Nulliparous Individuals with Class III Obesity: Adverse Outcomes with Labor versus Planned Cesarean Delivery

Abstract

Objective

Individuals with class III obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40 kg/m²) are at increased risk of cesarean delivery (CD) and peripartum complications. We ascertained compositive neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes among individuals with class III obesity who labored versus had planned CD.

Study Design

This was a retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2021 using the National Vital Statistics System database. Nulliparous individuals with class III obesity prepregnancy were included if they had singleton, nonanomalous pregnancies and delivered at 37 to 41 weeks of gestation. Individuals were excluded if they had hypertensive disorders or diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal adverse outcome (CNAO), consisting of Apgar score less than 5 at 5 minutes, assisted ventilation > 6 hours, neonatal seizure, or neonatal death. The secondary outcome was a composite maternal adverse outcome (CMAO) that included admission to the intensive care unit, maternal transfusion, uterine rupture, or unplanned hysterectomy. A sensitivity analysis using a CMAO without transfusion was performed. A multivariable Poisson regression model was performed to calculate adjusted relative risks (aRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Of 192,298 individuals who met inclusion criteria, 169,676 (88.2%) labored and 22,622 (11.8%) had a planned CD. Compared with neonates delivered by planned CD, the risk of CNAO was significantly lower in those who delivered after labor (aRR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71–0.87). There was no significant difference in the risk of CMAO between groups (aRR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.87–1.41). However, the risk of CMAO without transfusion was lower in individuals who labored (aRR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40–0.83).

Conclusion

In nulliparous individuals with class III obesity, the risk of CNAO and of CMAO without transfusion were significantly lower in individuals who labored, versus those who had a planned CD.

Key Points

• Labor in class III obesity: 21% fewer adverse neonatal outcomes.

• Class III obesity: 43% less maternal morbidity with labor.

• Labor in nulliparous individuals with class III obesity is safe.

Keywords

obesity - neonatal morbidity - maternal morbidity - transfusion - cesarean delivery - labor

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 04. September 2024

Angenommen: 17. September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
17. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Oktober 2024

• References

• 1 Obesity in pregnancy: ACOG practice bulletin, number 230. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137 (06) e128-e144
• 2 Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T, Harrington P, Charlett A, Sheridan E. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012; 119 (11) 1324-1333
• 3 Axelsson D, Brynhildsen J, Blomberg M. Maternal obesity and the risk of postpartum infections according to mode of delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2023; 36 (02) 2245102
• 4 Blomberg M. Maternal obesity, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 50-55
• 5 Blomberg M. Maternal obesity and risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (03) 561-568
• 6 Dalbye R, Gunnes N, Blix E. et al. Maternal body mass index and risk of obstetric, maternal and neonatal outcomes: a cohort study of nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021; 100 (03) 521-530
• 7 Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ, Owen J. The association of maternal weight with cesarean risk, labor duration, and cervical dilation rate during labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103 (03) 452-456
• 8 Arrowsmith S, Wray S, Quenby S. Maternal obesity and labour complications following induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy. BJOG 2011; 118 (05) 578-588
• 9 Lynch CM, Sexton DJ, Hession M, Morrison JJ. Obesity and mode of delivery in primigravid and multigravid women. Am J Perinatol 2008; 25 (03) 163-167
• 10 El-Chaar D, Finkelstein SA, Tu X. et al. The impact of increasing obesity class on obstetrical outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (03) 224-233
• 11 Zheng KF, Jones MN, Mol BW, Rolnik DL. The impact of body mass index on labour management and mode of delivery: A retrospective matched cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2024; 64 (03) 216-222
• 12 Visco AG, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN. et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (06) 1517-1529
• 13 Yang XJ, Sun SS. Comparison of maternal and fetal complications in elective and emergency cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296 (03) 503-512
• 14 Subramaniam A, Jauk VC, Goss AR, Alvarez MD, Reese C, Edwards RK. Mode of delivery in women with class III obesity: planned cesarean compared with induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (06) 700.e1-700.e9
• 15 Edwards RK, Harnsberger DS, Johnson IM, Treloar RW, Cruz AC. Deciding on route of delivery for obese women with a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (02) 385-389 , discussion 389–390
• 16 Homer CS, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M. Planned vaginal delivery or planned caesarean delivery in women with extreme obesity. BJOG 2011; 118 (04) 480-487
• 17 Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Carroll CS, Barrilleaux PS, Scardo JA, Martin Jr JN. Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185 (02) 349-354
• 18 Mei JY, Havard AL, Mularz AJ, Maykin MM, Gaw SL. Impact of obesity class on trial of labor after cesarean success: does pre-pregnancy or at-delivery obesity status matter?. J Perinatol 2019; 39 (08) 1042-1049
• 19 Clark-Ganheart CA, Reddy UM, Kominiarek MA, Huang CC, Landy HJ, Grantz KL. Pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring by attempted mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (05) 987-993
• 20 Lavecchia M, Sabbah M, Abenhaim HA. Effect of planned mode of delivery in women with advanced maternal age. Matern Child Health J 2016; 20 (11) 2318-2327
• 21 Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (01) 16-22
• 22 Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P. et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005; 330 (7497) 960-962
• 23 Austin PC. Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2009; 38 (06) 1228-1234
• 24 Gibson C, Rohan AM, Gillespie KH. Severe maternal morbidity during delivery hospitalizations. WMJ 2017; 116 (05) 215-220
• 25 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology 2007; 18 (06) 800-804
• 26 Bart Y, Wiley RL, Ghose I. et al. Nulliparous with class III obesity at term: labor induction or cesarean delivery without labor. Am J Perinatol 2024;
• 27 Loke YK, Mattishent K. Propensity score methods in real-world epidemiology: a practical guide for first-time users. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020; 22 (Suppl. 03) 13-20
• 28 Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58 (06) 550-559
• 29 Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59 (05) 437-447