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
. 2020 Apr 15;3(1):e14109.
doi: 10.2196/14109.

Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis

Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis #  1 , Juliano De Souza Gaspar #  1 , Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Vitral #  2 , Vitor Barbosa Abrantes #  1 , Ingrid Michelle Fonseca de-Souza #  1 , Maria Tereza Silveira Moreira #  1 , Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa Aguiar #  2
Affiliations

Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis

Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis et al. JMIR Pediatr Parent. .

Abstract

Background: The correct dating of pregnancy is critical to support timely decisions and provide obstetric care during birth. The early obstetric ultrasound assessment before 14 weeks is considered the best reference to assist in determining gestational age (GA), with an accuracy of ±5 to 7 days. However, this information is limited in many settings worldwide.

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the association between the obstetric interventions during childbirth and the quality of GA determination, according to the first antenatal ultrasound assessment, which assisted the calculation.

Methods: This is a hospital-based cohort study using medical record data of 2113 births at a perinatal referral center. The database was separated into groups and subgroups of analyses based on the reference used by obstetricians to obtain GA at birth. Maternal and neonatal characteristics, mode of delivery, oxytocin augmentation, and forceps delivery were compared between groups of pregnancies with GA determination at different reference points: obstetric ultrasound assessment 14 weeks, 20 weeks, and ≥20 weeks or without antenatal ultrasound (suboptimal dating). Ultrasound-based GA information was associated with outcomes between the interest groups using chi-square tests, odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI, or the Mann-Whitney statistical analysis.

Results: The chance of nonspontaneous delivery was higher in pregnancies with 14 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.35-1.98) and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.31-1.90) when compared to the pregnancies with ≥20 weeks ultrasound-based GA or without any antenatal ultrasound. The use of oxytocin for labor augmentation was higher for 14 weeks and 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA, OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.09-1.82) and OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.04-1.72), respectively, when compared to those suboptimally dated. Moreover, maternal blood transfusion after birth was more frequent in births with suboptimal ultrasound-based GA determination (20/657, 3.04%) than in the other groups (14 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 17/1163, 1.46%, P=.02; 20 weeks ultrasound-based GA: 25/1456, 1.71%, P=.048). Cesarean section rates between the suboptimal dating group (244/657, 37.13%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 475/1163, 40.84%, P=.12; 20 weeks: 584/1456, 40.10%, P=.20) were similar. In addition, forceps delivery rates between the suboptimal dating group (17/657, 2.6%) and the other groups (14 weeks: 42/1163, 3.61%, P=.24; 20 weeks: 46/1456, 3.16%, P=.47) were similar. Neonatal intensive care unit admission was more frequent in newborns with suboptimal dating (103/570, 18.07%) when compared with the other groups (14 weeks: 133/1004, 13.25%, P=.01; 20 weeks: 168/1263, 13.30%, P=.01), excluding stillbirths and major fetal malformations.

Conclusions: The present analysis highlighted relevant points of health care to improve obstetric assistance, confirming the importance of early access to technologies for pregnancy dating as an essential component of quality antenatal care.

Keywords: gestational age; information systems; parturition; pregnancy dating; ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: ZR declares a patent deposit of an optoelectronic device to detect gestational age at birth, on behalf of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais and Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais public institutions in Brazil. The other authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison groups for ultrasound-based gestation age determination (N=2113). GA: gestational age; US: ultrasound.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pareto chart with the distribution of births according to the first obstetric ultrasound retrieved by clinical histories (n=1695).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Committee on Obstetric Practice‚ the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine‚the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;129(5):e150–e154. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002046. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee AC, Blencowe H, Lawn JE. Small babies, big numbers: global estimates of preterm birth. The Lancet Global Health. 2019 Jan;7(1):e2–e3. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30484-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cantor DE, Macdonald JR. Decision-making in the supply chain: examining problem solving approaches and information availability. Journal of Operations Management. 2008 Sep 11;27(3):220–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.002. - DOI
    1. Lee AC, Panchal P, Folger L, Whelan H, Whelan R, Rosner B, Blencowe H, Lawn JE. Diagnostic accuracy of neonatal assessment for gestational age determination: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140(6) doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1423. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=2915... - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nguyen TH, Larsen T, Engholm G, Møller H. Increased adverse pregnancy outcomes with unreliable last menstruation. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;95(6 Pt 1):867–73. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00639-0. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources