Epidural and Position Trial Collaborative Group. Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial

Birthing positions and mother`s satisfaction with childbirth: a cross-sectional study on the relevance of self determination

INTRODUCTION

Considering the inconclusive evidence regarding the clinical benefits of specific birthing positions, emphasis has been placed on adhering to women's preferences during the second stage of labour. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the association between birthing position, the freedom to choose a birth position during the second stage of labour, and women's subjective satisfaction with childbirth.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of women 8 or 12 months after a vaginal birth in a hospital. The women were recruited via two cooperating health insurance companies. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the strength of the association between birthing position and maternal satisfaction with childbirth, with a particular focus on interactions with self-determination.

RESULTS

In total, the data from 761 women were analysed. The supine position was the most frequently reported birthing position in the second stage of labour at 77.5%. Notably, 39.0% and 30.5% of the women who gave birth in the dorsal and lateral supine positions, respectively, stated that the birth position was not chosen voluntarily. The regression models show a significant negative association between supine birthing position and satisfaction with childbirth, which is significantly related to self-determination. The most common reason for the adoption of a specific birthing position was instructions from medical staff.

DISCUSSION

The data provide insight into the perceived satisfaction with childbirth depending on the birthing position, whereby the relevance of self-determination is particularly evident. At the same time, self-determination is often not given, which is associated with reduced birth satisfaction.

Exploring implementation of intrapartum trial evidence: a qualitative study with clinicians and clinical academics

BACKGROUND

Implementing research evidence into clinical practice is challenging. This study aim was to explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia).

METHODS

A qualitative interview study set in UK National Health Service Trusts and Universities. Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians, were recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as a key barrier to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Compelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background

Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials.

Methods

As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials.

Findings

Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators.

Interpretation

There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence.

Funding

SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Inviting Newton to Visit the Delivery Room. The Role of Gravity During Childbirth

Throughout history, the upright position was the norm for most deliveries. However, due to cultural reasons, this practice was changed in the 17th century, and since then, the majority of deliveries have been conducted with the parturient lying on her back. The aim of this review article is to challenge the nowadays recumbent birth position and to emphasize the added value of gravity to the childbirth. Physiologically there is a strong argument for delivering in an upright position due to the significant role of gravity. The baby's presenting part does not move back between contractions as happens in today's recumbent position when due to the anatomy of the pelvis, the presenting part moves uphill. In this position, the second stage is shorter, and the signal for active pushing occurs spontaneously. It is recommended that any parturient should be informed about the risks and benefits of each birthing option to decide the birthing position that suits her.

Influence of Laboring People's Mobility and Positional Changes on Birth Outcomes in Low-Dose Epidural Analgesia Labor: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Freedom of movement has been identified as a key issue for pregnant individuals during the birthing process, even if they opt for epidural analgesia, which has relegated people to more static positions during birth for many years. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate the influence of mobility and positional changes on perinatal and neonatal outcomes in people in labor with epidural analgesia, describe the range of movement interventions used during the first and second stage of labor, and describe the level of motor blockade among people with low-dose epidural analgesia.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL) were consulted from December 2020 to January 2021. The articles selected were clinical trials and observational or analytical studies, the subject of which was mobilization during labor in people with epidural analgesia. The outcome measures were mode of birth, duration of labor, and extrauterine adaptation after birth. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the types of movements interventions employed during the stages of labor and the level of motor blockade among people with low-dose epidural analgesia.

RESULTS

Ten articles were selected (8 clinical trials, one cross-sectional study, and one quasiexperimental study), with a total sample of 6086 individuals. A meta-analysis showed nonsignificant results between groups for mode of birth (relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14), duration of labor (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, -34.57 to 37.86), and extrauterine adaptation after birth (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.39-1.93). There was heterogeneity among studies in the type of movement interventions used during the first and second stage of labor.

DISCUSSION

Although no clear benefit was observed for mobilization in epidural labor, no detrimental effects were found either, so perinatal care providers should encourage mobilization if the laboring person so desires, throughout the entire childbirth process.

Methodological challenges and solution strategies during implementation of a midwife-led multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) in maternity hospitals

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially multicentric, with complex interventions are methodically challenging. Careful planning under everyday conditions in compliance with the relevant international quality standard (Good Clinical Practice [GCP] guideline) is crucial. Specific challenges exist for RCTs conducted in delivery rooms due to various factors that cannot be planned beforehand. Few published RCTs report challenges and problems in implementing complex interventions in maternity wards. In Germany as well as in other countries, midwives and obstetricians have frequently little experience as investigators in clinical trials.

Methods

The aim is to describe the key methodological and organizational challenges in conducting a multicenter study in maternity wards and the solution strategies applied to them. In particular, project-related and process-oriented challenges for hospital staff are considered. The exemplarily presented randomized controlled trial “BE-UP” investigates the effectiveness of an alternative design of a birthing room on the rate of vaginal births and women-specific outcomes.

Results

The results are presented in five sectors:

1) Selection of and support for cooperating hospitals: they are to be selected according to predefined criteria, and strategies to offer continuous support in trial implementation must be mapped out.

2) Establishing a process of requesting informed consent: a quality-assured process to inform pregnant women early on must be feasible and effective.

3) Individual digital real-time randomization: In addition to instructing maternity teams, appropriate measures for technical failure must be provided.

4) The standardized birthing room: The complex intervention is to be implemented according to the study protocol yet adapted to the prevailing conditions in the delivery rooms.

5) GCP-compliant documentation: midwives and obstetricians will be instructed in high-quality data collection, supported by external monitoring throughout the trial.

Conclusion

Since not all potential challenges can be anticipated in the planning of a trial, study teams need to be flexible and react promptly to any problems that threaten recruitment or the implementation of the complex intervention. Thought should be given to the perspectives of midwives and obstetricians as recruiters and how clinic-intern processes could be adapted to correspond with the trial’s requirements.

Trial registration

The BE-UP study was registered on 07/03/ 2018 in the German Register for Clinical Trials under Reference No. DRKS00012854 and can also be found on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (see https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS0001285).

Prevalence of Perineal Tear Peripartum after Two Antepartum Perineal Massage Techniques: A Non-Randomised Controlled Trial

Perineal massage increases elasticity of myofascial perineal tissue and decreases the burning and perineal pain during labour, thus optimising child birth, although an application protocol has not been standardised yet. The objective of this study is to determine the efficiency of massage in perineal tear prevention and identification of possible differences in massage application. Total of 90 pregnant participants were divided into three groups: perineal massage and EPI-NO^® device group, applied by an expert physiotherapist, self-massage group, where women were instructed to apply perineal massage in domestic household, and a control group, which received ordinary obstetric attention. Results: The results showed significant differences among the control group and the two perineal massage groups in perineal postpartum pain. Correlations in perineal postpartum pain, labour duration and the baby's weight were not statistically significant. Lithotomy posture was significantly less prevalent in the massage group than in the other two; this variable is known to have a direct effect on episiotomy incidence and could act as a causal covariate of the different incidence of episiotomy in the groups. Perineal massage reduces postpartum perineal pain, prevalence and severity of perineal tear during delivery.

Assessing feasibility and maternal acceptability of a biomechanically-optimized supine birth position: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

In order to manage a protracted second stage of labor, "eminence-based" birth positions have been suggested by some healthcare professionals. Recent biomechanical studies have promoted the use of an optimized supine birthing position in this setting. However, uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility of this posture, and its acceptability by women. This pilot study primarily aimed to assess these characteristics.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

In this monocentric prospective study, 20 women with a protracted second stage of labor were asked to maintain a biomechanically-optimized position for at least 20 minutes at full dilatation. This posture is similar to the McRoberts' maneuver. Maintaining the position for 20 minutes or more was considered clinically relevant and indicative of feasibility and acceptability. Satisfaction with the position was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A sub-group analysis was performed to assess eventual differences between more and less satisfied patients, according to the median of patients' satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (85%) maintained the optimized position for at least 20 minutes. The median satisfaction score of these participants was 8 (interquartile range: 1) out of 10. No significant differences were found between the two sub-groups (satisfaction score <8 vs satisfaction score ≥8) regarding general and obstetric characteristics, as well as obstetrical and fetal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The optimized position is acceptable and feasible for women experiencing a protracted second stage of labor. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the efficiency of such positions when women undergo an obstructed labor.

Chinese midwives' perceptions on upright positions during the second stage of labour: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Upright positions are recommended by many international organizations due to their positive effects on improving birth outcomes. The effects can only be achieved when upright positions are properly adopted by women under the guidance of midwives. However, whether midwives in China have a clear understanding of upright positions during the second stage of labour is an issue that has not been explored. The aim of this study was to explore midwives' perceptions on assisting women in upright positions during the second stage of labour in the context of China.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive design was adopted. We analysed the data using the conventional content analysis and reported the study in line with the COREQ checklist.

SETTING

The study was conducted at the labour wards of two maternity hospitals and two general hospitals in China where the adoption of upright positions was encouraged during the second stage of labour.

PARTICIPANTS

Semi-structured individual interviews with 17 midwives were conducted between May and July 2020.

FINDINGS

Three main themes were identified: (1) safety and availability; (2) unclear method of implementation; (3) lack of knowledge of the potential risks and precautions. Midwives' perceptions were based primarily on clinical experience rather than evidence-based practice. Their perceptions on the indications and contraindications of upright positions were divergent and ambiguous. Midwives' suggested that the indications and contraindications should be adjusted in the context of China. Time limit for keeping an upright position and maternal pushing during uterine contractions were two questions that still confused midwives. Midwives lacked knowledge of the potential risks of upright positions and rarely systematically summarized the precautions.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that assisting women to give birth in upright positions during the second stage of labour can be a challenge for midwives in China, and also highlights the need for clarifying the detailed implementation methods of upright positions in the context of China by evidence-based approaches.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

An evidence-based protocol for implementing upright positions during the second stage of labour should be developed to guide midwives' practice and facilitate the successful use of upright positions in China.

FIGO good clinical practice paper: management of the second stage of labor

This good clinical practice paper provides an overview of the current evidence around second stage care, highlighting the challenges and the importance of maintaining high-quality, safe, and respectful care in all settings. It includes a series of recommendations based on best available evidence regarding length of second stage, judicious use of episiotomy, and the importance of competent attendants and adequate resource to facilitate all aspects of second stage management, from physiological birth to assisted vaginal delivery and cesarean at full dilatation. The second stage of labor is potentially the most dangerous time for the baby and can have significant consequences for the mother, including death or severe perineal trauma or fistula, especially where there are failures to recognize and repair. This paper sets out principles of care, including the vital role of skilled birth attendants and birth companions, and the importance of obstetricians and midwives working together effectively and speaking with one voice, whether to women or to policy makers. The optimization of high-quality, safe, and personalized care in the second stage of labor for all women globally can only be achieved by appropriate attention to the training of birth attendants, midwives, and obstetricians. FIGO is committed to this aim alongside the WHO, ICM, and all FIGO's 132 member societies.

The impact of stage of labor on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The correlation between stage of labor and adverse delivery outcomes has been widely studied. Most of studies focused on nulliparous women, it was not very clear what impact the stage of labor duration had on multiparous women.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among all the multiparous women of cephalic, term, singleton births, who planned vaginal delivery. The total stage of labor covered the first stage and the second stage in this study, and they were divided into subgroups. Adverse maternal outcomes were defined as referral cesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, perineal laceration (III and IV degree), hospitalization stay ≥90th, and adverse neonatal outcomes as NICU, shoulder dystocia, Apgar score ≤ 7(5 min), neonatal resuscitation, assisted ventilation required immediately after delivery.

RESULTS

There were 7109 parturients included in this study. The duration of first stage was 6.2(3.6-10.0) hours, the second stage was 0.3(0.2-0.7) hour, the total stage was 6.9(4.1-10.7) hours in multiparous women. At the first stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 21, 23.4, 28.8, 35.5, 38.4% in subgroups < 6 h, 6-11.9 h, 12-17.9 h, 18-23.9 h, ≥24 h, which increased significantly (X² = 57.64, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.10 (0.92,1.31), 1.33 (1.04,1.70), 1.80 (1.21,2.68), 2.57 (1.60,4.15) compared with subgroup < 6 h (ARR = 1); At the second stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 20.0, 30.7, 38.5, 61.2, 69.6% in subgroups < 1 h, 1-1.9 h, 2-2.9 h, 3-3.9 h, ≥4 h (X² = 349.70, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.89 (1.50, 2.39), 2.22 (1.55, 3.18), 10.64 (6.09, 18.59), 11.75 (6.55, 21.08) compared with subgroup < 1 h (ARR = 1)). At the total stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 21.5, 30.8, 42.4% in subgroups < 12 h, 12-23.9 h, ≥24 h (X² = 84.90, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.41 (1.16,1.72), 3.17 (2.10,4.80) compared with subgroup < 12 h (ARR = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The prolonged stage of labor may lead to increased adverse outcomes in multiparous women, it was an independent risk factor of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Is directed open-glottis pushing more effective than directed closed-glottis pushing during the second stage of labor? A pragmatic randomized trial - the EOLE study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of directed open-glottis and directed closed-glottis pushing.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, randomised, controlled, non-blinded superiority study.

SETTINGS

Four French hospitals between July 2015 and June 2017 (2 academic hospitals and 2 general hospitals).

PARTICIPANTS

250 women in labour who had undergone standardised training in the two types of pushing with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at term (≥37 weeks) were included by midwives and randomised; 125 were allocated to each group. The exclusion criteria were previous caesarean birth or fetal heart rate anomaly. Participants were randomised during labour, after a cervical dilation ≥ 7 cm.

INTERVENTIONS

In the intervention group, open-glottis pushing was defined as a prolonged exhalation contracting the abdominal muscles (pulling the stomach in) to help move the fetus down the birth canal. Closed-glottis pushing was defined as Valsalva pushing.

MEASUREMENTS

The principal outcome was "effectiveness of pushing" defined as a spontaneous birth without any episiotomy, second-, third-, or fourth-degree perineal lesion. The results in our intention-to-treat analysis are reported as crude relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals. A multivariable analysis was used to take the relevant prognostic and confounding factors into account and obtain an adjusted relative risk (aRR).

FINDINGS

In our intention-to-treat analysis, most characteristics were similar across groups including epidural analgesia (>95% in each group). The mean duration of the expulsion phase was longer among the open-glottis group (24.4 min ± 17.4 vs. 18.0 min ± 15.0, p=0.002). The two groups did not appear to differ in the effectiveness of their pushing (48.0% in the open-glottis group versus 55.2% in the closed-glottis group, for an adjusted relative risk (aRR) of 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.14) or in their risk of instrumental birth (aRR 0.97, 95%CI 0.85-1.10).

KEY CONCLUSIONS

In maternity units with a high rate of epidural analgesia, the effectiveness of the type of directed pushing does not appear to differ between the open- and closed-glottis groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

If directed pushing is necessary, women should be able to choose the type of directed pushing they prefer to use during birth. Professionals must therefore be trained in both types so that they can adequately support women as they give birth.

Squatting position in the second stage of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The influence of squatting during delivery on maternal and fetal outcomes remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and risks of adopting a squatting position during the second stage of labor.

STUDY DESIGN

Search Strategy: A systematic search in the three major electronic databases (CENTRAL, PubMed and Embase) was performed, from their respective inception dates to the 14th of December 2019, using 'squatting', and a combination of keywords to identify delivery. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing squatting position to any supine position during the second stage of labor.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference for continuous outcomes, with 95 % confidence intervals. Fixed-effects meta-analysis (Mantel-Haenszel method) or random-effects model (inverse variance method), for low and high heterogeneity between trials, respectively. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018093244 RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials (n = 1219) were included. Three studies were assessed as low risk of bias, three others as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. The main limitation is the lack of reporting on the methods to achieve randomization and concealment of allocation in most of the studies. There was no difference in the duration of the second stage of labor (mean -11.09 min; 95 %CI -38.85 to 16.68). In the squatting group, the risk of caesarean section was increased (RR 2.26, 95 %CI 1.07-4.80) and the risk of instrumental delivery was decreased (RR 0.60, 95 %CI 0.45-0.81), which results in a similar probability of spontaneous delivery. There were no differences regarding the other maternal and fetal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence does not show the squatting position during childbirth to be beneficial. As there is no evidence for or against squatting, women should be able to choose the position they prefer.

Power estimations for non-primary outcomes in randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

It is rare that trialists report power estimations of non-primary outcomes. In the present article, we will describe how to define a valid hierarchy of outcomes in a randomised clinical trial, to limit problems with Type I and Type II errors, using considerations on the clinical relevance of the outcomes and power estimations.

CONCLUSION

Power estimations of non-primary outcomes may guide trialists in classifying non-primary outcomes as secondary or exploratory. The power estimations are simple and if they are used systematically, more appropriate outcome hierarchies can be defined, and trial results will become more interpretable.

Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).

MAIN RESULTS

We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I² = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.

[Which interventions during labour to decrease the risk of perineal tears? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to evaluate whether interventions performed during labour could influence the risk of perineal tears.

METHODS

A separate keyword search for each medical intervention during labor was performed by selecting only studies evaluating perineal consequences, particularly the risk of obstetrical anal sphincter injury (LOSA). Interventions during pregnancy and during fetal expulsion have been specifically addressed in other chapters of the recommendations.

RESULTS

Maternal mobilisation and postures during the first stage of labour have not been shown to reduce the risk of OASIS (LE3). No particular posture has demonstrated its superiority over any other during the second stage of labour for preventing obstetric perineal lesions including OASIS and postnatal incontinence (urinary or faecal) (LE2). There is no reason to recommend one maternal posture rather than another during the first and the second stages of labour for the purpose of reducing the risk of OASIS (Grade C). Women should be allowed to choose the position most comfortable for them during the first and second stages of labour (Professional consensus). Posterior cephalic positions present the greatest risks of perineal injury (LE2). Manual rotation of cephalic posterior positions to the anterior during the second stage of labour may make it possible to reduce the risk of operative vaginal delivery, although no reduction in the risk of perineal injuries or OASIS has been clearly demonstrated (LE3). For fetuses in posterior cephalic positions, no data justifies a preference for manual rotation at full dilation to diminish the risk of perineal injury (Professional consensus). Urinary catheterisation is recommended for women with epidural analgesia during labour when spontaneous micturition is not possible (Professional consensus). Although current data does not justify a preference for continuous or intermittent urinary catheterisation (LE2), intermittent catheterisation nonetheless appears preferable in this situation (Professional consensus). During the second stage phase, delayed pushing does not modify the risk of OASIS (LE1). It does, however, increase the chances of spontaneous delivery (LE1). It is thus recommended that, when maternal and fetal status allow it, the start of pushing should be delayed (Grade A). There is no evidence to support preferring one pushing technique rather than another to diminish the risk of OASIS (grade B). Performing an operative vaginal delivery for the sole purpose of reducing the duration of the second stage of labour may increase the risk of OASIS (LE3). Perineal massage or the application of warm compresses during the second stage of labour appear to reduce the risk of OASIS (LE2). However, we have not made a determination about their use in clinical practice.

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in nulliparous women with an epidural: clinical effectiveness and an economic evaluation (BUMPES)

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia leads to increased risk of instrumental vaginal delivery (IVD). There is debate about whether or not posture in second-stage labour influences the incidence of spontaneous vaginal birth (SVB).

OBJECTIVES

In nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, does a policy of adopting an 'upright position' throughout second-stage labour increase the incidence of SVB compared with a policy of adopting a 'lying-down' position?

DESIGN

Two-arm randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Maternity units in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Nulliparous women aged ≥ 16 years, at ≥ 37 weeks' gestation with singleton cephalic presentation and intended SVB, in second-stage labour with an epidural providing effective pain relief.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Upright position to maintain the pelvis in as vertical a plane as possible; and (2) lying-down position to maintain the pelvis in as horizontal a plane as possible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was incidence of SVB. Secondary outcomes included augmentation, interventions to maintain blood pressure, duration of labour, episiotomy, genital tract trauma, post-partum haemorrhage, maternal satisfaction, neonatal metabolic acidosis, 5-minute Apgar score of < 4, resuscitation at birth and admission to neonatal unit. At 1 year for (1) women: urinary or faecal incontinence, dyspareunia and health-related quality of life; (2) for infants: major morbidity. A cost-consequences analysis with a time horizon of 1 year after the birth from a NHS perspective.

RESULTS

Between October 2010 and January 2014, 3236 women were randomised from 41 centres in England and Wales. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of SVB between groups, with 35.2% of women achieving a SVB in the upright group, compared with 41.1% in the lying-down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). There was no evidence of differences in most of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes, or in long-term outcomes at the 12-month follow-up. No significant overall cost differences were observed between upright and lying-down positions for mothers or their babies.

LIMITATIONS

Measurement of adherence was challenging in this unmasked trial, and adherence could be influenced by midwives' beliefs about the allocated positions. If adherence was poor, this would have diluted the difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is clear evidence of the benefit of adopting a lying-down position in second-stage labour in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in either short- or long-term outcomes for mother or baby, and this is cost neutral for the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Questions remain about whether or not other positions could increase the incidence of SVB further in this group of women. The results also raise questions about the role of maternal position in second-stage labour in women without an epidural.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment, Vol 21, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Does gentle assisted pushing or giving birth in the upright position reduce the duration of the second stage of labour? A three-arm, open-label, randomised controlled trial in South Africa

Introduction

Gentle assisted pushing (GAP) is an innovative method of applying gentle, steady pressure to a woman’s uterine fundus during second stage of labour. This randomised trial evaluated GAP in an upright position, compared with upright position alone or routine practice (recumbent posture).

Methods

An open-label, hospital-based, randomised trial was conducted in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Randomisation occurred following at least 15 min in second stage of labour. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using computer-generated block randomisation of variable size using opaque, sealed, numbered envelopes. Primary analysis was intention to treat. Participants were healthy, nulliparous, consenting women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation where vaginal birth was anticipated. The primary outcome was mean time from randomisation to birth.

Results

1158 participants were randomly allocated to GAP (n=388), upright position (n=386) and routine practice (n=384), with no loss to follow-up. Baseline characteristics were largely similar. In the experimental arm, GAP was applied a median of two times (IQR 1.0–3.0). Women in upright position alone spent a median of 6 min (IQR 3.0–10.0) upright. Mean duration from randomisation to birth was not different across groups (mean (SD) duration: 24.1 (34.9) min in GAP group, 24.6 (30.5) min in upright group, 25.0 (39.3) min in routine practice group). There were no differences in secondary outcomes, except that at two sites maternal discomfort was greater for both GAP and upright position compared with routine practice; at the other sites there were no differences.

Conclusion

No benefit was identified from GAP in the second stage; some women found the position uncomfortable. The use of fundal pressure should be limited to further research to determine techniques or settings in which it can safely assist vaginal birth. Women should be encouraged to assume the position they find most comfortable.

Trial registration number

PACTR201502001034448.

A pilot exploratory investigation on pregnant women's views regarding STan fetal monitoring technology

BACKGROUND

Women's views are critical for informing the planning and delivery of maternity care services. ST segment analysis (STan) is a promising method to more accurately detect when unborn babies are at risk of brain damage or death during labour that is being trialled for the first time in Australia. This is the first study to examine women's views about STan monitoring in this context.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pregnant women recruited across a range of clinical locations at the study hospital. The interviews included hypothetical scenarios to assess women's prospective views about STan monitoring (as an adjunct to cardiotocography, (CTG)) compared to the existing fetal monitoring method of CTG alone. This article describes findings from an inductive and descriptive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Most women preferred the existing fetal monitoring method compared to STan monitoring; women's decision-making was multifaceted. Analysis yielded four themes relating to women's views towards fetal monitoring in labour: a) risk and labour b) mobility in labour c) autonomy and choice in labour d) trust in maternity care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that women's views towards CTG and STan monitoring are multifaceted, and appear to be influenced by individual labour preferences and the information being received and understood. This underlies the importance of clear communication between maternity care providers and women about technology use in intrapartum care. This research is now being used to inform the implementation of the first properly powered Australian randomised trial comparing STan and CTG monitoring.