BACKGROUND: Since the placenta also has a sex, fetal sex-specific differences in the occurrence of placenta-mediated complications could exist.OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of fetal sex with multiple maternal pregnancy complications.SEARCH STRATEGY: Six electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web-of-Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Reference lists of the included studies and contact with experts were also used for identification of studies.SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational studies that assessed fetal sex and the presence of maternal pregnancy complications within singleton pregnancies.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES: Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a predesigned data collection form.MAIN RESULTS: From 6522 original references, 74 studies were selected, including over 12,5 million women. Male fetal sex was associated with term pre-eclampsia (pooled OR 1.07 [95%CI 1.06 to 1.09]) and gestational diabetes (pooled OR 1.04 [1.02 to 1.07]). All other pregnancy complications (i.e., gestational hypertension, total pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, placental abruption, and post-partum hemorrhage) tended to be associated with male fetal sex, except for preterm pre-eclampsia, which was more associated with female fetal sex. Overall quality of the included studies was good. Between-study heterogeneity was high due to differences in study population and outcome definition.CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the occurrence of pregnancy complications differ according to fetal sex with a higher cardiovascular and metabolic load for the mother in the presence of a male fetus.FUNDING: None.
Background: The maternity care system in the Netherlands is well known for its support of community-based midwifery. However, regular midwifery practices typically do not offer caseload midwifery care – one-to-one continuity of care throughout pregnancy and birth. Because we know very little about the outcomes for women receiving caseload care in the Netherlands, we compared caseload care with regular midwife-led care, looking at maternal and perinatal outcomes, including antenatal and intrapartum referrals to secondary (i.e., obstetrician-led) care. Methods: We selected 657 women in caseload care and 1954 matched controls (women in regular midwife-led care) from all women registered in the Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined) who gave birth in 2015. To be eligible for selection the women had to be in midwife-led antenatal care beyond 28 gestational weeks. Each woman in caseload care was matched with three women in regular midwife-led care, using parity, maternal age, background (Dutch or non-Dutch) and region. These two cohorts were compared for referral rates, mode of birth, and other maternal and perinatal outcomes. Results: In caseload midwifery care, 46.9% of women were referred to obstetrician-led care (24.2% antenatally and 22.8% in the intrapartum period). In the matched cohort, 65.7% were referred (37.4% antenatally and 28.3% in the intrapartum period). In caseload care, 84.0% experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth versus 77.0% in regular midwife-led care. These patterns were observed for both nulliparous and multiparous women. Women in caseload care had fewer inductions of labour (13.2% vs 21.0%), more homebirths (39.4% vs 16.1%) and less perineal damage (intact perineum: 41.3% vs 28.2%). The incidence of perinatal mortality and a low Apgar score was low in both groups. Conclusions: We found that when compared to regular midwife-led care, caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands is associated with a lower referral rate to obstetrician-led care – both antenatally and in the intrapartum period – and a higher spontaneous vaginal birth rate, with similar perinatal safety. The challenge is to include this model as part of the current effort to improve the quality of Dutch maternity care, making caseload care available and affordable for more women.
Background: Despite evidence supporting the safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), rates are low in many countries. Methods: OptiBIRTH investigated the effects of a woman-centred intervention designed to increase VBAC rates through an unblinded cluster randomised trial in 15 maternity units with VBAC rates < 35% in Germany, Ireland and Italy. Sites were matched in pairs or triplets based on annual birth numbers and VBAC rate, and randomised, 1:1 or 2:1, intervention versus control, following trial registration. The intervention involved evidence-based education of clinicians and women with one previous caesarean section (CS), appointment of opinion leaders, audit/peer review, and joint discussions by women and clinicians. Control sites provided usual care. Primary outcome was annual hospital-level VBAC rates before the trial (2012) versus final year of the trial (2016). Between April 2014 and October 2015, 2002 women were recruited (intervention 1195, control 807), with mode-of-birth data available for 1940 women. Results: The OptiBIRTH intervention was feasible and safe across hospital settings in three countries. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in the proportion of women having a VBAC between intervention sites (25.6% in 2012 to 25.1% in 2016) and control sites (18.3 to 22.3%) (odds ratio adjusted for differences between intervention and control groups (2012) and for homogeneity in VBAC rates at sites in the countries: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.14, p = 0.32 based on 5674 women (2012) and 5284 (2016) with outcome data. Among recruited women with birth data, 4/1147 perinatal deaths > 24 weeks gestation occurred in the intervention group (0.34%) and 4/782 in the control group (0.51%), and two uterine ruptures (one per group), a rate of 1:1000. Conclusions: Changing clinical practice takes time. As elective repeat CS is the most common reason for CS in multiparous women, interventions that are feasible and safe and that have been shown to lead to decreasing repeat CS, should be promoted. Continued research to refine the best way of promoting VBAC is essential. This may best be done using an implementation science approach that can modify evidence-based interventions in response to changing clinical circumstances.
