The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery

Epidural or water immersion? A prospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Providing evidence-based information on maternal and neonatal outcomes of epidural analgesia (EA) and water immersion (WI) is crucial for informed decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To compare process outcomes, obstetric interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes in medium low-risk women based on their choice of analgesia: EA or WI.

METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study analysed 643 women from June 2020 to February 2023. Sociodemographic data, birth process characteristics, and outcomes were collected to compare 284 women who used EA and 319 who used WI (with 82.4% waterbirths). Additionally, 40 cases of women who switched from WI to EA were descriptively analysed. Propensity Score (PS) was applied to reduce selection bias in the comparative analysis.

FINDINGS

WI was associated with a higher probability of spontaneous vaginal birth (18.7%, E:0.187; SE:0.025; p < 0.001 95% CI 0.138,0.235), shorter first stage (-259.532 min; SE:13.592; p < 0.00195%, 95% CI -286.171, -232.892), shorter second stage of labour (-17.829 min; SE:4.665; p < 0.001 95% CI -26.973,-8.686) In terms of neonatal outcomes WI (with 82.4% of waterbirths) was associated with less neonatal ventilatory support (1.6%vs 9.5% p<0.001,RR 0.028 95% CI 0.11-0.56), less birth distress (0.9%vs 7.7% p<0.001,RR 0.22 95% CI 0.06-0.52), lower probability of neonatal admission rates (E:-0.102; SE 0.033, p=0.002, 95% CI -0.166, -0.088), and higher probability of exclusive breastfeeding at discharge especially for multiparous women (E:0.114; SE 0.045 p=0.01 95% CI 0.027, 0.202).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Water immersion for low-risk women emerges as a valid, evidence-based approach to supporting physiological childbirth and reducing unnecessary interventions. This study highlights the need to reinforce its availability in maternity care and to ensure women's informed decision-making.

Effects of Water Immersion Versus Epidural as Analgesic Methods during Labor among Low-Risk Women: A 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Adequate pain relief during childbirth is a very important issue for women and healthcare providers. This study investigates the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes of two analgesic methods during labor: water immersion and epidural analgesia.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational cohort study at a first-level hospital, in Spain, from 2009 to 2019, 1134 women, low-risk singleton and at term pregnancy, were selected. Among them, 567 women used water immersion; 567 women used epidural analgesia for pain control. Maternal outcomes included mode of birth and perineum condition. Neonatal outcomes included 5 min Apgar score, umbilical cord arterial pH, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions. Chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, together with their effect sizes (Cramer's V, odds ratio, and Cohen's d) were used to test the main hypotheses.

RESULTS

Spontaneous vaginal birth was almost 17 times more likely in the water immersion group (OR = 16.866 [6.540, 43.480], p < 0.001), whereas the odds of having a cesarean birth were almost 40 times higher in the epidural group (OR = 39.346 [3.610, 429.120], p < 0.001). The odds of having an intact perineum were more than two times higher for the water immersion group (OR = 2.606 [1.290, 5.250], p = 0.007), whereas having an episiotomy was more than eight times more likely for the epidural group (OR = 8.307 [2.800, 24.610], p < 0.001). Newborns in the water immersion group showed a better 5 min Apgar score and umbilical cord arterial pH and lower rates in admissions at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Women choosing water immersion as an analgesic method were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes and presented better results than women choosing epidural analgesia.

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.

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.

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To explore the effect of hydrotherapy applied in the first stage of labour on the health of mother and newborn.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by following PRISMA. The studies were obtained by scanning EBSCO, PubMed, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases. Twenty studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included.

RESULTS

The total sample size of the studies was 8254 (hydrotherapy: 2953, control: 5301). Meta-analyses showed that the perception of pain decreased, comfort level and vaginal birth rate were higher and assisted vaginal birth rate and APGAR scores in the first minute were lower in women who underwent hydrotherapy. There was no difference between groups in terms of the duration of the first and second stage of labour, episiotomy, perineal trauma, intrapartum and postpartum bleeding amounts, use of pain medication and labour augmentations, APGAR scores in the fifth minute, positive neonatal bacterial culture and neonatal intensive care unit need.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that the results that hydrotherapy decreased the perception of pain and assisted birth, increased the rate of vaginal birth and comfort level and did not adversely affect the health of the mother and baby during the birth process.

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.

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.

Waterbirth: current knowledge and medico-legal issues

Water immersion during labour and birth has become increasingly popular and widespread in many countries, in particular in midwifery-led care settings. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of quality data about waterbirth, with currently available findings mostly arising from observational studies and case series. The lack of high-quality evidence and the controversial results reported by different studies determined a "behavioral gap" without clearly objective, consistent indications allowing for a sound and evidence-based decision making process. Although water immersion in the first stage of labour is generally considered a safe and cost-effective method of pain management for women in labor, concerns still linger as to the safety of immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery, particularly in terms of neonatal risks and medico-legal implications.

Prospective cohort study of water immersion for labour and birth compared with standard care in an Irish maternity setting

OBJECTIVE

To examine the birth outcomes for women and babies following water immersion for labour only, or for labour and birth.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Maternity hospital, Ireland, 2016-2019.

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 190 low-risk women who used water immersion; 100 gave birth in water and 90 laboured only in water. A control group of 190 low-risk women who received standard care.

METHODS

Logistic regression analyses examined associations between water immersion and birth outcomes adjusting for confounders. A validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire was completed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perineal tears, obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), neonatal unit admissions (NNU), breastfeeding and birth experiences.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, women who chose water immersion had no significant difference in perineal tears (71.4% vs 71.4%, adj OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.39) or in OASI (3.3% vs 3.8%, adj OR 0.91; 0.26-2.97). Women who chose water immersion were more likely to have a PPH ≥500 mL (10.5% vs 3.7%, adj OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57), and to exclusively breastfeed at discharge (71.1% vs 45.8%, adj OR 2.59; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.05). There was no significant difference in NNU admissions (3.7% vs 3.2%, adj OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.42). Women who gave birth in water were no more likely than women who used water for labour only to require perineal suturing (64% vs 80.5%, adj OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33), to experience OASI (3.0% vs 3.7%, adj OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 8.79) or PPH (8.0% vs 13.3%, adj OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.09). Women using water immersion reported more positive memories than women receiving standard care (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Women choosing water immersion for labour or birth were no more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes than women receiving standard care and rated their birth experiences more highly.

Factors influencing water immersion during labour: qualitative case studies of six maternity units in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour can provide benefits including reduced need for regional analgesia and a shorter labour. However, in the United Kingdom a minority of women use a pool for labour or birth, with pool use particularly uncommon in obstetric-led settings. Maternity unit culture has been identified as an important influence on pool use, but this and other possible factors have not been explored in-depth. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing pool use through qualitative case studies of three obstetric units and three midwifery units in the UK.

METHODS

Case study units with a range of waterbirth rates and representing geographically diverse locations were selected. Data collection methods comprised semi-structured interviews, collation of service documentation and public-facing information, and observations of the unit environment. There were 111 interview participants, purposively sampled to include midwives, postnatal women, obstetricians, neonatologists, midwifery support workers and doulas. A framework approach was used to analyse all case study data.

RESULTS

Obstetric unit culture was a key factor restricting pool use. We found substantial differences between obstetric and midwifery units in terms of equipment and resources, staff attitudes and confidence, senior staff support and women's awareness of water immersion. Generic factors influencing use of pools across all units included limited access to waterbirth training, sociodemographic differences in desire for pool use and issues using waterproof fetal monitoring equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

Case study findings provide new insights into the influence of maternity unit culture on waterbirth rates. Access to pool use could be improved through midwives based in obstetric units having more experience of waterbirth, providing obstetricians and neonatologists with information on the practicalities of pool use and improving accessibility of antenatal information. In terms of resources, recommendations include increasing pool provision, ensuring birth room allocation maximises the use of unit resources, and providing pool room environments that are acceptable to midwives.

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.

A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women's Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels

OBJECTIVES

To identify attributes (i.e., characteristics describing a scenario) and levels (i.e., each characteristic may be defined by a different level) that would be included in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to evaluate women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

METHODS

A mixed-method approach, combining systematic reviews of the literature and patient focus groups to identify attributes and levels explaining women's preferences. After the focus groups, preference exercises were conducted and led to the creation of the questionnaire, including the DCE. A qualitative validation of the questionnaire was conducted with women from the focus groups and with medical experts.

RESULTS

The literature reviews provided 26 attributes to be considered for childbirth in water, and focus groups identified 14 additional attributes. From these 40 attributes, preference exercises allowed us to select four for the DCE, in addition to the birth mode. Labor duration was also included, even if it was not well ranked, as it is the main clinical outcome in the literature. Validation with experts and women did not change the choice of attributes but slightly changed the levels selected. The final six attributes were: birth mode, duration of the labor phase, pain sensation, risk of severe tears in the perineum during the expulsion of the newborn, risk of death of the newborn, and general condition of the newborn (Apgar) score at 5 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This study allowed us to detail all the stages for the design of a DCE questionnaire. To date, this is the first study of this kind in the context of women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

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

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

Birth-Related Perineal Trauma in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction Birth-related perineal trauma (BPT) is a common consequence of vaginal births. When poorly managed, BPT can result in increased morbidity and mortality due to infections, haemorrhage, and incontinence. This review aims to collect data on rates of BPT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACs), and the World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases, from 2004 to 2016. Cross-sectional data on the proportion of vaginal births that resulted in episiotomy, second degree tears or obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) were extracted from studies carried out in LMICs by two independent reviewers. Estimates were meta-analysed using a random effects model; results were presented by type of BPT, parity, and mode of birth. Results Of the 1182 citations reviewed, 74 studies providing data on 334,054 births in 41 countries were included. Five studies reported outcomes of births in the community. In LMICs, the overall rates of BPT were 46% (95% CI 36–55%), 24% (95% CI 17–32%), and 1.4% (95% CI 1.2–1.7%) for episiotomies, second degree tears, and OASI, respectively. Studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to study design and population. The overall reporting quality was inadequate. Discussion Compared to high-income settings, episiotomy rates are high in LMIC medical facilities. There is an urgent need to improve reporting of BPT in LMICs particularly with regards to births taking in community settings.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study

BACKGROUND

Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores.

RESULTS

Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P < .001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P = .002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P = .001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P < .001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

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.

Neonatal Outcomes Following Delivery in Water: Evaluation of Safety in a District General Hospital

Introduction Giving birth in water has increased in popularity over recent years, with potential benefits in terms of maternal comfort and decreased rates of instrumental delivery. Some concerns have been raised about possible adverse neonatal outcomes, including hypothermia and respiratory distress. There is not currently, however, a clear consensus in the literature. This study sought to assess the safety of delivering in water for low-risk vaginal deliveries in a District General Hospital in the United Kingdom. Methods Prospectively collected hospital data was obtained for all deliveries between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2016 at the Great Western Hospital, Swindon. The dataset was limited to full-term babies born by unassisted vaginal delivery following spontaneous labour; 3507 babies were included in the analyses. Pre-specified outcomes included neonatal unit admission, Apgar scores, and temperature after delivery. Results During the two-year period studied, there were 592 waterbirths and 2915 non-waterbirths. There was no significant difference in rates of neonatal unit admission between waterbirths and non-waterbirths. One-minute Apgar scores were slightly higher among those born in water (P = 0.04); this difference attenuated by five minutes of age. There was no difference in temperature after delivery between the two groups. Conclusions An evaluation of safety in a District General Hospital has demonstrated similar postnatal outcomes among babies born in water, compared to those born on land. Further work examining longer-term outcomes would help assess whether this persists beyond the newborn period.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

INCLUSION CRITERIA

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

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

The Waterbirth Project: São Bernardo Hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

The following quantitative observational study aimed to analyse the maternal and neonatal outcomes of 90 low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in water at São Bernardo Hospital.

METHODS

A form containing information on the obstetric history of the parturient, the type of immersion, and the labour and birth follow-up was used by midwives to collect the data.

BACKGROUND

The Apgar score (at 1min after birth) used in this study, called Aqua Apgar, was adapted by Cornelia Enning.

RESULTS

The mean water immersion time was 1h and 46min and had an influence on the duration of labour (mean 5h and 37min), with a statistically significant difference (P=0.004). There was a decreased cervical dilatation time and a shorter duration of the expulsion phase. In the immersion scenario, 30% of the women did not undergo any examination to assess the length of the cervix, and 57.8% presented intact perennial areas or first-degree tears. As for neonatal outcomes, during maternal immersion, 97% maintained normal fetal heart rates (between 110 and 160 beats per minute) and Aqua Apgar was higher than 7, both in the first minute (mean of 9.4) and in the fifth minute of life (mean of 9.9).

CONCLUSION

These safety outcomes, based on sound scientific evidence, should increasingly support and inform clinical decisions and increase the number of waterbirths in health facilities. The results of this study align with growing evidence that suggests waterbirth is a safe delivery option and therefore should be offered to women.

Use of hydrotherapy during labour: Assessment of pain, use of analgesia and neonatal safety

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of hydrotherapy in pain perception and requesting analgesia in women who use hydrotherapy during childbirth and to identify possible adverse effects in infants born in water.

METHOD

A multicentre prospective cohort study was performed between September 2014 and April 2016. A total of 200 pregnant women were selected and assigned to the hydrotherapy group (HG) or the control group (CG) according to desire and availability of use, data collection started at 5cm dilatation. The instruments used were the numerical rating scale (NRS), use of analgesia, Apgar Test, umbilical cord pH and NICU admission. Participants were distributed into: HG (n=111; 50 water birth) and CG (n=89).

RESULTS

Pain at 30 and 90min was lower in the HG than in the CG (NRS 30min 6.7 [SD 1.6] vs 7.8 [SD 1.2] [P<.001] and NRS 90min 7.7 [SD 1.2] vs. 8.9 [SD 1.1] [P<.001]). During the second stage of labour, pain was lower in pregnant women undergoing a water birth (NRS HG 8.2 [SD 1.2], n=50; NRS CG 9.5 [SD 0.5], n=89 [P<.001]). Relative to the use of analgesia, in the CG 30 (33.7%) pregnant women requested epidural analgesia vs. 24 (21.1%) pregnant women in HG (P=.09). The neonatal parameters after water birth were not modified compared to those born out of water.

CONCLUSION

The use of hydrotherapy reduces pain during labour, and during second stage in women who undergo a water birth and the demand for analgesia decreases in multiparous pregnant women. No adverse effects were seen in infants born under water.

An Assessment of the Effects of Hydrotherapy During the Active Phase of Labor on the Labor Process and Parenting Behavior

This study was conducted to assess the effect on labor process and parenting behavior of hydrotherapy applied during the active phase of labor. This quasi-experimental study was conducted by using an equivalent comparison group ( n = 40). The participants in the experimental group whose cervical dilation was 5 cm were taken to the hydrotherapy tub. This application continued until cervical dilation reached 10 cm. The Participants Questionnaire, The Birth Follow-up Questionnaire, The Postpartum ]collection tools. The duration of the active phase and second stage of labor was extremely short in the experimental group in comparison with the equivalent comparison group ( p = .001). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of the experimental group were lower than those of the equivalent comparison group when cervical dilation was 6 cm and 10 cm ( p = .001). The experimental group also displayed more positive parenting behavior and positive labor feeling ( p = .001).

Australian midwives views and experiences of practice and politics related to water immersion for labour and birth: A web based survey

BACKGROUND

There is little published research that has examined practitioners' views and experiences of pain relieving measures commonly used during labour and birth, particularly for non-pharmacological measures such as water immersion. Furthermore, there is minimal published research examining the process of policy and guideline development, that is, the translation of published research to usable practice guidance.

AIMS

The aims of phase three of a larger study were to explore midwives knowledge, experiences and support for the option of water immersion for labour and birth in practice and their involvement, if any, in development of policy and guidelines pertaining to the option.

METHODS

Phase three of a three phased mixed methods study included a web based survey of 234 Australian midwives who had facilitated and/or been involved in the development of policies and/or guidelines relating to the practice of water immersion.

FINDINGS

Midwives who participated in this study were supportive of both water immersion for labour and birth reiterating documented benefits of reduced pain, maternal relaxation and a positive birth experience. The most significant concerns were maternal collapse, the difficulty of estimating blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage whilst barriers included lack of accredited staff, lifting equipment and negative attitudes. Midwives indicated that policy/guideline documents limited their ability to facilitate water immersion and did not always to support women's informed choice.

CONCLUSION

Midwives who participated in this study supported the practice of water immersion reiterating the benefits documented in the literature and minimal risk to the woman and baby.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia approved the research.

A critical analysis of Australian policies and guidelines for water immersion during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Accessibility of water immersion for labour and/or birth is often dependent on the care provider and also the policies/guidelines that underpin practice. With little high quality research about the safety and practicality of water immersion, particularly for birth, policies/guidelines informing the practice may lack the evidence necessary to ensure practitioner confidence surrounding the option thereby limiting accessibility and women's autonomy.

AIM

The aims of the study were to determine how water immersion policies and/or guidelines are informed, who interprets the evidence to inform policies/guidelines and to what extent the policy/guideline facilitates the option for labour and birth.

METHOD

Phase one of a three-phase mixed-methods study critically analysed 25 Australian water immersion policies/guidelines using critical discourse analysis.

FINDINGS

Policies/guidelines pertaining to the practice of water immersion reflect subjective opinions and views of the current literature base in favour of the risk-focused obstetric and biomedical discursive practices. Written with hegemonic influence, policies and guidelines impact on the autonomy of both women and practitioners.

CONCLUSION

Policies and guidelines pertaining to water immersion, particularly for birth reflect opinion and varied interpretations of the current literature base. A degree of hegemonic influence was noted prompting recommendations for future maternity care policy and guidelines'.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia approved the research.

Retrospective Cohort Study of Hydrotherapy in Labor

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of hydrotherapy for pain management in labor.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Hospital labor and delivery unit in the Northwestern United States, 2006 through 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Women in a nurse-midwifery-managed practice who were eligible to use hydrotherapy during labor.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to report the proportion of participants who initiated and discontinued hydrotherapy and duration of hydrotherapy use. Logistic regression was used to provide adjusted odds ratios for characteristics associated with hydrotherapy use.

RESULTS

Of the 327 participants included, 268 (82%) initiated hydrotherapy. Of those, 80 (29.9%) were removed from the water because they met medical exclusion criteria, and 24 (9%) progressed to pharmacologic pain management. The mean duration of tub use was 156.3 minutes (standard deviation = 122.7). Induction of labor was associated with declining the offer of hydrotherapy, and nulliparity was associated with medical removal from hydrotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In a hospital that promoted hydrotherapy for pain management in labor, most women who were eligible initiated hydrotherapy. Hospital staff can estimate demand for hydrotherapy by being aware that hydrotherapy use is associated with nulliparity.

Effects of Comfort Education on Maternal Comfort and Labor Pain

The effects of providing education regarding comfort options available in the hospital setting on level of maternal comfort and pain during labor were explored in a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest comparison group design (N = 80). No significant difference was found in maternal comfort or pain between the intervention group that received comfort education and the control group. Comfort education did result in change for plans to maintain comfort during labor (p = .000), an increased use of comfort measures during labor (p = .000), and an increased probability of continuation with original plans for pain control during labor. Providing education for maintaining comfort during labor can allow women to make informed choices during labor.

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.

Sink or Swim: Water Immersion for Labor and Birth in a Tertiary Maternity Unit in Australia

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe and compare the attitudes and practices of midwives and obstetric doctors in a tertiary setting regarding water immersion for labor and birth and to identify strategies for improving bath usage in the facility.

DESIGN: A questionnaire consisting of 47 multiple choice and 2 open-ended questions was distributed to midwives and obstetric doctors providing labor care in the facility.

FINDINGS: Obstetric doctors were unsupportive. Birth suite midwives, despite assigning value to it, rarely facilitated water immersion. Only continuity midwives routinely facilitated water immersion. The main identified strategies for increasing bath usage in labor were staff training and support, antenatal education, and increased access to continuity of care.

CONCLUSION: Providing bath access and supporting guidelines is not sufficient to increase water immersion for labor and birth in a tertiary setting. Additional strategies are needed to incorporate this practice into standard care in the birth suite.

WATER BIRTH IN A MATERNITY hospital OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY HEALTH SECTOR IN SANTA CATARINA, BRAZIL: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

ABSTRACT The aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify the prevalence of water births in a maternity hospital of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and to investigate the association between sociodemographic and obstetric variables and water birth. The sample consisted of 973 women who had normal births between June 2007 and May 2013. Data was analyzed through descriptive and bivariate statistics, and estimated prevalence and tested associations through the use of the chi-square test; the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio were calculated. The prevalence of water births was 13.7%. Of the 153 women who had water birth, most were aged between 20 to 34 years old (122), had a companion (112), a college degree (136), were primiparous (101), had a pregnancy without complications (129) and were admitted in active labor (94). There was no association between sociodemographic characteristics and obstetric outcomes in the bivariate and multivariate analyses and in the adjusted model. Only women with private sources for payment had the opportunity to give birth in water.

Case Report of Haemophilus parainfluenzae Sepsis in a Newborn Infant Following Water Birth and a Review of Literature

Water birth has grown in popularity over the recent years. Although beneficial for mothers, there are concerns for the infants. There are previous reports of infection following water birth. The information regarding infection with Haemophilus parainfluenzae is limited. We report a case of a neonate with H. parainfluenzae bacteremia following water birth. The child was successfully treated with both antibiotic and supportive care. Previous reports of neonatal H. parainfluenzae infection are reviewed.

[Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature]

CONTEXT

Water birth is under debate among professionals. For the proponents of this approach, immersion in water during labour and birth may increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a model of obstetric care more focused on the needs of mothers, particularly the empowerment of women to realize their full potential. In contrast, major critics cite a risk of inhalation of water for the newborn and a risk of infection for the mother and the newborn.

OBJECTIVE

This review tracks the state of scientific knowledge about water birth in order to determine if it can be generalized in hospitals.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database. The period covered is from January 1989 to May 2013. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed with the analysis guide of the Haute Autorité de santé.

RESULTS

The level of evidence of the studies identified goes from moderate to low, particularly as regard to studies analysing the expulsion phase.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to recommend immersion in water during the labour phase. No recommendation can be made as regard to the foetal expulsion phase.