Temporal variations in maternal treatment requirements and early neonatal outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes

AIMS

There is seasonal variation in the incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM) and delivery outcomes of affected patients. We assessed whether there was also evidence of temporal variation in maternal treatment requirements and early neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with GDM (75 g oral glucose tolerance test, 0 h ≥ 5.1; 1 h ≥ 10.0; 2 h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L) in a UK tertiary obstetric centre (2015-2019) with a singleton infant. Data regarding demographic characteristics, total insulin requirements and neonatal outcomes were extracted from contemporaneous electronic medical records. Linear/logistic regression models using month of the year as a predictor of outcomes were used to assess annual variation.

RESULTS

In all, 791 women (50.6% receiving pharmacological treatment) and 790 neonates were included. The likelihood of requiring insulin treatment was highest in November (p < 0.05). The average total daily insulin dose was higher at peak (January) compared to average by 19 units/day (p < 0.05). There was no temporal variation in neonatal intensive care admission, or neonatal capillary blood glucose. However, rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia (defined as <2.6 mmol/L) were highest in December (40% above average; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with GDM diagnosed in winter are more likely to require insulin treatment and to require higher insulin doses. Neonates born to winter-diagnosed mothers had a corresponding increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Maternal treatment requirements and neonatal outcomes of GDM vary significantly throughout the year, even in a relatively temperate climate.

Weekend working: a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes in a large NHS delivery unit

OBJECTIVES

Mandatory weekend working for NHS consultants is currently the subject of intense political debate. The Secretary of State for Health's proposed 7-day contract policy is based on the claim that such working patterns will improve patient outcomes. We evaluate this claim by taking advantage of as-if-at-random presentation of women for non-elective deliveries throughout the week. We examine (i) whether consultants currently perform fewer deliveries during weekends versus weekdays, and (ii) whether adverse outcomes increase during weekends.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data on all non-elective deliveries from January 2008 to December 2013 in a large UK obstetrics centre (n=27,466). We used Pearson's chi-squared tests to make direct comparisons of adverse outcome rates during weekdays versus weekends. Outcomes included: estimated maternal blood loss ≥1.5l; severe perineal trauma; delayed neonatal respiration; umbilical arterial pH <7.1; and critical incidents at delivery.

RESULTS

Consultants currently perform the same proportion of non-elective deliveries on weekends and weekdays (2.3% versus 2.6%, p=0.25). We found no increase in any adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes during weekends versus weekdays, despite high statistical power to detect such differences. Moreover, adverse outcomes are no higher during periods of the weekend when consultants are not routinely present compared to equivalent periods during weekdays.

CONCLUSIONS

Under current working arrangements, women who would benefit from consultant-led delivery are equally likely to receive one on weekends compared to weekdays. Weekend delivery has no effect on maternal or neonatal morbidity. Adopting mandatory 7-day contracts is unlikely to make any difference to either consultant-led delivery during weekends or to patient outcomes.

Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the factors associated with selection of rotational instrumental vs cesarean delivery to manage persistent fetal malposition, and to assess differences in adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes following delivery by rotational instruments vs cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study over a 5-year period in a tertiary United Kingdom obstetrics center. In all, 868 women with vertex-presenting, single, liveborn infants at term with persistent malposition in the second stage of labor were included. Propensity score stratification was used to control for selection bias: the possibility that obstetricians may systematically select more difficult cases for cesarean delivery. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for delivery by rotational forceps or ventouse vs cesarean delivery, adjusting for propensity scores.

RESULTS

Increased likelihood of rotational instrumental delivery was associated with lower maternal age (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .01), lower body mass index (OR, 0.94; P < .001), lower birthweight (OR, 0.95; P < .01), no evidence of fetal compromise at the time of delivery (OR, 0.31; P < .001), delivery during the daytime (OR, 1.45; P < .05), and delivery by a more experienced obstetrician (OR, 7.21; P < .001). Following propensity score stratification, there was no difference by delivery method in the rates of delayed neonatal respiration, reported critical incidents, or low fetal arterial pH. Maternal blood loss was higher in the cesarean group (295.8 ± 48 mL, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Rotational instrumental delivery is often regarded as unsafe. However, we find that neonatal outcomes are no worse once selection bias is accounted for, and that the likelihood of severe obstetric hemorrhage is reduced. More widespread training of obstetricians in rotational instrumental delivery should be considered, particularly in light of rising cesarean delivery rates.