Failure to recognise the impact of 'moderate' obesity (BMI 30-40) on adverse obstetric outcomes.

Obesity is a growing epidemic in the western world. We carried out a comparative analysis of the incidence of obstetric morbidity in three BMI categories in the ranges 30-40 to identify which BMI category was associated with greatest risk. This identification could help target limited maternity care resources to the group of women who would benefit most. There exists a scale continuum of risk of obstetric morbidity with maternal obesity: the greater the BMI, the greater the risk. However, pregnant women with mild or moderate obesity are still at significant risk of having pre-existing co-morbidities of developing antenatal complications and of being delivered by caesarean section than women with BMIs within the normal range. These women, at the time of antenatal booking, are currently not perceived by healthcare providers as having at-risk pregnancies and are therefore potentially denied access to best care.

Titrated low-dose vaginal and/or oral misoprostol to induce labour for prelabour membrane rupture: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of titrated low-dose misoprostol for induction of labour (IOL) in the presence of prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Maternity units in the UK (9) and Egypt (1). POPULATION: Women >34 weeks of gestation with PROM, singleton viable fetus and no previous caesarean section. METHODS: Subjects randomised to IOL with a titrated low-dose misoprostol regimen (oral except if unfavourable cervix, where initial dose vaginal) or a standard induction method, namely vaginal dinoprostone followed by intravenous oxytocin if the cervix was unfavourable or intravenous oxytocin alone if the cervix was favourable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were caesarean section and failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The trial did not achieve the planned sample size of 1890 due to failure in obtaining external funding. Seven hundred and fifty-eight women were randomised (375 misoprostol and 383 standard). There were less caesarean section (14 versus 18%, relative risk [RR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.57-1.09) and less women who failed to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours in the misoprostol group (24 versus 31%, RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-1.00), but the differences were not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis showed that with unfavourable cervix, misoprostol may be more effective than vaginal dinoprostone. There was no difference in hyperstimulation syndrome. There were more maternal adverse effects with misoprostol, but no significant differences in maternal and neonatal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Titrated low-dose misoprostol may be a reasonable alternative for IOL in the presence of PROM, particularly in women with an unfavourable cervix. Safety and rare serious adverse events could not be evaluated in a trial of this size.

Domiciliary midwifery support in high-risk pregnancy incorporating telephonic fetal heart rate monitoring: a health technology randomized assessment.

We conducted a health technology assessment of the care of women with high-risk pregnancies in the South Wales valleys. Women in the control arm were intended to receive conventional care with standard midwifery visits. Women in the intervention arm received additional or longer visits and domiciliary fetal heart rate telemonitoring. Eighty-one mothers were randomized. There were significant differences in midwifery intervention resources between domiciliary and control groups, with the former receiving a mean of 3.7 visits lasting 33.5 min, compared with 1.4 visits lasting 12.8 min for the latter. There were slightly more spontaneous labours and fewer Caesarean sections in the domiciliary group. Maternal satisfaction and anxiety were high in both groups. Domiciliary care increased the service costs by 21.02 Pounds per woman in terms of extra midwife travel and visiting time, and by a further 18.38 Pounds per woman in home monitoring equipment costs. This, however, was more than offset by health service savings from fewer clinic visits (35.60 Pounds) and fewer clinic ultrasound scans (9.01 Pounds). Adding the reductions in lost productivity to women and their partners (34.51 Pounds) suggests that domiciliary care was cheaper than conventional care, even if it did not greatly reduce inpatient days (a reduction nonetheless saving 184.24 Pounds). While clinical processes were similar in both groups, there were useful practical advantages and savings for patients and the health service from the domiciliary intervention.