A comparative analysis of fetal outcomes in pre-eclampsia and eclampsia: insights from vaginal, cesarean, and forceps deliveries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20252710Keywords:
Fetal outcome, Vagina delivery, Cesarean section, Forceps deliveryAbstract
Background: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are significant complications of pregnancy, characterized by hypertension and potential multi-organ dysfunction, which pose serious risks to both maternal and fetal health. This study aimed to analyze fetal outcomes in pre-eclampsia and eclampsia: insights from vaginal, cesarean, and forceps deliveries.
Methods: This observational cross-sectional study was carried out in the department of gynaecology and obstetrics at Dhaka medical college hospital, Dhaka, from July 2015 to December 2015. Patients of pre-eclampsia and/or eclampsia who attended the eclampsia ward in the department of gynaecology and obstetrics at Dhaka medical college and hospital, Dhaka were taken as the study population as per inclusion criteria. A total number of 100 patients presented with pre-eclampsia and/or eclampsia fulfilled the selection criteria and were taken as study subjects by purposive sampling method. Different statistical methods were adopted for data analysis. Statistical analysis was performed by using statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS-19).
Results: Regarding fetal outcomes, 81.0% of mothers had live births, with 49.0% normal, 19.0% asphyxiated, and 15.0% requiring NICU admission. Nine percent resulted in stillbirths; all linked to intrauterine devices (IUD). Delivery methods included 77.0% vaginal births, 22.0% cesarean sections, and one forceps delivery, indicating a predominant use of vaginal delivery among the patients.
Conclusions: The 81.0% of mothers experienced live births, and there were concerning rates of adverse outcomes, including asphyxia and NICU admissions. The high rate of vaginal deliveries (77.0%) raises questions about safety, especially given the stillbirths recorded.
Metrics
References
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NCCWCH/NICE). Induction of labor. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), (Clinical guideline; no. 70). 2008;32.
Roberts JM, Pearson G, Cutler J, Lindheimer M. Summary of the NHLBI Working group on research on hypertension during pregnancy. Hypertension. 2003;41(3):437-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.HYP.0000054981.03589.E9
Begum MR, Begum A, Quadir A, Akhter S, and Shamsuddin L. Eclampsia: still a problem in Bangladesh, Med Gen Med. 2004;6(4):52-4.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline No. 10(A). London: RCOG Press. 2006.
WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
Balci O, Mahmoud AS, Acar A, Colakoglu MC. Comparison of induction of labor with vaginal misoprostol plus oxytocin versus oxytocin alone in term primigravidae. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(9):1084-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2010.531798
Frass KA, Shuaib AA, Al-Harazi AH. Misoprostol for induction of labor in women with severe preeclampsia at or near term. Saudi Med J. 2011;32(7):679-84.
Nahar S, Rasul CH, Sayed A, Azim AK. Utility of misoprostol for labor induction in severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004;30(5):349-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00207.x
Kim LH, Cheng YW, Delany S, Jelin AC, Caughey AB. Is preeclampsia associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery if labor is induced? J Matern Fetal Med. 2010;23:383-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903168432
Haddad B, Sibai BM. Expectant management of severe preeclampsia: proper candidates and pregnancy outcome. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48:430-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.grf.0000160315.67359.e6
Liu CM, Cheng PJ, Chang SD. Maternal complications and perinatal outcomes associated with gestational hypertension and severe preeclampsia in Taiwanese women. J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107:129-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60126-6
Taner CE, Hakverdi AU. Hygroscopic cervical dilators in eclampsia. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993;41:283-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(93)90558-E
Khan S, Aleem NT, Hasna AU, Husein S, Khatun K Ara R. A clinical study on risk- factors and feto-maternal outcome of pre-eclampsia in Bangladesh. JBSA. 2013;26(1):39-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/jbsa.v26i1.19815
Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2014;2(6):e323-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X
Frass KA, Shuaib AA, Al-Harazi AH. Misoprostol for induction of labor in women with severe preeclampsia at or near term. Saudi Med J. 2011;32(7):679-84.
Bugalho A. Bique C. Machungo F. Bergström S. A Comparative Study of Vaginal Misoprostol and Intravenous Oxytocin for Induction of Labour. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1995;39(4):252-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000292420
Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. The Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
