Analýza prediktorů neplánovaného císařského řezu u nullipar

Stáhnout PDF English version

Autoři: P. Krepelka ^1,2; I. Urbánková ¹; L. Krofta ^1,2; J. Hanacek ^1,2; J. Feyereisl ^1,2
Působiště autorů: Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, head J. Feyereisl, MD, Ph. D., assoc. prof. ¹; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, head L. Rob, MD, Ph. D., prof., Data availability statement: DOI: 10. 6084/m9. figshare. 6983246. ²
Vyšlo v časopise: Ceska Gynekol 2020; 85(6): 375-384
Kategorie: Prospektivní kohortová studie (Česká gynekologie)

Souhrn

Cíl práce: Analýza prediktorů neplánovaného císařského řezu u nullipar.

Typ studie: Prospektivní kohortová studie.

Název a sídlo pracoviště: Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě, Praha.

Metodika: Soubor tvořily nulipary rodící mezi 37. a 42. týdnem s jednočetnou a nízkorizikovou graviditou, s plodem v poloze podélné hlavičkou a bez primární indikace pro císařský řez. Byly analyzovány vybrané prenatální a intranatální faktory ve vztahu k akutnímu císařskému řezu v indikaci zástavy progrese porodu a/nebo hypoxie plodu. Pomocí logistické regresní analýzy a metody klasifikačního stromu bylo testováno pět predikčních modelů.

Výsledky: V souboru 3728 nulipar byl císařský řez proveden u 908 (24,4 %) žen. Všechny modely logistické regrese byly srovnatelné (ROC 0,837–0,0881) a jako nejvýznamnější rizikové faktory byly identifikovány zadní postavení (OPP) plodu, věk matky a použití epidurální analgezie. Spontánní nástup porodu, podání oxytocinu a vyšší tělesná výška rodičky snižují pravděpodobnost akutního císařského řezu. Schopnost modelů předpovědět vaginální porod byla 95,7–96,3 % a 58,5–61,8 % pro predikci císařského řezu. Metoda klasifikačního stromu (ROC 0,860–0,861) identifikovala podobné rizikové faktory, jako je zadní postavení plodu, užití peridurální analgezie a absence spontánního nástupu porodu. Predikční schopnosti byly podobné s hodnotami 94,5–96,4 % pro vaginální porod a 64,6–59,0% pro císařský řez.

Závěr: Zadní postavení plodu je nejvýznamnějším prediktorem neúspěšného vaginálního porodu.

Klíčová slova:

zadní postavení – peridurální analgezie – prediktivní modely – vaginální porod – císařský řez

Zdroje

1. Abenhaim, HA., Benjamin, A. Higher caesarean section rates in women with higher body mass index: are we managing Labouré differently? J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2011, 33, 5, p. 443–448.

2. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 114, 2, p. 386–397.

3. Al Housseini, A., Newman, T., Cox, A., et al. Prediction of risk for cesarean delivery in term nulliparas: a comparison of neural network and multiple logistic regression models. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 201, 1, p. 113 e111–116.

4. Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, RM., Jones, L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011, 12, p. CD000331.

5. Antonakou, A., Papoutsis, D. The effect of epidural analgesia on the delivery outcome of induced labour: a retrospective case series. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2016, 2016, 5740534.

6. Tyrrell, M., Ford, JB., Morris, JM., et al. Epidural analgesia in labour and risk of caesarean delivery. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 2014, 28, 5, p. 400–411.

7. Bas-Lando, M., Srebnik, N., Farkash, R., et al. Elective induction of labor in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an intervention that modifies the risk of cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2014, 290, 5, p. 905–912.

8. Bayrampour, H., Heaman, M. Advanced maternal age and the risk of cesarean birth: a systematic review. Birth, 2010, 37, 3, p. 219–226.

9. Bhattacharya, S., Campbell, DM., Liston, WA., et al. Effect of Body Mass Index on pregnancy outcomes in nulliparous women delivering singleton babies. BMC Public Health, 2007, 7, 168.

10. Brost, BC., Goldenberg, RL., Mercer, BM., et al. The Preterm Prediction Study: association of cesarean delivery with increases in maternal weight and body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1997, 177, 2, p. 333–337; discussion 337–341.

11. Burke, N., Burke, G., Breathnach, F., et al. Prediction of cesarean delivery in the term nulliparous woman: results from the prospective, multicenter Genesis study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 216, 6, p. 598.e1–598.e511.

12. Carseldine, WJ., Phipps, H., Zawada, SF., et al. Does occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour increase the operative delivery rate? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2013, 53, 3, p. 265–270.

13. Chauhan, SP., Beydoun, H., Hammad, IA., et al. Indications for caesarean sections at >/=34 weeks among nulliparous women and differential composite maternal and neonatal morbidity. BJOG, 2014, 121, 11, p. 1395–1402.

14. Cheng, YW., Hubbard, A., Caughey, AB., et al. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am J Epidemiol, 2010, 171, 6, p. 656–663.

15. Dahan, MH., Dahan, S. Fetal weight, maternal age and height are poor predictors of the need for caesarean section for arrest of labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2005, 273, 1, p. 20–25.

16. Eggebø, TM., Hassan, WA., Salvesen, KÅ., et al. Prediction of delivery mode by ultrasound-assessed fetal position in nulliparous women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 46, 5, p. 606–610.

17. Eggebo, TM., Heien, C., Okland, I., et al. Prediction of labour and delivery by ascertaining the fetal head position with transabdominal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabour rupture of membranes after 37 weeks. Ultraschall Med, 2008, 29, 2, p. 179–183.

18. Eggebø, TM., Wilhelm-Benartzi, C., Hassan, WA., et al. A model to predict vaginal delivery in nulliparous women based on maternal characteristics and intrapartum ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 213, 3, p. 362.e361-362.e366.

19. Gardberg, M., Laakkonen, E., Salevaara, M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol, 1998, 91, 5, p. 746–749.

20. Gorgal, R., Goncalves, E., Barros, M., et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus: a risk factor for non-elective cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2012, 38, 1, p. 154–159.

21. Herstad, L., Klungsoyr, K., Skjaerven, R., et al. Maternal age and emergency operative deliveries at term: a population-based registry study among low-risk primiparous women. BJOG, 2015, 122, 12, p. 1642–1651.

22. Hidalgo-Lopezosa, P., Hidalgo-Maestre, M., Rodríguez-Borrego, MA. Labor stimulation with oxytocin: effects on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, 2016, 24, p. e27744.

23. Jonsson, M., Cnattingius, S., Wikström, AK. Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2013, 92, 2, p. 198–203.

24. Kumar, R., O’Kelly, B. Early epidural analgesia may increase the risk of caesarean section delivery in nulliparous women: a retrospective study. Anaesthesia, 2014, 69, p. 87.

25. Kwon, HY., Kwon, JY., Park, YW., et al. The risk of emergency cesarean section after failure of vaginal delivery according to prepregnancy body mass index or gestational weight gain by the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Sci, 2016, 59, 3, p. 169–177.

26. Macara, LM., Murphy, KW. The contribution of dystocia to the cesarean section rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1994, 171. 1, p. 71–77.

27. McKelvey, A., Ashe, R., McKenna, D., et al. Caesarean section in the second stage of labour: A retrospective review of obstetric setting and morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2010, 30, 3, p. 264–267.

28. Mitteroecker, P., Huttegger, SM., Fischer, B., et al. Cliff-edge model of obstetric selection in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113, 51, p. 14680–14685.

29. O’Driscoll, K., Stronge, JM., Minogue, M. Active Management of Labour: care of the fetus. Br Med J, 1973, 3, 5872, p. 135–137.

30. Patel, RR., Peters, TJ., Murphy, DJ. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12,944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol, 2005, 34, 2, p. 353-367.

31. Rei, M., Tavares, S., Pinto, P., et al. Interobserver agreement in CTG interpretation using the 2015 FIGO guidelines for intrapartum fetal monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2016, 205, p. 27–31.

32. Robinson, BK., Mapp, DC., Bloom, SL., et al. Increasing maternal body mass index and characteristics of the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 118, 6, p. 1309–1313.

33. Sims, CJ., Meyn, L., Caruana, R., et al. Predicting cesarean delivery with decision tree models. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 183, 5, p. 1198–1206.

34. Sizer, AR., Nirmal, DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 96, 5, p. 749–752.

35. Smith, GCS. A population study of birth weight and the risk of caesarean section: Scotland 1980–1996. BJOG, 2000, 107, 6, p. 740–744.

36. Sng, BL., Leong, WL., Zeng, Y., et al. Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, 10, p. CD007238.

37. Mother and newborn 2016 [Internet]. Prague: Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, 2017 [Cited 2019 Jun 12]. Avaiable from: http://www.uzis.cz/katalog/zdravotnicka-statistika/rodicka-novorozenec. (In Czech)

38. Vahratian, A., Zhang, J., Troendle, JF., et al. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 104, 5, p. 943–951.

39. Wei, SQ., Luo, ZC., Qi, HP., et al. High-dose vs low-dose oxytocin for labor augmentation: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010, 203, 4, p. 296–304.

40. Xiao, L., Ding, G., Vinturache, A., et al. Associations of maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with birth outcomes in Shanghai, China. Sci Rep. 2017, 7, 41073.

41. Zhao, Y., Flatley, C., Kumar, S. ntrapartum intervention rates and perinatal outcomes following induction of labour compared to expectant management at term from an Australian perinatal centre. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017, 57, 1, p. 40–48.