Article Text

PDF

Original article
Neonatal outcomes of live-born term singletons in vertex presentation born to mothers with diabetes during pregnancy by mode of birth: a New South Wales population-based retrospective cohort study
  1. Reem Zeki1,
  2. Alex Y Wang1,
  3. Kei Lui2,
  4. Zhuoyang Li1,
  5. Jeremy J N Oats3,
  6. Caroline S E Homer4,
  7. Elizabeth A Sullivan1
  1. 1 Faculty of Health, The Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 School of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Faculty of Health, Centre for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Elizabeth A Sullivan; Elizabeth.Sullivan{at}uts.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the association between the mode of birth and adverse neonatal outcomes of macrosomic (birth weight ≥4000 g) and non-macrosomic (birth weight <4000 g) live-born term singletons in vertex presentation (TSV) born to mothers with diabetes (pre-existing and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)).

Design A population-based retrospective cohort study.

Setting New South Wales, Australia.

Patients All live-born TSV born to mothers with diabetes from 2002 to 2012.

Intervention Comparison of neonatal outcomes by mode of birth (prelabour caesarean section (CS) and planned vaginal birth resulted in intrapartum CS, non-instrumental or instrumental vaginal birth).

Main outcome measures Five-minute Apgar score <7, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery (SCN) and the need for resuscitation.

Results Among the 48 882 TSV born to mothers with diabetes, prelabour CS was associated with a significant increase in the rate of admission to NICU/SCN compared with planned vaginal birth.

For TSV born to mothers with pre-existing diabetes, compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth, instrumental vaginal birth was associated with increased odds of the need for resuscitation in macrosomic (adjusted ORs (AOR) 2.6; 95% CI (1.2 to 7.5)) and non-macrosomic TSV (AOR 3.3; 95% CI (2.2 to 5.0)).

For TSV born to mothers with GDM, intrapartum CS was associated with increased odds of the need for resuscitation compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth in non-macrosomic TSV (AOR 2.3; 95% CI (2.1 to 2.7)). Instrumental vaginal birth was associated with increased likelihood of requiring resuscitation compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth for both macrosomic (AOR 2.3; 95% CI (1.7 to 3.1)) and non-macrosomic (AOR 2.5; 95% CI (2.2 to 2.9)) TSV.

Conclusion Pregnant women with diabetes, particularly those with suspected fetal macrosomia, need to be aware of the increased likelihood of adverse neonatal outcomes following instrumental vaginal birth and intrapartum CS when planning mode of birth.

  • diabetes
  • intensive care
  • outcomes research
  • resuscitation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors were involved in the conception and design of the work and interpretation of the data for the manuscript. RZ was involved in initial drafting of the work. RZ, ZL and AYW were involved in analysing the data. ALL authors were involved in the critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the paper as submitted. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Funding None declared.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.