Dataset Information

Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The prevalence of morbid obesity (body mass index ?40 kg/m2) in women aged 20-39 years was 7.5% in 2009 through 2010. Morbid obesity is associated with an increased risk of stillbirth compared with normal body mass index, especially >39 weeks' gestation. The data regarding increased risk of cesarean delivery associated with nonmedically indicated induction of labor compared to expectant management in morbidly obese women are limited. OBJECTIVE:We sought to compare the cesarean delivery rate of nonmedically indicated induction of labor with expectant management in morbidly obese women without other comorbidity. STUDY DESIGN:This was a retrospective cohort study from the Consortium on Safe Labor of morbidly obese women with singleton, cephalic gestations without previous cesarean, chronic hypertension, or gestational or pregestational diabetes between 37 0/7 and 41 6/7 weeks' gestation. We examined maternal outcomes including cesarean delivery, operative delivery, third- or fourth-degree laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, and composite maternal outcome (any of: transfusion, intensive care unit admission, venous thromboembolism). We also examined neonatal outcomes including shoulder dystocia, macrosomia (>4000 g), neonatal intensive care unit admission, and composite neonatal outcome (5-min Apgar score <5, stillbirth, neonatal death, or asphyxia or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy). Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, controlling for maternal characteristics, hospital type, and simplified Bishop score. Analyses were conducted at early and full term (37 0/7 to 38 6/7 and 39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks' gestation, respectively). Women who delivered between 41 0/7 and 41 6/7 weeks' gestation were included as expectant management group. RESULTS:Of 1894 nulliparous and 2455 multiparous morbidly obese women, 429 (22.7%) and 791 (32.2%) had nonmedically indicated induction, respectively. In nulliparas, nonmedically indicated induction was not associated with increased risks of cesarean delivery and was associated with decreased risks of macrosomia (2.2% vs 11.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.70) at early term and decreased neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.1% vs 8.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.98) at full term compared with expectant management. In multiparas, nonmedically indicated induction compared with expectant management was associated with a decreased risk of macrosomia at early term (4.2% vs 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.60), cesarean delivery at full term (5.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98), and composite neonatal outcome (0% vs 0.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, <.01-0.89) at full term. CONCLUSION:In morbidly obese women without other comorbidity, nonmedically indicated induction was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

SUBMITTER: Kawakita T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5614804 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

Kawakita Tetsuya T Iqbal Sara N SN Huang Chun-Chih CC Reddy Uma M UM

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 20170531 4

<h4>Background</h4>The prevalence of morbid obesity (body mass index ≥40 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) in women aged 20-39 years was 7.5% in 2009 through 2010. Morbid obesity is associated with an increased risk of stillbirth compared with normal body mass index, especially >39 weeks' gestation. The data regarding increased risk of cesarean delivery associated with nonmedically indicated induction of labor compared to expectant management in morbidly obese women are limited.<h4>Objective</h4>We sought to co ...[more]

PMID: 28578171

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUp to 40% of women gain excessive weight during pregnancy. Obesity complications and risks in parturient women undergoing cesarean section (CS) with different anesthetic methods remain unknown. This study aimed to assess the safety and risk of obese women undergoing CS delivery with various perioperative anesthetic methods.MethodsSeven hundred ninety parturient women underwent CS under general anesthesia (GA), intraspinal anesthesia including epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA). They were divided into morbid (n = 255), severe (n = 274), and non-obesity (n = 261) groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT03002636).ResultBetween 2013 and 2016, 790 pregnant were assessed. Compared with the non-obesity group, there were significantly more fetal distress and higher body mass index (BMI) in the morbid obesity group (P = .0001 and P = .001, respectively). Significantly more patients showed preeclampsia, multifetation, amniotic fluid abnormality, and high bleeding amounts in the morbid obesity group compared with the non-obesity group (P = .0001, P = .048, P = .017, and P = .018, respectively); more patients were administered EA and GA compared with the non-obesity group (P = .0001 and P = .0001, respectively). More post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) patients were found in the severe obesity group no more than the non-obesity group. Significantly increased anesthesia puncture times for 5 > n ≥ 3 and n ≥ 5 were obtained in the morbid obesity group (P = .0001 and P = .0001, respectively), with more patients in the puncture sitting position, compared with the non-obesity group (P = .0001).ConclusionGA, EA, and CSEA are safe and effective in severely or morbidly obese patients. Morbidly obese parturient show increased likelihood for fetal distress, PACU, sitting position puncture, puncture difficulty, and other pregnancy complications. There were more anesthesia puncture times in morbidly obese patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether cervical ripening with oral misoprostol increases cesarean delivery risk and prolongs time to vaginal delivery compared with vaginal misoprostol in a predominantly overweight population.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care academic medical center and compared labor induction outcomes with vaginal misoprostol to outcomes with oral misoprostol after a complete institutional shift to oral misoprostol. Labor induction using 25 micrograms vaginal misoprostol in 2013-2014 was compared with 50 micrograms oral misoprostol in 2014-2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery, uterine tachysystole, maternal hemorrhage, and composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Multivariable regression models accounting for potential confounders were created for the primary and secondary outcomes with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) as the measures of effect.ResultsThere were 138 women in the oral and 138 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. In the overall cohort, the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 31.7 (28.2-36.8) and most women (72%) were of either black or Hispanic race or ethnicity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was higher in the oral than the vaginal misoprostol group (32% vs 21%; P=.04). The adjusted odds of cesarean was higher with oral misoprostol (aOR 2.01; 95% CI 1.07-3.76). Among nulliparous women, the frequency of cesarean delivery was 41% in the oral and 28% in the vaginal misoprostol groups (aOR 2.79; 95% CI 1.26-6.19). Women had a longer time to vaginal delivery in the oral compared with vaginal misoprostol group (41 vs 31 hours respectively, P=.01). Tachysystole occurred more frequently with vaginal misoprostol (20% vs 11%; P=.04).ConclusionCompared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol may be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and longer time to vaginal delivery.

Project description:IntroductionAcetaminophen (paracetamol) is mainly metabolized via glucuronidation and sulphation, while the minor pathway through cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2E1 is held responsible for hepatotoxicity. In obese patients, CYP2E1 activity is reported to be induced, thereby potentially worsening the safety profile of acetaminophen. The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen and its metabolites (glucuronide, sulphate, cysteine and mercapturate) in morbidly obese and non-obese patients.MethodsTwenty morbidly obese patients (with a median total body weight [TBW] of 140.1 kg [range 106-193.1 kg] and body mass index [BMI] of 45.1 kg/m(2) [40-55.2 kg/m(2)]) and eight non-obese patients (with a TBW of 69.4 kg [53.4-91.7] and BMI of 21.8 kg/m(2) [19.4-27.4]) received 2 g of intravenous acetaminophen. Fifteen blood samples were collected per patient. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed using NONMEM.ResultsIn morbidly obese patients, the median area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h (AUC0-8h) of acetaminophen was significantly smaller (P = 0.009), while the AUC0-8h ratios of the glucuronide, sulphate and cysteine metabolites to acetaminophen were significantly higher (P = 0.043, 0.004 and 0.010, respectively). In the model, acetaminophen CYP2E1-mediated clearance (cysteine and mercapturate) increased with lean body weight [LBW] (population mean [relative standard error] 0.0185 L/min [15 %], P < 0.01). Moreover, accelerated formation of the cysteine and mercapturate metabolites was found with increasing LBW (P < 0.001). Glucuronidation clearance (0.219 L/min [5 %]) and sulphation clearance (0.0646 L/min [6 %]) also increased with LBW (P < 0.001).ConclusionObesity leads to lower acetaminophen concentrations and earlier and higher peak concentrations of acetaminophen cysteine and mercapturate. While a higher dose may be anticipated to achieve adequate acetaminophen concentrations, the increased CYP2E1-mediated pathway may preclude this dose adjustment.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of a novel antimicrobial dressing on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following a cesarean delivery.Study designThis was an open-label, single-center, two-arm randomized controlled trial. This study was done at the tertiary center, maternal unit, Galveston, TX. Pregnant women with body mass indices ≥35 kg/m2 were screened for eligibility. Women were randomized to ReliaTect Post-Op Dressing (RELIATECT) or standard wound dressing (STANDARD). Primary outcome was patient satisfaction and HRQoL using validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes were provider satisfaction, surgical site infection (SSI) rates, and wound complications.ResultsIn total, 160 women were randomized. Population characteristics were not significant among groups. RELIATECT dressing group had an overall higher score of satisfaction and HRQoL compared with STANDARD group. Women in the RELIATECT group reported less incision odor and incisional pain. Compared with the STANDARD group, most women in RELIATECT dressing group reported better daily activities, self-esteem, personal hygiene, body image, and sleep. Providers reported that the RELIATECT dressing allowed better assessment of the surgical incision site, allowed patients to shower early, and did observe less wound dressing leakage. No differences were found in other secondary end points.ConclusionPostcesarean RELIATECT dressing for wound care in pregnant women with obesity had better patient and provider satisfaction as well as better HRQoL scores. Further, level 1 evidence is needed to assess its impact on SSI rates and wound complication, as this trial was not powered to accomplish this goal.Key points· This study was conducted to evaluate RELIATECT on patient satisfaction and HRQoL following a cesarean.. · Post-cesarean RELIATECT dressing for wound care had better HRQoL and patient and provider satisfaction scores.. · This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating RELIATECT dressing in obese pregnant women undergoing cesarean section..

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative outcomes and anesthetic-related complications of morbidly obese and super-obese parturients delivering by cesarean section.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 6 years of data was performed. Exclusions were cases with gestational ages <24 weeks, placenta accreta spectrum, polyhydramnios, or multiple gestations.ResultsThe study included 494 patients whose body mass index (BMI) exceeded 40 kg/m2 at delivery. Of these, 469 were morbidly obese (BMI 40-49.9; mean, 42.9 ± 2.4), and 25 were super obese (BMI >50; mean, 54.5 ± 4.2). Twenty-four (5.1%) morbidly obese women received general anesthesia. The other 445 patients (94.9%) in the morbid obesity group underwent cesarean delivery under regional anesthesia; however, some (2.2%; 10/445) received general anesthesia after regional anesthesia failed. In the super-obesity group, 23 patients (92.0%) received regional anesthesia, while two patients (8.0%) received general anesthesia. There were no cases of pulmonary aspiration, maternal deaths, or difficult or failed intubation. There was one episode of cardiac arrest in a patient with a BMI of 47.9. Among the morbidly obese and super-obese women given regional anesthesia, the super-obese patients had significantly greater volumes of ephedrine and norepinephrine consumption (p = 0.027 and 0.030), intravenous fluids (p = 0.006), and bleeding during surgery (p = 0.017). They also had more hypotensive episodes (p = 0.038). The two groups' incidences of neonatal birth asphyxia, postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, and uterine atony did not differ significantly. The lengths of stay in the hospital were also comparable.ConclusionsAmong the women receiving regional anesthesia, the super-obese parturients had greater intraoperative bleeding, a higher proportion of hypotensive episodes, and a greater vasopressor requirement than the morbidly obese parturients. Anesthesiologists must prepare for the adverse perioperative events that such women risk experiencing during a delivery by cesarean section.www.clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04657692.

Dataset Information

Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

Publications

Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets