Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):314.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.37963.606412.EE. Epub 2004 Jan 26.

Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour

Elizabeth R Cluett  1 , Ruth M Pickering, Kathryn Getliffe, Nigel James St George Saunders
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour

Elizabeth R Cluett et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of labouring in water during first stage of labour on rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery in nulliparous women with dystocia.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: University teaching hospital in southern England.

Participants: 99 nulliparous women with dystocia (cervical dilation rate < 1 cm/hour in active labour) at low risk of complications. Interventions Immersion in water in birth pool or standard augmentation for dystocia (amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin).

Main outcome measures: Primary: epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates. Secondary: augmentation rates with amniotomy and oxytocin, length of labour, maternal and neonatal morbidity including infections, maternal pain score, and maternal satisfaction with care.

Results: Women randomised to immersion in water had a lower rate of epidural analgesia than women allocated to augmentation (47% v 66%, relative risk 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01), number needed to treat for benefit (NNT) 5). They showed no difference in rates of operative delivery (49% v 50%, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47), NNT 98), but significantly fewer received augmentation (71% v 96%, 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88), NNT 4) or any form of obstetric intervention (amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery) (80% v 98%, 0.81 (0.67 to 0.92), NNT 5). More neonates of women in the water group were admitted to the neonatal unit (6 v 0, P = 0.013), but there was no difference in Apgar score, infection rates, or umbilical cord pH.

Conclusions: Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of participants through trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Department of Health. NHS maternity statistics, England 1989/90 to 1994/95. Statistical Bulletin No 28. London: Stationery Office, 1997: 1-16.
    1. Johanson R, Newburn M, MacFarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ 2002;324: 892-5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Impey L, Boylan P. Active management of labour revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106: 183-7. - PubMed
    1. Cammu H, Van Eeckhout E. A randomised controlled trial of early versus delayed use of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion in nulliparous labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103: 313-8. - PubMed
    1. Sadler LC, Davison T, McCowen LME. A randomised controlled trial and meta analysis of active management of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;107: 909-15. - PubMed

Publication types