...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica: Official Publication of the Nordisk Forening for Obstetrik och Gynekologi >Blood transfusion following intended vaginal birth after cesarean vs elective repeat cesarean section in women with a prior primary cesarean: A population-based record linkage study
【24h】

Blood transfusion following intended vaginal birth after cesarean vs elective repeat cesarean section in women with a prior primary cesarean: A population-based record linkage study

机译:预期阴道分娩后的输血与先前剖腹产的女性患有选修副剖腹产:基于人群的记录联系研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Introduction There is a lack of evidence around the risk of transfusion following vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) compared with elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS); this is important for decision-making about birth options. The aim of this study was to determine transfusion rates and risk of transfusion following intended VBAC and ERCS. Material and methods Women with a primary cesarean who had a subsequent birth at term (= 37 weeks) in New South Wales between 2000 and 2012, were identified from the New South Wales Perinatal Data Collection. Blood transfusions were identified from linked hospital records. Women deemed ineligible for VBAC were excluded. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine transfusion risk associated with intended VBAC compared with ERCS. Intended mode of birth was classified as: (1) intended VBAC and vaginal birth, (2) intended VBAC and cesarean, (3) intended ERCS and (4) "intention uncertain". Results A total of 90 439 women were eligible for VBAC. Rates of transfusion were: 1.4% for intended VBAC and vaginal birth (n = 17 849); 1.2% for intended VBAC and cesarean (n = 7648); 0.3% for intended ERCS (n = 60 471); and 1.1% for "intention uncertain" (n = 4471). After adjusting for maternal and pregnancy characteristics, risk of transfusion was almost four times higher for women classified as intended VBAC than intended ERCS (adjusted risk ratio = 3.73, 95% confidence interval 2.90-4.78). Conclusions Following a prior primary cesarean, there was a higher risk of transfusion associated with attempting VBAC compared with ERCS. Though the absolute risk is small, it is important for women considering VBAC to choose birthing facilities with ready access to blood products.
机译:引言与选修重复剖宫产(ERC)相比,阴道分娩后,阴道分娩后输血风险缺乏证据;这对于关于出生期权的决策很重要。本研究的目的是确定预期VBAC和ERC后输血率和输血风险。 2000年至2012年间新南威尔士术语(& = 37周)在新南威尔士州的新南威尔士州的南威尔士州围产期数据收集,妇女与主要剖腹产的材料和方法。从连接医院记录中鉴定出血输血。被排除在外的妇女不符合VBAC。改性泊松回归用于确定与ERC相比与预期VBAC相关的输血风险。预期的出生方式被归类为:(1)预期的VBAC和阴道出生,(2)预期的VBAC和剖腹产,(3)预期的ERC和(4)“意图不确定”。结果共有9039名妇女有资格获得VBAC。输血率为:预期VBAC和阴道出生的1.4%(n = 17 849);预期vbac和剖腹产的1.2%(n = 7648);预期ERC的0.3%(n = 60 471); “意图不确定”(n = 4471),1.1%。调整母体和妊娠特征后,分类为预期VBAC的妇女的输血风险几乎四倍较高(调整的风险比率= 3.73,95%置信区间2.90-4.78)。结论在先前的初级剖腹产后,与ERC相比,试图VBAC的输血风险较高。虽然绝对风险很小,但考虑VBAC的女性很重要,以便选择分娩设施,随时可以使用血液产品。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号