Phil Murphy

The Effect of Gestational Weight Gain by Body Mass Index on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of gestational weight gain on maternal and neonatal outcomes in different body mass index (BMI) classes. METHODS We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes based on gestational weight gain in underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese (BMI>or=40.00) women. The study group was a population-based cohort of women with singleton gestations who delivered between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2007, drawn from the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Perinatal Program Database. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses (controlling for maternal age, parity, smoking status, partnered status, and gestational age) were performed and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS Only 30.6% of women gained the recommended amount of weight during pregnancy; 52.3% of women gained more than recommended, and 17.1% gained less than recommended. In women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI, excess weight gain was associated with increased rates of gestational hypertension (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.08-1.49), augmentation of labour (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18), and birth weight>or=4000 g (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10-1.34). In overweight women, excess weight gain was associated with increased rates of gestational hypertension (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.55) and birth weight>or=4000 g (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.15-1.47). In women who were obese or morbidly obese, excess weight gain was associated with increased rates of birth weight>or=4000 g (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07-1.34) and neonatal metabolic abnormality (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.00-1.70). In morbidly obese women, poor weight gain was associated with less use of epidural analgesia (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12-0.95). In women who were of normal weight, overweight, or obese, the rate of adverse outcome (Caesarean section, gestational hypertension, birth weight<2500 g or birth weight>or=4000 g) was lower in women with recommended weight gain than in those with excess weight gain. Adverse outcomes were reduced in nulliparous morbidly obese women who had poor weight gain (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.83). CONCLUSION The effects of gestational weight gain on pregnancy outcome depend on the womans pre-pregnancy BMI. Pregnancy weight gains of 6.7-11.2 kg (15-25 lb) in overweight and obese women, and less than 6.7 kg (15 lb) in morbidly obese women are associated with a reduction in the risk of adverse outcome.

Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes of Extreme Obesity in Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of extreme obesity (pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 50.0 kg/m2) in pregnancy on maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS We conducted a population-based cohort study using the Newfoundland and Labrador Perinatal Database to compare obstetric outcomes in women with extreme obesity and those with a normal BMI (pre-pregnancy BMI 18.50 to 24.99 kg/m2). We included women with singleton gestations who gave birth between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2011. Maternal outcomes of interest included gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, Caesarean section, shoulder dystocia, length of hospital stay, maternal ICU admission, postpartum hemorrhage, and death. Perinatal outcomes included birth weight, preterm birth, Apgar score, neonatal metabolic abnormality, NICU admission, stillbirth, and neonatal death. A composite morbidity outcome was developed including at least one of Caesarean section, gestational hypertension, birth weight ≥ 4000 g, birth weight < 2500 g, or NICU admission. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses (controlling for maternal age, parity, smoking, partner status, and gestational age) were performed, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS A total of 5788 women were included in the study: 71 with extreme obesity and 5717 with a normal BMI. Extremely obese women were more likely to have gestational hypertension (19.7% vs. 4.8%) (aOR 1.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.82), gestational diabetes (21.1% vs. 1.5%) (aOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.74 to 2.38), shoulder dystocia (7.1% vs. 1.4%) (aOR 1.51; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.19), Caesarean section (60.6% vs. 25.0%) (aOR 1.46; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.65), length of hospital stay more than five days (excluding Caesarean section) (14.3% vs. 4.7%) (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.89), birth weight ≥ 4000 g (38.0% vs. 11.9%) (aOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.80), birth weight ≥ 4500 g (16.9% vs. 2.1%) (aOR 1.87; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.23), neonatal metabolic abnormality (8.5% vs. 2.0%) (aOR 1.50; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.86), NICU admission (16.9% vs. 7.8%) (aOR 1.28; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.52), stillbirth (1.4% vs. 0.2%) (aOR 1.68; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82) and composite adverse outcome (81.7% vs. 41.5%) (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.83). CONCLUSION Women with extreme obesity have increased risks of a variety of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. As approximately 6 per 1000 women giving birth in our population have extreme obesity, it is important to address these risks pre-conceptually and encourage a healthier BMI before pregnancy.

Examining Caesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Robson Classification System

OBJECTIVE To determine the groups within the obstetric population contributing most substantially to the Caesarean section rate in five Canadian provinces. METHODS Hospital births from five participating provinces were grouped into Robsons 10 mutually exclusive and totally inclusive classification categories. The relative contribution of each group to the overall CS rate, relative size of group, and CS rate were calculated for British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador for the four-year period from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. RESULTS In all five provinces (accounting for approximately 64% of births in Canada), and for all years examined, the group making the largest relative contribution to the CS rate was women with at least one previous CS and a term, singleton, cephalic-presenting pregnancy (Robson Group 5). The CS rate for this group ranged from 76.1% in Alberta to 89.9% in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2010 to 2011, accounting for 11.3% of all deliveries. The rate of CS for Group 5 decreased slightly over the four years, except in Ontario. The next largest contributing group was nulliparous women with a term, singleton, cephalic-presenting pregnancy. Those with induced labour or Caesarean section before labour (Robson Group 2) had CS rates ranging from 34.4% in Nova Scotia to 44.6% in British Columbia (accounting for 13.1% of all deliveries), and those with spontaneous onset of labour (Robson Group 1) had CS rates of 14.5% to 20.3% in 2010 to 2011 (accounting for 23.6% of all deliveries). CONCLUSION All hospitals and health authorities can use this standardized classification system as part of a quality improvement initiative to monitor Caesarean section rates. This classification system identifies relevant areas for interventions and resources to reduce rates of Caesarean section.

Are There Differences between Women who Choose Elective Repeat Caesarean Versus Trial of Labour in St. John's, NL?

OBJECTIVES To compare the demographic and clinical characteristics between women who chose elective repeat Caesarean section (ERCS) versus trial of labour after Caesarean section (TOLAC) in St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). METHODS We conducted a retrospective case control study of women with live singleton gestations delivering at term in St. Johns, NL between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2014. Inclusion criteria were women who had a previous single lower segment Caesarean section (LSCS). TOLAC, successful TOLAC, and VBAC rates were calculated. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between women who chose ERCS versus TOLAC. Univariate analyses and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed, and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS A total of 1579 women were included, of whom 160 (10.1%) chose TOLAC, with 107 resulting in successful VBAC (67% successful TOLAC rate). The overall VBAC rate was 6.8%. Women who chose ERCS compared with those who chose TOLAC were more likely to be obese (aOR 3.20, 95% CI 1.85-5.54, P < 0.001), less likely to have had GA at delivery greater than 40 weeks (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.21, P < 0.001), less likely to have had a previous vaginal delivery (aOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, P < 0.001), and less likely to have had the previous CS for breech presentation (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.80, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS The overall TOLAC and VBAC rates in St. Johns are low when compared with reported national rates. The successful TOLAC rate is within the expected range reported in the literature. Differences exist between women who chose ERCS compared with TOLAC.