4.2 Article

Immediate birth - an analysis of women and their babies undergoing time critical birth in a tertiary referral obstetric hospital

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2017.06.004

关键词

Emergency; Caesarean section; Immediate birth; Decision-to-delivery interval

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: At our institution, the emergency obstetric 'code green' activates the system for immediate birth, usually by caesarean section. This study aimed to determine the incidence of immediate birth, indications, modes of anaesthesia, and short-term neonatal and maternal outcomes. Method: A review was performed for all women at the Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia who underwent immediate birth over a two-year period: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. Results: Within the study period 14,115 women gave birth, of which 387 women underwent an immediate birth, the majority (83%) by caesarean section. The commonest indication for immediate birth was prolonged fetal bradycardia (53%), however cord prolapse (4%) produced the most rapid decision-to-delivery interval, with a median [IQR] time of 14 [13-16] min versus 18 [14-23] min for all immediate births (P < 0.01). Epidural top-up was the most common anaesthesia method. Conversion to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia occurred in 6.2% of women. Among 103 general anaesthetics, there was one failed intubation (successful ventilation) and one dental injury. Nine women (2.3%) were admitted to the high dependency or intensive care units, and there were no maternal deaths. Babies born by caesarean section with a decision-to-delivery interval of less than 30 min were more likely to have longer times to establish respiration (22.6% vs 16.7%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Request for immediate delivery is a common obstetric emergency. Epidural top-up has become the most common anaesthetic technique. Rapid delivery times can be achieved with an integrated emergency response system. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据