Perinatal outcomes of low‐risk planned home and hospital births under midwife‐led care in Japan

Abstract

It has not been extensively studied whether planned home and planned hospital births under primary midwife-led care increase risk of adverse events among low-risk women in Japan. A retrospective cohort study was performed to compare perinatal outcome between 291 women who were given primary midwife-led care during labor and 217 women who were given standard obstetric shared care. Among 291 women with primary midwife-led care, 168 and 123 chose home deliver and hospital delivery, respectively. Perinatal outcomes included length of labor of 24 h or more, augmentation of labor pains, delivery mode, severe perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage of 1000 mL or more, maternal fever of 38°C or more and neonatal asphyxia (Apgar score, <7). Analysis was by intention to treat. The incidence of transfer from primary midwife-led care to obstetric shared care was 27% (77 women) mainly due to failure of labor progress (21%, 16 women), postpartum hemorrhage (19%, 15 women) and non-reassuring fetal status (19%, 15 women). Significantly higher incidence of transfer to obstetric shared care from primary midwife-led care was seen among women who chose hospital delivery compared with women who chose home delivery (34 vs 21%, P = 0.011). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes between women with obstetric shared care and women with primary midwife-led care (regardless of being hospital delivery or home delivery). Approximately one-quarter of low-risk women with primary midwife-led care required obstetric care during labor or postpartum. However, primary midwife-led care during labor at home and hospital for low-risk pregnant women was not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in Japan.