Articulo de Tarea Grupo Seguridad Vial
Articulo de Tarea Grupo Seguridad Vial
Articulo de Tarea Grupo Seguridad Vial
Abstract
Background: Globally, at least 2.65 million stillbirths occur every year, of which more than half are during the
antepartum period. The proportion of intrapartum stillbirths has substantially declined with improved obstetric care;
however, the number of antepartum stillbirths has not decreased as greatly. Attempts to lower this number may be
hampered by an incomplete understanding of the risk factors leading to the majority of antepartum stillbirths. We
conducted this study in a tertiary hospital in Nepal to identify the specific risk factors that are associated with
antepartum stillbirth in this setting.
Methods: This case-control study was conducted between July 2012 and September 2013. All women who had
antepartum stillbirths during this period were included as cases, while 20 % of all women delivering at the hospital
were randomly selected and included as referents. Information on potential risk factors was taken from medical
records and interviews with the women. Logistic regression analysis was completed to determine the association
between those risk factors and antepartum stillbirth.
Results: During the study period, 4567 women who delivered at the hospital were enrolled as referents, of which
62 had antepartum stillbirths and were re-categorized into the case population. In total, there were 307 antepartum
stillbirths. An association was found between the following risk factors and antepartum stillbirth: increasing maternal
age (aOR 1.0, 95 % CI 1.0–1.1), less than five years of maternal education (aOR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.7–3.2), increasing parity
(aOR 1.2, 95 % CI 1.0–1.3), previous stillbirth (aOR 2.6, 95 % CI 1.6–4.4), no antenatal care attendance (aOR 4.2, 95 %
CI 3.2–5.4), belonging to the poorest family (aOR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0–1.8), antepartum hemorrhage (aOR 3.7, 95 % CI
2.4–5.7), maternal hypertensive disorder during pregnancy (aOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.5–3.1), and small weight-for-
gestational age babies (aOR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.2–2.0).
Conclusion: Lack of antenatal care attendance, which had the strongest association with antepartum stillbirth, is a
potentially modifiable risk factor, in that increasing the access to and availability of these services can be targeted.
Antenatal care attendance provides an opportunity to screen for other potential risk factors for antepartum stillbirth,
as well as to provide counseling to women, and thus, helps to ensure a successful pregnancy outcome.
Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN97846009 (url. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN97846009)
Keywords: Antepartum stillbirth, Risk factors, Nepal
* Correspondence: aaashis7@yahoo.com
1
Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, International Maternal and
Child Health, Uppsala University, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden
2
United Nation’s Children’s Fund, Nepal Country Office, UN House, Pulchowk,
Nepal
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2015 KC et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://
creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
KC et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2015) 15:146 Page 2 of 10
Table 1 Human resources and set-up of each of the delivery units at the hospital
Delivery units Type of Health workers Number of HW Number of delivery beds Type of delivery service
Participants
All women with antepartum stillbirth occurring during
the study period were included as cases. Randomly se- Admission Unit
lected referent women with live births or intrapartum Admission of delivering woman in the hospital
stillbirths were included as referents. Any antepartum
stillbirth occurring in the referent population was ex-
cluded from this group, re-categorized and included in
the case population.
Admission unit-Surveillance team
Data collection
For data collection, a surveillance team was set up under -
the guidance of a research manager (RV). There were 12
surveillance officers placed full time at the admission,
delivery and postnatal units for data collection. Any
woman admitted to the hospital for delivery was marked
in the surveillance registry. From this sampling frame, Admission unit-Surveillance team
study participants were randomly selected using a lottery
technique. If a woman was selected as part of the refer-
ent population, she was tracked from the point of admis-
sion until discharge to assess labor progress and birth
outcomes. Additionally, the surveillance officers tracked
all women who had stillbirths occurring in the hospital.
Delivery unit-Surveillance team
From both the referent and case populations, informa-
tion on parity, previous obstetric and medical history,
care during the current pregnancy, obstetric and/or
medical complications during pregnancy, and intrapar- partum).
tum care was retrieved from clinical record forms. The
surveillance team conducted structured interviews with medical history, care during the current pregnancy, obstetric
each woman at their time of discharge using a question-
naire to evaluate social, demographic and household in- period and birth outcome from clinical record form
formation (Fig. 1).
After the completion of the clinical record and inter-
view forms for each woman, the research manager
reviewed the forms for completeness. The data entry of- Postnatal unit-Surveillance team
ficer further reviewed and indexed each form to prevent
data loss, as well as to ensure data security. Data was en-
tered into a database for data cleaning using the Census
and Survey Processing System (CS Pro) software (US
Census Bureau and ICF International). This dataset was
Fig. 1 Data collection flow chart
then exported to the Statistical Package for Social
KC et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2015) 15:146 Page 4 of 10
previous stillbirth, antepartum hemorrhage during preg- binary variables as yes or no. And finally, the sex of the
nancy, hypertensive disorder during pregnancy, any med- newborn was categorized as male or female.
ical complication during pregnancy, multiple birth, or Comparison of the demographic, social and obstetric
small weight-for-gestational age were categorized into characteristics among case and referent populations was
Total number of women who came to hospital for delivery during the study period (N=26914)
Excluded:
-
referent women (n=107)
done using Pearson’s chi-square and fisher’s exact test. A higher in less educated woman compared to more edu-
comparison of the mean and median maternal age in the cated (cOR 2.5, 95 % CI 1.8–3.4), and 2.5 times higher
two populations was done using a t-test. in the poorest women compared to the non-poor (cOR
For those demographic, social and obstetric character- 2.5, 95 % CI 1.8–3.4). Women who had not attended any
istics that differed (p < 0.01) between the two population antenatal care visits had 4.5 times higher risk of stillbirth
groups, univariate logistic regression analysis was con- compared to those who had attended at least one ante-
ducted to test the association between those variables natal care visit (cOR 4.5, 95 % CI 3.5–5.7). Similarly, the
and antepartum stillbirth. likelihood of antepartum stillbirth increased by 50 % if
For those variables, which showed an association with the women had previously been pregnant compared to
antepartum stillbirth in the univariate logistic regression those who were primiparous (cOR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.4–1.6).
analysis a multivariate model was created to determine Women who had previous stillbirth had four times
whether the association between the potential risk factors higher risk of antepartum stillbirth compared to those
and antepartum stillbirth remained after adjusting for who did not (cOR 4.2, 95 % CI 2.7–6.5). The women
confounders. The variables investigated were maternal age with antepartum hemorrhage and/or hypertensive dis-
(continuous), maternal education, wealth index (poor or order during pregnancy had a 4.5 times increased risk of
non-poor), antenatal care attendance, parity, previous antepartum stillbirth (cOR 4.5, 95 % CI 3.1–6.7). Finally,
stillbirth, antepartum hemorrhage in pregnancy, hyperten- the women who delivered small-for-gestational age
sive disorder during pregnancy, and small weight-for- babies had a 50 % higher likelihood for antepartum
gestational age. stillbirth than those who had appropriate weight-for-
We used the multiple imputation method to deal with gestational age (cOR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.2–1.9) (Table 3).
data missing at random from the case or referent popu- Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted
lations within the demographic, social, and/or obstetric to adjust for the interaction of exposure variables with one
variables [19]. other. In this model, the risk of antepartum stillbirth was
still increased among women with increasing age, who
Results had no education, belonged to the poorest families, had a
During the fifteen months of the study period, 26,914 higher parity, who did not go for antenatal care checkups,
women were admitted in the hospital for delivery. A had a previous stillbirth, had antepartum hemorrhage or
total of 4567 women who were selected as referents de- hypertensive disorder during pregnancy, and/or who had
livered in the hospital; of these, 62 women had antepar- small-for-gestational age babies (Table 4).
tum stillbirths and were therefore excluded from the
referent population and added to the case population. Discussion
There were a total of 307 antepartum stillbirths in the Through this study we found that the risk of antepartum
hospital, giving an antepartum stillbirth rate of 13.6 per stillbirth was higher among women with less than five
thousand births (Fig. 2). years of education, who belonged to the poorest family,
When the demographic, social and obstetric characteris- who were older, had higher parity and who did not at-
tics of the case and referent populations were compared, tend any antenatal care visits. Similarly, the risk of ante-
the mean age for the case population was 25.7 years and partum stillbirth was also increased for women who had
for the referent women it was 23.7 years. Maternal age, a previous stillbirth, antepartum hemorrhage or hyperten-
maternal education, wealth index, antenatal care attend- sive disorder during pregnancy, or small-for-gestational
ance and parity were different between the two groups age babies in a tertiary hospital setting in Nepal. Similar to
(p < 0.001). Women in the case population were less edu- our results, studies in developed countries have identified
cated, were from poorer families, had no antenatal care at- several modifiable risk factors for antepartum stillbirth
tendance and had more children (higher parity). In such as lack of antenatal care, antepartum hemorrhage,
regards to obstetric complications, the case population hypertensive disorder during pregnancy, and small-for-
had more previous stillbirths and a higher prevalence of gestational age babies, however, the socio-economic and
antepartum hemorrhage and hypertensive disorder during health service settings were different [4, 7, 20]. A study
pregnancy than the referent population (p < 0.001). The conducted in India has also identified lack of antenatal
women in case population also had more small- care as a modifiable risk factor for stillbirth [21].
for-gestational age babies than the referent population There are several limitations to this study. First, some of
(p = 0.001) (Table 2). the potential risk factors for antepartum stillbirth, such as
Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the placental insufficiency or genetic disorders, could not be
odds of antepartum stillbirth increased by 10 % with assessed due to the lack of placental examination, both
each increasing year of maternal age (cOR 1.1, 95 % CI grossly and microscopically, and gene analysis. Similarly,
1.07–1.1). The risk of antepartum stillbirth was 2.5 times not all women, even those who had antenatal care, had
KC et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2015) 15:146 Page 7 of 10
Table 2 Background and social characteristics of case and referent populations (Continued)
Sex of newborn
Female 2115 (46.9) 136 (44.3)
Male 2390 (53.1) 171 (55.7)
Multiple birth
No 4463 (99.1) 300 (97.7) p < 0.023
Yes 42 (0.9) 7 (2.3)
Small-for-gestational age
Appropriate-for-gestational age 2811 (62.4) 161 (52.4) p = 0.001
Small-for-gestational age 1694 (37.6) 146 (47.6)
*
p-value determined by t-test, Pearson’s chi-square analysis or Fisher’s exact test
14. World Bank and DFID. Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion
in Nepal –Summary Report. Kathmandu: World Bank, Department for
International Development (DFID); 2006.
15. Howe LD, Hargreaves JR, Gabrysch S, Huttly SR. Is the wealth index a proxy
for consumption expenditure? A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community
Health. 2009;63(11):871–7.
16. Rutstein SO, Johnson K. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports
No. 6. Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro. 2004.
17. Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure
data–or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India.
Demography. 2001;38(1):115–32.
18. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States
national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(2):163–8.
19. Barnard J, Meng XL. Applications of multiple imputation in medical studies:
from AIDS to NHANES. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):17–36.
20. Flenady V, Koopmans L, Middleton P, Froen JF, Smith GC, Gibbons K, et al.
Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;377(9774):1331–40.
21. Mavalankar DV, Trivedi CR, Gray RH. Levels and risk factors for perinatal
mortality in Ahmedabad, India. Bull World Health Organ. 1991;69(4):435–42.
22. Smith R, Maiti K, Aitken RJ. Unexplained antepartum stillbirth: a
consequence of placental aging? Placenta. 2013;34(4):310–3.
23. Haws RA, Yakoob MY, Soomro T, Menezes EV, Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA.
Reducing stillbirths: screening and monitoring during pregnancy and
labour. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9 Suppl 1:S5.
24. Jabeen M, Yakoob MY, Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Impact of interventions to
prevent and manage preeclampsia and eclampsia on stillbirths. BMC Public
Health. 2011;11 Suppl 3:S6.
25. Hofmeyr GJ, Haws RA, Bergstrom S, Lee AC, Okong P, Darmstadt GL, et al.
Obstetric care in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome
challenges to scale up? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107 Suppl 1:S21–44. S44-25.
26. Ministry of Health and Population, Government of Nepal. Aama Surakshya
Karyakram 2009. Kathmandu, Nepal: Family Health Division; 2009.
27. Ministry of Health and Population, New Era, ICF Macro, USAID. Nepal
Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: New Era; 2011.