Labor and Delivery Experiences of Mothers with Suspected Large Babies
- 480 Downloads
To characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with clinicians’ prenatal suspicion of a large baby; and to determine whether communicating fetal size concerns to patients was associated with labor and delivery interventions and outcomes.
We examined data from women without a prior cesarean who responded to Listening to Mothers III, a nationally representative survey of women who had given birth between July 2011 and June 2012 (n = 1960). We estimated the effect of having a suspected large baby (SLB) on the odds of six labor and delivery outcomes.
Nearly one-third (31.2 %) of women were told by their maternity care providers that their babies might be getting “quite large”; however, only 9.9 % delivered a baby weighing ≥4000 g (19.7 % among mothers with SLBs, 5.5 % without). Women with SLBs had increased adjusted odds of medically-induced labor (AOR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.4–2.6), attempted self-induced labor (AOR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.4–2.7), and use of epidural analgesics (AOR 2.0; 95 % CI 1.4–2.9). No differences were noted for overall cesarean rates, although women with SLBs were more likely to ask for (AOR 4.6; 95 % CI 2.8–7.6) and have planned (AOR 1.8; 95 % CI 1.0–4.5) cesarean deliveries. These associations were not affected by adjustment for gestational age and birthweight.
Conclusions for Practice
Only one in five US women who were told that their babies might be getting quite large actually delivered infants weighing ≥4000 g. However, the suspicion of a large baby was associated with an increase in perinatal interventions, regardless of actual fetal size.
KeywordsSuspected macrosomia Mode of delivery Labor induction
- 1.Martin, J. A, Hamilton, B. E, Ventura, S. J. et al. (2013). Births: Final data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports, 62(1), 1–69, 72.Google Scholar
- 7.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2000). ACOG committee opinion no 22: Fetal Macrosomia.Google Scholar
- 15.Gonen, R., Bader, D., & Ajami, M. (2000). Effects of a policy of elective cesarean delivery in cases of suspected fetal macrosomia on the incidence of brachial plexus injury and the rate of cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 183(5), 1296–1300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Little, S. E, Edlow, A. G., Thomas, A.M., et al. Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: A modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 207(4), 309 e1–6.Google Scholar
- 21.Blackwell, S. C., Refuerzo, J., Chadha, R., et al. Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: Does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 200(3), 340 e1–3.Google Scholar
- 22.Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., et al. (2014). Major survey findings of listening to mothers III: New mothers speak out: report of national surveys of women’s childbearing experiences conducted October–December 2012 and January–April 2013. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 23(1), 17–24.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M.P., et al. (2006). Listening to mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of women’s childbearing experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection; .Google Scholar
- 24.Commission, Joint. (2010). Advancing effective communication, cultural competence, and patient-and family-centered care: A roadmap for hospitals. Oakbrook Terrace: Joint Commission.Google Scholar
- 25.Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., et al. (2007). Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences: Conducted January–February 2006 for Childbirth Connection by Harris Interactive in partnership with Lamaze International. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 16(4), 15–17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. (2003). AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of an antepartum obstetric ultrasound examination. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 22(10), 1116–1125.Google Scholar