Umbilical Cord Avulsion in Waterbirth

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

OBJECTIVE

 Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

 Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders.

RESULTS

 We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-17.02; p = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63-2,674; p = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05-7.24; p = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01-29.78; p = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.60; p = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.12; p < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.48; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications.

KEY POINTS

· High-quality evidence is not available for neonatal safety of waterbirth; therefore, retrospective studies still represent the main body of evidence.. · Differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them, the increased risk of cord avulsion is a potentially fatal event.. · A trained staff must assist women who chose to deliver in water and cord avulsion must be promptly recognized and managed to avoid severe neonatal complications..

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to conduct a thorough and contemporary assessment of maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth in comparison with land-based birth.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and gray literature sources, from inception to February 28, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who delivered either conventionally or while submerged in water.

METHODS

Pooled unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method). We assessed the 95% prediction intervals to estimate the likely range of future study results. To evaluate the robustness of the results, we calculated fragility indices. Maternal infection was designated as the primary outcome, whereas postpartum hemorrhage, perineal lacerations, obstetrical anal sphincter injury, umbilical cord avulsion, low Apgar scores, neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation, neonatal infection, neonatal mortality within 30 days of birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20,642 articles identified, 52 were included in the meta-analyses. Based on data from observational studies, water birth was not associated with increased probability of maternal infection compared with land birth (10 articles, 113,395 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.14). Patients undergoing water birth had decreased odds of postpartum hemorrhage (21 articles, 149,732 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94). Neonates delivered while submerged in water had increased odds of cord avulsion (10 articles, 91,504 pregnancies; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.24) and decreased odds of low Apgar scores (21 articles, 165,917 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.82), neonatal infection (15 articles, 53,635 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97), neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation (19 articles, 181,001 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.84), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (30 articles, 287,698 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.70).

CONCLUSION

When compared with land birth, water birth does not appear to increase the risk of most maternal and neonatal complications. Like any other delivery method, water birth has its unique considerations and potential risks, which health care providers and expectant parents should evaluate thoroughly. However, with proper precautions in place, water birth can be a reasonable choice for mothers and newborns, in facilities equipped to conduct water births safely.

A prospective cohort study comparing neonatal outcomes of waterbirth and land birth in an Australian tertiary maternity unit

BACKGROUND

Maternal preference for warm water immersion (WWI) and waterbirth is increasing, but adoption into obstetric guidelines and clinical practice remains limited. Concerns regarding safety and a paucity of evidence have been cited as reasons for the limited adoption and uptake.

AIM

The aim was to investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes after WWI and/or waterbirth compared with land birth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in an Australian public maternity hospital between 2019 and 2020. Maternal and neonatal outcomes for 1665 women who had a vaginal birth were studied. Primary outcome was admission to the neonatal unit (NNU). Secondary outcomes included neonatal antibiotic administration, maternal intrapartum fever, epidural use and perineal injury. Multivariate logistical regression analyses compared the outcomes between three groups: waterbirth, WWI only and land birth.

RESULTS

NNU admissions for a suspected infectious condition were significantly higher in the land birth group (P = 0.035). After accounting for labour duration, epidural use and previous birth mode, no significant difference was detected between groups in the odds of NNU admission (P = 0.167). No babies were admitted to NNU with water inhalation or drowning. Women birthing on land were more likely to be febrile (2 vs 0%; P = 0.007); obstetric anal sphincter injury and postpartum haemorrhage were similar between groups. Regional analgesia use was significantly lower in the WWI group compared to the land birth group (21.02 vs 38.58%; P = <0.001). There was one cord avulsion in the waterbirth group (0.41%).

CONCLUSION

Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups, with no increased risk evident in the waterbirth and WWI groups.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Hospital-Based Deliveries With Water Immersion

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had no higher risk of neonatal intensive care or special care nursery admissions than a clinically comparable population.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery admission for deliveries with water immersion compared with deliveries in the matched control group without water immersion. Secondary outcomes included adverse neonatal diagnoses, maternal infections, and perineal lacerations.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data (2014–2018) from two health systems (eight hospitals), with similar clinical eligibility, associated with low risks of intrapartum complications, and implementation policies for waterbirth. The water immersion group included women intending waterbirth. Water immersion was recorded prospectively during delivery. The comparison population were women who met the clinical eligibility criteria for waterbirth but did not experience water immersion during labor. Comparison cases were matched (1:1) using propensity scores. Outcomes were compared using Fischer's exact tests and logistic regression with stratification by stage of water immersion.

RESULTS:

Of the 583 women with water immersion, 34.1% (199) experienced first-stage water immersion only, 65.9% (384) experienced second-stage immersion, of whom 12.0% (70) exited during second stage, and 53.9% (314) completed delivery in the water. Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions were lower for second-stage water immersion deliveries than deliveries in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.7). Lacerations were lower in the second-stage immersion group (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.7). Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions and lacerations were not different between the first-stage immersion group and their matched comparisons. Cord avulsions occurred for 0.8% of second-stage water immersion deliveries compared with none in the control groups. Five-minute Apgar score (less than 7), maternal infections, and other adverse outcomes were not significantly different between either the first- or second-stage water immersion groups and their control group.

CONCLUSION:

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had lower risk of NICU or special care nursery admission and perineal lacerations than matched deliveries in the control group without water immersion.

The Experience of Land and Water Birth Within the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2012-2017

Consumer demand for water birth has grown within an environment of professional controversy. Access to nonpharmacologic pain relief through water immersion is limited within hospital settings across the United States due to concerns over safety. The study is a secondary analysis of prospective observational Perinatal Data Registry (PDR) used by American Association of Birth Center members (AABC PDR). All births occurring between 2012 and 2017 in the community setting (home and birth center) were included in the analysis. Descriptive, correlational, and relative risk statistics were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Of 26 684 women, those giving birth in water had more favorable outcomes including fewer prolonged first- or second-stage labors, fetal heart rate abnormalities, shoulder dystocias, genital lacerations, episiotomies, hemorrhage, or postpartum transfers. Cord avulsion occurred rarely, but it was more common among water births. Newborns born in water were less likely to require transfer to a higher level of care, be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit, or experience respiratory complication. Among childbearing women of low medical risk, personal preference should drive utilization of nonpharmacologic care practices including water birth. Both land and water births have similar good outcomes within the community setting.

Systematic Review of Case Reports of Poor Neonatal Outcomes With Water Immersion During Labor and Birth

Water immersion is a valuable comfort measure in labor, that can be used during the first or second stage of labor. Case reports of adverse outcomes create suspicion about water birth safety, which restricts the availability of water birth in the United States. The objective of this study was to synthesize the information from case reports of adverse water birth events to identify practices associated with these outcomes, and to identify patterns of negative outcomes. The research team conducted a systematic search for cases reports of poor neonatal outcomes with water immersion. Eligible manuscripts reported any adverse neonatal outcome with immersion during labor or birth; or excluded if no adverse outcome was reported or the birth reported was unattended. A qualitative narrative synthesis was conducted to identify patterns in the reports. There were 47 cases of adverse outcomes from 35 articles included in the analysis. There was a pattern of cases of Pseudomonas and Legionella, but other infections were uncommon. There were cases of unexplained neonatal hyponatremia following water birth that need further investigation to determine the mechanism that contributes to this complication. The synthesis was limited by reporting information of interest to pediatricians with little information about water birth immersion practices. These data did not support concerns of water aspiration or cord rupture, but did identify other potential risks. Water immersion guidelines need to address infection risk, optimal management of compromised water-born infants, and the potential association between immersion practice and hyponatremia.

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital-Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth

INTRODUCTION

Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse-midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6-week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi-square) with a significance level of P < .05.

RESULTS

Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P = .03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P = .045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low-risk women and their neonates.

The effect of waterbirth on neonatal mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Women have been giving birth in water in many centers across the globe; however, the practice remains controversial. Qualitative studies highlight the benefits that waterbirth confers on the laboring woman, though due to the nature of the intervention, it is not surprising that there are few randomized controlled trials available to inform practice. Much of the criticism directed at waterbirth focuses on the potential impact on the neonate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effect of waterbirth, compared to landbirth, on the mortality and morbidity of neonates born to low risk women.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review considered studies that included low risk, well, pregnant women who labor and birth spontaneously, at term (37-42 weeks), with a single baby in a cephalic presentation. Low risk pregnancies are defined as pregnancies with an absence of co-morbidity or obstetric complication, such as maternal diabetes, previous cesarean section, high blood pressure or other illness. Women may be experiencing their first or subsequent pregnancy. The fetus must also be well and without any co-morbidity or complication.The intervention of interest is waterbirth. The comparator is landbirth. Women and their babies must be cared for by qualified maternity healthcare providers throughout their labor and birth. The birth setting must be clearly described but can include home, hospital or birth center, either freestanding or attached to a hospital.This review considered randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational prospective and retrospective cohort studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A multi-step search strategy was utilized to find published and unpublished studies, in English between January 1999 and June 2014.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

The first author assessed the quality of all eligible studies. The three secondary authors independently assessed six studies each, followed by group discussion using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal checklist.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted using a standardized extraction tool from Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Quantitative studies were pooled, where possible, for meta-analysis using software provided by Cochrane. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratio or relative risk, according to study design, and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed statistically using the standard Chi-square test.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses of 12 studies showed that for the majority of outcomes measured in this review there is little difference between waterbirth and landbirth groups. Meta-analysis was not conducted for mortality within 24 days of birth. Heterogeneity was significant between studies for APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration). scores ≤7 at one minute and admission to Special Care nursery. Sensitivity analysis for case control studies describing infection found results that were not statistically significant (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05-11.06). Results of meta-analysis were also not significant for studies describing resuscitation with oxygen (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.14-8.79) and Respiratory Distress Syndrome (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44-1.49). Results comparing APGAR scores ≤7 at five minutes for waterbirth and landbirth groups results for included RCTs demonstrated results that were not statistically significant (OR 6.4, 95% CI 0.63-64.71). However, results for included cohort studies describing APGAR scores ≤7 at 5 minutes indicate neonates are less likely to have scores ≤7 in the waterbirth group (OR 0.32, 95% 0.15-0.68). Data were not statistically significant for meta-analysis describing admission to NICU (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13-1.96) between water and landbirth groups. The differences in arterial (MD 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.02) and venous (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03-0.03) cord pH, while statistically significant, were clinically negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of data reporting on a variety of neonatal clinical outcomes comparing land with waterbirth do not suggest that outcomes are worse for babies born following waterbirth. Meta-analysis of results for five-minute APGAR scores ≤7 should be treated with caution due to the different direction of results for meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Data measuring cord pH (an objective measure of neonatal wellbeing) were robust and showed no difference between groups. Overall this review was limited by heterogeneity between studies and meta-analysis could not be conducted on a number of outcomes. Waterbirth does not appear to be associated with adverse outcomes for the neonate in a population of low risk women.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There is no evidence to suggest that the practice of waterbirth in a low risk population is harmful to the neonate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

There is a paucity of high level evidence to guide practice in the area of waterbirth. It is unlikely that randomized controlled trials on waterbirth will be acceptable to childbearing women or maternity caregivers. Observational studies are a more appropriate choice for researchers in this field as they offer a more practical and ethical approach.

Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Following Waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking.

METHODS

We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity.

RESULTS

Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women.