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

Association Between Hydrotherapy During Labor and β-Endorphin Levels in Postpartum Mother's Milk

BACKGROUND

Hydrotherapy is a complementary and alternative method in childbirth widely used to reduce labor pain and stress. The birth process significantly influences levels of β-endorphin in human milk. However, the relationship between hydrotherapy during labor and β-endorphin levels in the mother's milk is unclear.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the relationship between hydrotherapy during labor, and human milk β-endorphin levels. The study also aimed to investigate the relationship between milk β-endorphin levels and maternal labor pain and birth satisfaction.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study involving a total of 84 participants who gave birth vaginally. Among them, 42 received hydrotherapy during the initial stage of labor, while the remaining 42 did not. Considering the available data, an alpha of 0.05 (Type I error), and β-endorphin concentration, our sample of 84 participants provided a power calculation of 65%. Milk samples were collected, and the Perception of Birth Scale was administered 24 hours after birth. The concentration of β-endorphin in the participant's milk and the Perception of Birth Scale were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

The amount of β-endorphin in milk was higher for participants who received hydrotherapy than for those who did not (Mean = 503.5 pg/ml, SD = 569.2; mean = 295.7 pg/ml, SD 274 respectively; p = 0.028). The total Perception of Birth Scale scores were higher in the hydrotherapy group compared to the control group (Mean = 78.9, SD = 6.2; mean = 74.1, SD = 6.4; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrotherapy is correlated with a positive perception of birth and higher levels of β-endorphin in milk. Further research on the causal relationship between hydrotherapy and β-endorphin levels in milk may support its use to facilitate positive changes in mother's milk.

Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences

INTRODUCTION

Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.

METHODS

A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.

Hydrotherapy in Pain Management in Pregnant Women: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: the benefits of water are significant during the birth process. Improved maternal experience of labor, less use of epidurals, better pain management, shorter labor, and a greater sense of control are observed during the birth process. Objective: This report aims to determine the benefits of hydrotherapy in clinical childbirth approaches and its applicability in pain control. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials selected from various databases with no publication date limits was conducted, comparing groups that did not use hydrotherapy with groups that did during labor. Results: Seven articles met the inclusion criteria, with five articles using hot water immersion and two using hot water shower as hydrotherapy treatments. This study identified 840 participants, with the intervention groups including 417 term pregnant women and the control groups including 423 pregnant women. The effect size of hydrotherapy on pain was calculated using the visual analog scale in five articles and analgesic use in the other two articles. Hydrotherapy significantly reduced pain during labor with a mean difference of -0.97 (95% CI: -1.91 to -0.03; I2 = 97.32%, p < 0.001). The duration of the first stage of labor was not significantly affected, with a mean difference of -0.17 h (95% CI: -0.55 to 0.21; I2 = 56.75%, p = 0.059). Additionally, hydrotherapy did not significantly impact the newborns' Apgar scores at 5 min, with a mean difference of 0.18 (95% CI: -0.48 to 0.85; I2 = 2.15%, p = 0.939). Conclusions: Hydrotherapy is beneficial for pain control in the first stage of labor and does not increase its duration or negatively affect the Apgar score of newborns.

Effects of Hydrotherapy on the Management of Childbirth and Its Outcomes-A Retrospective Cohort Study

The use of hydrotherapy during childbirth has gained relevance due to the demand for natural childbirth and greater respect for the woman's choice. Studies have shown benefits such as less use of epidural analgesia, increased ability to cope with pain, shorter labor, and a better overall birth experience.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to generate further evidence on maternal and birth outcomes associated with the use of hydrotherapy during labor, specifically aiming to describe the effects of water immersion during all stages of labor (first, second, and third) on women.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study was carried out on a random sample of women who gave birth at the Costa del Sol Hospital between January 2010 and December 2020. The calculated sample size was 377 women and the data were extracted from their partograms. After data extraction, two groups were formed: one group used hydrotherapy during childbirth (n = 124), while the other group included women who did not use hydrotherapy during the childbirth process (n = 253).

RESULTS

The results highlight significant differences in pain perception, analgesia use, types of labor, and delivery times between the two groups. Women who did not use hydrotherapy reported higher pain perception, with a median (IQR) of 8 (7-9) on a numerical scale, compared to a median (IQR) of 6 (5-7) for the hydrotherapy group. Furthermore, the group without hydrotherapy required epidural analgesia in 40% of cases, while in the hydrotherapy group, it was only necessary in 20%. In terms of the type of delivery, the hydrotherapy group had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to the non-hydrotherapy group, which had more operative vaginal deliveries. The overall duration of labor was longer in the hydrotherapy group, especially in women who arrived at the hospital late in labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrotherapy is associated with a longer time to delivery. Women with a higher pain tolerance tend to opt for hydrotherapy instead of epidural analgesia.

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.

Safety and Effect of the Use of Hydrotherapy during Labour: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Hydrotherapy is a technique used for pain management during labour, but its safety for both the mother and foetus remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this study is to determine whether the use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour is safe for both the mother and newborn.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted to collect data from the partogram, maternal and neonatal history.

RESULTS

A total of 377 women who gave birth at the Costa del Sol Hospital in Malaga between January 2010 and December 2020 were randomly selected. They were divided into a control group (253 women) and an intervention group (124 women) that used hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, history of previous miscarriages, type of delivery, or newborn weight. The results showed that most women who opted for hydrotherapy were nulliparous, and the use of hydrotherapy during labour was safe for both the mother and foetus. There were no significant differences in the variables of maternal arterial hypotension, postpartum haemorrhage, postpartum maternal fever, foetal complications, neonatal admission, 1 and 5 min Apgar scores, umbilical arterial or venous pH, or foetal cardiotocographic recording. However, there was a significant difference (p = 0.005) in the rate of breastfeeding among mothers who opted for hydrotherapy (96% vs. 85.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of hydrotherapy during the first stage of labour is safe and is associated with increased breastfeeding rates compared to conventional delivery.

Content Analysis of Water Birth Policies With Implications for Practice and Research

OBJECTIVE

To identify areas of agreement and variation in clinical guidance documents (protocols, policies, or guidelines) that direct water birth care.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive.

SETTING

The clinical guidance documents studied covered water birth in home and hospital settings.

SAMPLE

The sample included 22 water birth guidance documents in English from six countries. The documents were obtained by request and resulting snowball sampling.

MEASUREMENTS

The framework method was adapted as an analytic tool, and a structured matrix output was used to organize and support the method of qualitative content analysis using a general inductive approach. Areas of general agreement and variations in practice guidelines for water birth were identified.

RESULTS

Criteria for a term, singleton, and cephalic presentation with reassuring maternal and fetal status were the most consistent for inclusion. The reliance on "low-risk" status was strongly present but without a uniform definition. A history of previous cesarean birth, body mass index, use of opioid pain medication, adequate labor progress, and vaginal bleeding were found to vary in directed care, and scarce supporting evidence was offered. Meconium-stained fluid variably excluded water birth in most documents, but this was not supported by evidence. The inconsistent findings from this study are cohesive in the evidence they provide for needed research in areas that affect access to water birth. The findings also provide nurses and birth providers with evidence-based guidelines for water birth care.

CONCLUSION

There was variation across guidance documents, demonstrating that water immersion is a flexible intervention that can be implemented in different settings and locations while following individual facility protocols for processes for care. An identified area of concern comes from examples of overly restrictive policies for water birth based on opinion or perceived risk rather than evidence from research.

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.

Immersion in water during the second stage of labor: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current obstetrical guidelines in the United States caution firmly against birth in water, but patients remain interested in this intervention. Limited data are available to evaluate the safety and efficacy of water immersion in the second stage of labor for patients and neonates.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the effects of water use during the second stage of labor on maternal outcomes. Second, it aimed to propose guidelines for midwives conducting the second stage of labor in water.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, prospective design was used to evaluate the primary outcomes of maternal experience in labor and trauma to the birth canal and several secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes when participants delivered in water vs in a conventional setting. Participants were recruited at 2 academic state hospitals serving the same low- to middle-income group urban population in the midwestern suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa over a period of 2 years. Individuals in active labor without exclusion criteria were asked to participate in the study. A total of 120 participants were enrolled, with 60 randomized to water birth and 60 to conventional birth. Outcomes were compared using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The use of water during birth significantly reduced the participants' perception of experienced pain than what they expected it to be (P=.006) and enhanced their satisfaction with their ability to cope with labor (P=.010). No differences were noted in trauma to the birth canal. No adverse maternal effects were noted. One early neonatal death occurred in the water group. The most likely cause of death was preexisting intrauterine fetal infection.

CONCLUSION

Participants who delivered in water were significantly more satisfied with their birthing experience. The possible harmful effect of inhalation of fresh water by a baby is not resolved, and a large randomized controlled trial is recommended. It is recommended that immersion in water during the second stage of labor should only be offered by competent birth attendants who follow specific guidelines until clear evidence is available on the possible beneficial or harmful effects. Pending further evidence, we recommend adding salt to the bath to produce a physiological saline solution to reduce theoretical risks associated with fresh water inhalation by the neonate.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth

OBJECTIVES

Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I2 was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.

RESULTS

We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019147001.

Waterbirths were associated with low pain relief during delivery, high breastfeeding success and healthy newborn infants

AIM

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of waterbirths and conventional births in a Finnish hospital setting for the first time.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared waterbirths with conventional low-risk deliveries from September 2018 to March 2021 at a level-two hospital in Finland. Cases and controls were collected from the patient records database.

RESULTS

The study comprised 78 waterbirths and 1,623 matched conventional births. Mothers in the waterbirth group only required a quarter of the amount of pain medication required by those in the control group. Babies born in water had slightly lower birth temperatures than those born conventionally (36.6°C versus 36.8°C). Umbilical cord artery and vein pH were slightly higher in the waterbirth group than in the control group: artery 7.31 versus 7.28 and vein 7.38 versus 7.35). The Apgar scores did not differ. Hospital stays were shorter in the waterbirth group than in the conventional birth group (1.90 days versus 2.33 days). Babies in the waterbirth group were significantly less likely to require formula than those in the conventional birth group during their hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Waterbirth decreased the requirement for maternal pain medication and favoured greater breastfeeding and earlier discharge. Prospective studies must confirm these findings.

Beyond the epidural: Alternatives to neuraxial labor analgesia

Labor creates an intense pain experienced by women across the world. Although neuraxial analgesia is the most effective treatment of labor pain, in many cases, it may not be undesired, not available, or have contraindications. In addition, satisfaction with labor analgesia is not only determined by the efficacy of analgesia but a woman's sense of agency and involvement in the childbirth experience are also key contributors. Providing safe choices for labor analgesia and support is central to creating a tailored, safe, and effective analgesic treatment plan with high maternal satisfaction. Healthcare provider knowledge of various nonneuraxial analgesic options, including efficacy, contraindications, safe clinical implementation, and side effects of various techniques is needed for optimal patient care and satisfaction. Future rigorous scientific studies addressing all of these labor analgesia options are needed to improve our understanding. This review summarizes the current published literature for commonly available non-neuraxial labor analgesic options.

Feature Article—Continuing Education Module—International Water-Birth Practices With Recommendations During a Global Pandemic

The number of hospitals globally that offer water birth has increased exponentially during the past 10 years. This article examines some of the reasons for this increase as well as the objections to water birth by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, raised in their 2014 and 2016 opinion statements. The amount of research has also increased as more hospitals are keeping track of their data and publishing both prospective studies and retrospective analyses. The effects of water birth on the neonate are discussed through three meta-analyses from 2015, 2016, and 2018. The challenges and recommendations on continuing the use of water during labor and birth as a nonpharmacologic comfort measure even during a global pandemic are highlighted and supported by the best available evidence.

Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England

Background

Waterbirth is widely available in English maternity settings for women who are not at increased risk of complications during labour. Immersion in water during labour is associated with a number of maternal benefits. However for birth in water the situation is less clear, with conclusive evidence on safety lacking and little known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water.

This retrospective cohort study uses electronic data routinely collected in the course of maternity care in England in 2015–16 to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water.

Methods

Data were obtained from three population level electronic datasets linked together for the purposes of a national audit of maternity care. The study cohort included women who had no risk factors requiring them to give birth in an obstetric unit according to national guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal (postpartum haemorrhage of 1500mls or more, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)) and neonatal (Apgar score less than 7, neonatal unit admission) outcomes associated with waterbirth.

Results

46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England were included in the analysis cohort. Of these 6264 (13.6%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40 (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for age group 35–39 1.27, 95% confidence interval (1.15,1.41)) and less common in women under 25 (adjOR 18–24 0.76 (0.70, 0.82)), those of higher parity (parity ≥3 adjOR 0.56 (0.47,0.66)) or who were obese (BMI 30–34.9 adjOR 0.77 (0.70,0.85)). Waterbirth was also less likely in black (adjOR 0.42 (0.36, 0.51)) and Asian (adjOR 0.26 (0.23,0.30)) women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation (most affluent versus least affluent areas adjOR 0.47 (0.43, 0.52)).

There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.95 (0.66,1.36)) or incidence of OASI (adjOR 1.00 (0.86,1.16)). There was an association between waterbirth and reduced incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (adjOR 0.68 (0.51,0.90)) and neonatal unit admission (adjOR 0.65 (0.53,0.78)).

Conclusions

In this large observational cohort study, there was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby. There was evidence that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water. Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03724-6.

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.

Beliefs and Perspectives of Women and Obstetrical Providers in Northern Ontario on Water Births

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to understand the beliefs and perspectives of women in northern Ontario and their obstetrical providers with respect to water birthing as access to this service is limited in this region METHODS: All midwives, family physicians (FPs), and obstetricians providing labour and delivery services in northern Ontario were surveyed, as were a sample of labour and delivery nurses in the region and convenience samples of regional women.

RESULTS

Of the 362 women who completed the survey (a 90.5% response rate), 81.8% (95% CI 77.5-85.4) believed water births to be safe, 40.9% (95% CI 35.9-46) were interested in having a water birth, and 76.5% (95% CI 71.8-80.5) wanted to have the option of a hospital-based water birth. Perceptions of water birth safety varied significantly by provider type (χ²P < 0.001) with 100% (95% CI 89.6-100) of midwives but 0% (95% CI 52.3-94.9) of obstetricians considering them to be safe. Perceptions of the specific risks and benefits of water birth also varied significantly by provider type, as did understanding of consumer interest. Reflecting these perceptions, 97.1% (95% CI 85.1-99.5) of midwives and 0% (95% CI 0-27.8) of obstetricians would consider assisting in or providing hospital-based water births.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in northern Ontario are interested in water birth and in having this service available in hospitals. However, given the widely divergent views of the professional groups providing labour and delivery care in the region, hospitals should be strongly encouraged to explore interprofessional development opportunities to enable patient-centred care in this context.

Is It Just Water Under the Bridge? An Eight-Day-Old With Late-Onset Group B Streptococcal Infection After Water Birth

Group B Streptococcus (Streptococcus agalactiae or GBS) infections are known as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the neonatal population. The role of water birth in colonizing and transmitting GBS between mother and infant is unclear. We present a case of an exclusively breastfed full-term infant, born via water birth, to a GBS-negative woman who developed GBS mastitis. The infant presented with severe, late-onset GBS meningitis/septic shock and subsequently developed fatal necrotizing enterocolitis. Literature regarding the potential role of water birth in GBS transmission is reviewed.

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.

Water Birth and Perinatal Outcomes in British Columbia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to quantify adverse neonatal outcomes in a cohort of registered midwife (RM)-attended conventional and water births in British Columbia.

METHODS

The study included all term singleton births in British Columbia between January 1, 2005 and March 31, 2016 attended by RMs. Births were allocated to a conventional birth cohort or a water birth cohort according to where the actual birth of the neonate took place. The primary outcome was a composite adverse neonatal outcome (Apgar <7 at 5 minutes, resuscitation need, neonatal intensive care unit admission). Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, maternal length of labour, and degree of perineal laceration (Canadian Task Force Classification Level II-2).

RESULTS

The population included 25 798 births. Of these, 23 201 were conventional, and 2567 were water births. The rate of the composite adverse neonatal outcome was not higher in water births compared with conventional births (hospital conventional, 5.0%; hospital water, 4.2%; home conventional, 3.4%; and home water, 2.9%). Rates of individual components of the composite adverse neonatal score were not greater in the water birth cohort. Maternal outcomes included statistically shorter labours in the water birth cohort and no difference between the cohorts in incidence of third- and fourth-degree lacerations.

CONCLUSION

Water births attended by RMs in British Columbia are not associated with higher rates of adverse neonatal outcomes than conventional births attended by midwives.

Women's experiences of waterbirth compared with conventional uncomplicated births

OBJECTIVE

To compare childbirth experiences between women having a waterbirth and women having an uncomplicated conventional birth.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study using the validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) six weeks postpartum. The 22-item questionnaire assesses four domains of the childbirth experience; Own capacity, Professional support, Perceived safety and Participation. These four domains constituted the main outcome of the study. Further, supplementary questions about the second stage of labour were added to the web-questionnaire.

SETTING

One city-located hospital in Stockholm and one small-town hospital in Southern Sweden offering waterbirth to low risk women.

PARTICIPANTS

215 women; 99 nulli- and 116 multiparas. 111 gave birth in water and 104 had an uncomplicated conventional birth.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

The total CEQ score did not differ between the groups, while women having a waterbirth scored significantly higher in the domain, "Own capacity" and lower in the domain, "Professional support". Women having a waterbirth rated less pain and higher scores of being in control in the second stage of labour.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

A waterbirth seems to empower and enhance women's capacity for those who choose this alternative. Waterbirth can improve their birth experience and can possibly make women less dependent on the midwife.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To provide waterbirth could be a way of empowering women and giving them a positive birth experience.

Experiences of Greek women of water immersion during normal labour and birth. A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

There is scarce information on water births in Greece, as few women labour and give birth in water. The Greek public health system does not provide water immersion as a birthing option, and so women can only experience this option in private healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to explore the key concepts and themes identified from an analysis of the experiences of women who laboured and gave birth immersed in water.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study involving twelve women who used water immersion during labour, of which nine had also a water birth. Individual interviews were conducted and their content was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: Water use as a natural way of birth, Mixed messages from the healthcare professionals, and Partner's supportive role during water birth. All women reported a positive birth experience and water immersion helped them cope with the pain of labour. They felt greatly empowered following birth and this contributed to successful breastfeeding for more than one year, in the majority of cases. They reported difficulties in finding healthcare professionals that were in support of their choices. The women felt highly supported by the partner's role.

CONCLUSIONS

Labouring and giving birth immersed in water was met with great satisfaction by all women. The findings of this study have added to the current body of midwifery knowledge on how water immersion can improve a woman's experience and so support a normal birth outcome.

Waterbirth in Sweden - a comparative study

INTRODUCTION

The literature describes advantages for mothers giving birth in water, but waterbirth is controversial in Sweden and has not been offered at hospitals until recently. This study aimed to describe and compare the characteristics and outcome of waterbirths with those of spontaneous vaginal births at the same clinics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all waterbirths at two maternity units in Sweden from March 2014 to November 2015 (n = 306), and a consecutively selected comparison group of 306 women having conventional spontaneous vaginal births. Logistic regression was used to analyze the primary outcome; second-degree perineal tears.

RESULTS

Women giving birth in water had a lower risk of second-degree perineal tears [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9]). Their labor was shorter (6 h 3 min vs. 7 h 52 min) and there were significantly fewer interventions than in the comparison group; amniotomy (13.7 vs. 35.3%), internal cardiotocography (11.1 vs. 56.8%), and augmentation with oxytocin (5.2 vs. 31.3%). There were no differences in Apgar scores or admissions to neonatal intensive care unit. The experience of childbirth, measured with a numeric rating scale, was higher in the waterbirth group indicating a more positive birth experience. Three newborns born in water had an umbilical cord avulsion.

CONCLUSIONS

In this low-risk population, waterbirth is associated with positive effects on perineal tears, the frequency of interventions, the duration of labor and women's birth experience. Midwives handling waterbirth should be aware of the risk of umbilical cord avulsion.

Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, 9% of babies born in the UK were delivered underwater. Waterbirth is increasing in popularity, despite uncertainty regarding its safety for neonates. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the existing evidence for neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

METHODS

A structured electronic database search was performed with no language restrictions. All comparative studies which reported neonatal outcomes following waterbirth, and that were published since 1995, were included. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme scoring system. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Data for each neonatal outcome were tabulated and analysed. Meta-analysis was performed for comparable studies which reported sufficient data.

RESULTS

The majority of the 29 included studies were small, with limited follow-up and methodological flaws. They were mostly conducted in Europe and high-income countries. Reporting of data was heterogeneous. No significant difference in neonatal mortality, neonatal intensive care unit/special care baby unit admission rate, Apgar scores, umbilical cord gases or infection rates was found between babies delivered into water and on land.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify definitive evidence that waterbirth causes harm to neonates compared with land birth. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no additional risks or benefits for neonates when comparing waterbirth and conventional delivery on land.