library).
    1. de Jonge A, Lagro-Janssen AL. Increased blood loss in upright positions originates from perineal damage. BJOG. 2007;114(3):349–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01210.x.
    1. Thies-Lagergren L, Kvist LJ, Christensson K, Hildingsson I. No reduction in instrumental vaginal births and no increased risk for adverse perineal outcome in nulliparous women giving birth on a birth seat: results of a Swedish randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-22.
    1. Waldenström U, Gottval K. Randomized trial of birthing stool or conventional semi-recumbent position for second-stage labor. Birth. 1991;18(1):5–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1991.tb00045.x.
    1. Thies-Lagergren L, Kvist LJ, Sandin-Bojö AK, Christensson K, Hildingsson I. Augmentation of labour and fetal outcomes in relation to birth positions: a secondary analysis of an RCT evaluating birth seat births. Midwifery. 2012. In Press.
    1. Foureur M. Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing and Midwifery: An Interview with Maralyn Foureur. Nurs Prax NZ. 2002;18:4–16.
    1. Jadad AR, Enkin MW. Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials, in Randomized Controlled Trials: Questions, Answers, and Musings. 2. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2008.
    1. Clausen JA. RCTs and everyday practices… a troubled relationship. UK: Fresh Heart Books for Better Birth; 2011. pp. 127–138. (Promoting Normal Birth: Research, Reflections and Guidelines).
    1. Johnson KC. Randomized Controlled Trials as Authoritative Knowledge. 1997. p. 350. (Childbirth and authoritative knowledge: cross-cultural perspectives).
    1. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9(1):48–55. doi: 10.1177/1740774511420743.
    1. Reeves M. EPI-546 Fundamentals of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Course Notes-The RCT. 1999. pp. 1–5. (accessed 120918)
    1. Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ, Miles JN. Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials? CMAJ. 2006;175(4):347. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051625.
    1. Gardosi J, Sylvester S, B-Lynch C. Alternative positions in the second stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:1290–1296. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03226.x.
    1. de Jong P, Johanson R, Baxen P, Adrians V, vander Westhuisen S, Jones P. Randomised trial comparing the upright and supine positions for the second stage of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(5):567–571. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11534.x.
    1. Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Kimberger O, Lozanov P, Husslein P, Mayerhofer K. Women’s position during labour: influence on maternal and neonatal outcome. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2003;115(19):720–723. doi: 10.1007/BF03040889.
    1. Gupta J, Justus HG, Shehmar M. Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. 2012. (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews).
    1. de Jonge A, Teunissen DAM, Van Diem MT, Scheepers PLH, Lagro-Jansen ALM. Women’s positions during the second stage of labour: views of primary care midwives. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63(4):347–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04703.x.
    1. Enkin M, Keirse M, Neilson J, Crowther C, Duley L, Hodnett E. The Second Stage ofLabor. A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    1. Prata N, Hamza S, Bell S, Karasek D, Vahidnia F, Holston M. Inability to predict postpartum haemorrhage: insights from Egyptian intervention data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:97. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-97.
    1. Belghiti J, Kayem G, Dupont C, Rudigoz RC, Bouvier-Colle MH, Deneux-Tharaux C. Oxytocin during labour and risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage: a population-based, cohort-nested case–control study. BMJ Open. 2011;1(2):1–9.
    1. Scamell M, Alaszewski A. Fateful moments and the categorisation of risk: Midwifery practice and the ever-narrowing window of normality during childbirth. Health, Risk & Society. 2012;14(2):207–221. doi: 10.1080/13698575.2012.661041.
    1. Wiklund I, Wallin J, Vikström M, Ransjö-Arvidson AB. Swedish midwives’ rating of risks during labour progress and their attitudes toward performing intrapartum interventions: a web-based survey. Midwifery. 2011;28(4):516–520.
    1. Hundley V, Cheyne H. The trials and tribulations of intrapartum studies. Midwifery. 2004;20(1):27–36. doi: 10.1016/S0266-6138(03)00050-0.
    1. Herigon JC, Newland JG. The Role of Intention-to-Treat Analyses in Randomized Trials. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(2):207–208. doi: 10.1086/663963.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera