Publications by authors named "Marion Kibuka"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 11 9;11:CD008070. Epub 2018 Nov 9.

Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK, NG5 1PB.

Background: Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection Criteria: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).

Main Results: We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.

Authors' Conclusions: There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6517130PMC
November 2018

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 02 24;2:CD008070. Epub 2017 Feb 24.

Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK, NG5 1PB.

Background: Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright and recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection Criteria: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-RCTs would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Studies published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted study authors to try to obtain missing data.

Main Results: Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions were included in this updated review. Four trials were conducted in the UK and one in France. Three of the five trials were funded by the hospital departments in which the trials were carried out. For the other three trials, funding sources were either unclear (one trial) or not reported (two trials). Each trial varied in levels of bias. We assessed all the trials as being at low or unclear risk of selection bias. None of the trials blinded women, staff or outcome assessors. One trial was poor quality, being at high risk of attrition and reporting bias. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach; the evidence for most outcomes was assessed as being very low quality, and evidence for one outcome was judged as moderate quality.Overall, we identified no clear difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women; I² = 54% moderate-quality evidence), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation-to-birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women; I² = 92%; very low-quality evidence). Nor did we identify any clear differences in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; two trials; 173 women; studies = two; I² = 74%; very low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69; 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; one trial; 107 women; very low-quality evidence), low cord pH (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.18 to 2.10; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence) or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out. Outcomes were downgraded for study design, high heterogeneity and imprecision in effect estimates.There were no data reported on blood loss (greater than 500 mL), prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.

Authors' Conclusions: There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. The GRADE quality assessment of the evidence in this review ranged between moderate to low quality, with downgrading decisions based on design limitations in the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision of effect estimates.Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour.More studies with larger sample sizes will need to be conducted in order for solid conclusions to be made about the effect of position on labour in women with an epidural. Two studies are ongoing and we will incorporate the results into this review at a future update.Future studies should have the protocol registered, so that sample size, primary outcome, analysis plan, etc. are all clearly prespecified. The time or randomisation should be recorded, since this is the only unbiased starting time point from which the effect of position on duration of labour can be estimated. Future studies might wish to include an arm in which women were allowed to choose the position in which they felt most comfortable. Future studies should ensure that both compared positions are acceptable to women, that women can remain in them for most of the late part of labour, and report the number of women who spend time in the allocated position and the amount of time they spend in this or other positions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6464234PMC
February 2017

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 Jan 31(1):CD008070. Epub 2013 Jan 31.

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Background: Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright versus recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies

Selection Criteria: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors to try to obtain missing data.

Main Results: Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, were included in the review.Overall, we identified no statistically significant difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation to birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women). Nor did we identify any clear differences in the incidence of instrumental birth or caesarean section separately, nor in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing, operative birth for fetal distress, low cord pH or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out.There were no data reported on excess blood loss, prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.

Authors' Conclusions: There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub2DOI Listing
January 2013