Caesarean delivery (CD) rates are commonly used as an indicator of quality in obstetric care and risk adjustment evaluation is recommended to assess inter-institutional variations. The aim of this ...study was to evaluate whether the Ten Group classification system (TGCS) can be used in case-mix adjustment.
Standardized data on 15,255 deliveries from 11 different regional centers were prospectively collected. Crude Risk Ratios of CDs were calculated for each center. Two multiple logistic regression models were herein considered by using: Model 1- maternal (age, Body Mass Index), obstetric variables (gestational age, fetal presentation, single or multiple, previous scar, parity, neonatal birth weight) and presence of risk factors; Model 2- TGCS either with or without maternal characteristics and presence of risk factors. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of each model. The null hypothesis that Areas under ROC Curve (AUC) were not different from each other was verified with a Chi Square test and post hoc pairwise comparisons by using a Bonferroni correction.
Crude evaluation of CD rates showed all centers had significantly higher Risk Ratios than the referent. Both multiple logistic regression models reduced these variations. However the two methods ranked institutions differently: model 1 and model 2 (adjusted for TGCS) identified respectively nine and eight centers with significantly higher CD rates than the referent with slightly different AUCs (0.8758 and 0.8929 respectively). In the adjusted model for TGCS and maternal characteristics/presence of risk factors, three centers had CD rates similar to the referent with the best AUC (0.9024).
The TGCS might be considered as a reliable variable to adjust CD rates. The addition of maternal characteristics and risk factors to TGCS substantially increase the predictive discrimination of the risk adjusted model.
It is crucial to identify in large population samples the most important determinants of excessive fetal growth. The aim of the study was to evaluate the independent role of pre-pregnancy body mass ...index (BMI), gestational weight gain and gestational diabetes on the risk of macrosomia.
A prospective study collected data on mode of delivery and maternal/neonatal outcomes in eleven Hospitals in Italy. Multiple pregnancies and preterm deliveries were excluded. The sample included 14109 women with complete records. Associations between exposure variables and newborn macrosomia were analyzed using Pearson's chi squared test. Multiple logistic regression models were built to assess the independent association between potential predictors and macrosomia.
Maternal obesity (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.2), excessive gestational weight gain (adjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.2) and diabetes (adjusted OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-3.0 for gestational; adjusted OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.6 for pre-gestational) resulted to be independent predictors of macrosomia, when adjusted for other recognized risk factors. Since no significant interaction was found between pre-gestational BMI and gestational weight gain, excessive weight gain should be considered an independent risk factor for macrosomia. In the sub-group of women affected by gestational or pre-gestational diabetes, pre-gestational BMI was not significantly associated to macrosomia, while excessive pregnancy weight gain, maternal height and gestational age at delivery were significantly associated. In this sub-population, pregnancy weight gain less than recommended was not significantly associated to a reduction in macrosomia.
Our findings indicate that maternal obesity, gestational weight gain excess and diabetes should be considered as independent risk factors for newborn macrosomia. To adequately evaluate the clinical evolution of pregnancy all three variables need to be carefully assessed and monitored.
Although the evaluation of caesarean delivery rates has been suggested as one of the most important indicators of quality in obstetrics, it has been criticized because of its controversial ability to ...capture maternal and neonatal outcomes. In an "ideal" process of labor and delivery auditing, both caesarean (CD) and assisted vaginal delivery (AVD) rates should be considered because both of them may be associated with an increased risk of complications. The aim of our study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes according to the outlier status for case-mix adjusted CD and AVD rates in the same obstetric population.
Standardized data on 15,189 deliveries from 11 centers were prospectively collected. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the risk-adjusted probability of a woman in each center having an AVD or a CD. Centers were classified as "above", "below", or "within" the expected rates by considering the observed-to-expected rates and the 95% confidence interval around the ratio. Adjusted maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared among the three groupings.
Centers classified as "above" or "below" the expected CD rates had, in both cases, higher adjusted incidence of composite maternal (2.97%, 4.69%, 3.90% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) and neonatal complications (3.85%, 9.66%, 6.29% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) than centers "within" CD expected rates. Centers with AVD rates above and below the expected showed poorer and better composite maternal (3.96%, 4.61%, 2.97% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) and neonatal (6.52%, 9.77%, 3.52% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) outcomes respectively than centers with "within" AVD rates.
Both risk-adjusted CD and AVD delivery rates should be considered to assess the level of obstetric care. In this context, both higher and lower-than-expected rates of CD and "above" AVD rates are significantly associated with increased risk of complications, whereas the "below" status for AVD showed a "protective" effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Caesarean delivery (CD) rates are commonly used as an indicator of quality in obstetric care and risk adjustment evaluation is recommended to assess inter-institutional variations. The aim of this ...study was to evaluate whether the Ten Group classification system (TGCS) can be used in case-mix adjustment. Standardized data on 15,255 deliveries from 11 different regional centers were prospectively collected. Crude Risk Ratios of CDs were calculated for each center. Two multiple logistic regression models were herein considered by using: Model 1- maternal (age, Body Mass Index), obstetric variables (gestational age, fetal presentation, single or multiple, previous scar, parity, neonatal birth weight) and presence of risk factors; Model 2- TGCS either with or without maternal characteristics and presence of risk factors. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of each model. The null hypothesis that Areas under ROC Curve (AUC) were not different from each other was verified with a Chi Square test and post hoc pairwise comparisons by using a Bonferroni correction. Crude evaluation of CD rates showed all centers had significantly higher Risk Ratios than the referent. Both multiple logistic regression models reduced these variations. However the two methods ranked institutions differently: model 1 and model 2 (adjusted for TGCS) identified respectively nine and eight centers with significantly higher CD rates than the referent with slightly different AUCs (0.8758 and 0.8929 respectively). In the adjusted model for TGCS and maternal characteristics/presence of risk factors, three centers had CD rates similar to the referent with the best AUC (0.9024). The TGCS might be considered as a reliable variable to adjust CD rates. The addition of maternal characteristics and risk factors to TGCS substantially increase the predictive discrimination of the risk adjusted model.
The aim of the study was to identify which groups of women contribute to interinstitutional variation of caesarean delivery (CD) rates and which are the reasons for this variation. In this regard, ...15,726 deliveries from 11 regional centers were evaluated using the 10-group classification system. Standardized indications for CD in each group were used. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to calculate (1) relationship between institutional CD rates and relative sizes/CD rates in each of the ten groups/centers; (2) correlation between institutional CD rates and indications for CD in each of the ten groups/centers. Overall CD rates correlated with both CD rates in spontaneous and induced labouring nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy at term (P=0.005). Variation of CD rates was also dependent on relative size and CD rates in multiparous women with previous CD, single cephalic pregnancy at term (P<0.001). As for the indications, “cardiotocographic anomalies” and “failure to progress” in the group of nulliparous women in spontaneous labour and “one previous CD” in multiparous women previous CD correlated significantly with institutional CD rates (P=0.021, P=0.005, and P<0.001, resp.). These results supported the conclusion that only selected indications in specific obstetric groups accounted for interinstitutional variation of CD rates.
A prenatally detected inv dup(15) Pecile, V; Archidiacono, N; Rustico, M A ...
American journal of medical genetics,
August 1984, Letnik:
18, Številka:
4
Journal Article
An extra G group-like chromosome was found in an amniotic fluid cell culture. With multiple banding techniques it was identified as inv dup(15). BUdR incorporation was used to determine the lateral ...asymmetry of the marker, which consisted of 2 distal spots arranged contralaterally, consistent with DNA polarity conservation in chromosome rearrangements.
PDF
