Sentences with phrase «morbidity at»

There is one way to make sure that you do not succumb to this feeling of morbidity at the thought of appearing for an interview.

Conejero, R., Bonet, A., Grau, T., Esteban, A., Mesejo, A., Montejo, J. C., Lopez, J., and Acosta, J. A. Effect of a glutamine - enriched enteral diet on intestinal permeability and infectious morbidity at 28 days in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a randomized, single - blind, prospective, multicenter study.

«Successful obesity treatment during adolescence could reduce morbidity at later stages of life and lead to a better quality of life,» said Amelia Martí, Ph.D., Pharm.

Wouldn't it be less confusing, in this example, to say: five women who suffered maternal morbidity in the hospital, two of whom died, compared to five women who suffered maternal morbidity at home, four of whom died?

Perinatal mortality rates for hospital births of low risk women are similar to outcomes of planned homebirth in general, but the maternal morbidity at planned hospital births is much higher.

Not exact matches

Oregon's bill, which also passed easily this month, creates a review committee that will start by focusing on maternal deaths; by 2021, it will also begin looking at severe maternal morbidity.

These genes are implicated in highly penetrant genetic disorders for which surgical or other interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality are available to pathogenic variant carriers.5 Identification of a pathogenic variant in one of these genes could be diagnostic of a medical condition with potential implications for an individual's medical management.

There are mainly 3 things that may however incite a sports org to invest more seriously in testing: 1) Pressure from the fans, 2) Pressure from athletes themselves, 3) Risks of being eventually recognized as facilitating or being complicit with doping, especially if athletes are at greater risk of morbidity either during their careers, or even after.

So really, the safest place to birth is at home, when you consider morbidity as well as mortality.

Summary: The deaths caused by rare acute condition at planned attended low risk homebirth that might have had a better outcome in hospital are outweighed by the deaths and morbidity due to common acute conditions caused by hospital interventions.

In other words, there was no difference in severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM) between home and hospital among nulliparous women and a slightly lower rate of SAMM for parous women at homebirth.

Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth.

The goal of regionalized maternal care is for pregnant women at high risk to receive care in facilities that are prepared to provide the required level of specialized care, thereby reducing maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States.

Conclusions: Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth.

Comparing rates of severe morbidity is typically used as a marker instead, it isn't something uncommon or underhanded at all.

It's not necessary for death and morbidity to happen at comparably the same rate in order for it to be bad count only morbidity.

But when the study specifically looks at «severe, acute morbidity,» I find it a bit surprising that there weren't enough deaths to signify, so that's why I asked.

Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units).

What is most striking is that: while a baby born at 40 weeks has a 1.5 % risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity, this jumps to 2.1 % risk at 39 weeks, 5.1 % at 38 weeks and 10 % at 37 weeks (8).

There was no difference overall between birth settings in the incidence of the primary outcome (composite of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities), but there was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

Therefore, when attempting to assess maternal effects, it makes sense to look at morbidity.

Most studies of homebirth in other countries have found no statistically significant differences in perinatal outcomes between home and hospital births for women at low risk of complications.36, 37,39 However, a recent study in the United States showed poorer neonatal outcomes for births occurring at home or in birth centres.40 A meta - analysis in the same year demonstrated higher perinatal mortality associated with homebirth41 but has been strongly criticised on methodological grounds.5, 42 The Birthplace in England study, 43 the largest prospective cohort study on place of birth for women at low risk of complications, analysed a composite outcome, which included stillbirth and early neonatal death among other serious morbidity.

They were noted, recorded and were probably discussed at length by a huge team of people at morbidity / mortality meetings.

So I think it is clear, at least to me, that the tradeoff is that homebirth lowers minor morbidity in the mother and replaces it with major morbidity in the baby through a lack of timely intervention.

To assess the robustness of the results of our regression analysis, we performed covariate adjustment with derived propensity scores to calculate the absolute risk difference (details are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).14, 15 To calculate the adjusted absolute risk difference, we used predictive margins and G - computation (i.e., regression - model — based outcome prediction in both exposure settings: planned in - hospital and planned out - of - hospital birth).16, 17 Finally, we conducted post hoc analyses to assess associations between planned out - of - hospital birth and outcomes (cesarean delivery and a composite of perinatal morbidity and mortality), which were stratified according to parity, maternal age, maternal education, and risk level.

In addition, much of the data compiled on vaginal delivery looks at «positive outcomes» alone (i.e. a planned vaginal delivery that ends up as a vaginal delivery) rather than «all planned vaginal delivery outcomes» (including those that result in emergency cesareans) and their subsequent mortalities or morbidities.

The mean net monetary benefit associated with shifts to non-obstetric unit settings varied from # 2486 (# 2259 to # 2692)(alongside midwifery units) to # 4498 (# 4306 to # 4669)(home) at a # 20000 cost effectiveness threshold for avoiding a maternal morbidity (table 5 ⇓), and from # 3828 (# 3600 to # 4052)(alongside midwifery units) to # 6609 (# 6411 to # 6810)(home) at a # 20000 cost effectiveness threshold for achieving an additional normal birth (table 6 ⇓).

Adverse maternal morbidity: defined as at least one of: general anaesthetic; instrumental birth; caesarean section; third or fourth degree perineal trauma; blood transfusion; admission to an intensive treatment unit, high dependency unit, or specialist unit; or maternal death (within 42 days after giving birth)

The data also show that early term babies delivered by cesarean section were at a higher risk — by 12.2 percent — for admission to the NICU compared with full - term babies and at 7.5 percent higher risk for morbidity compared with term births.

After evaluating admission patterns among newborn infants between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation at Women and Children's Hospital, Lakshminrusimha, Sengupta and colleagues found that these early - term infants were more likely to suffer some morbidity within a few hours of birth.

Main outcome measures were maternal outcomes (mortality; place and mode of birth; perineal trauma; type of management of the third stage of labor; post-partum hemorrhage; transfer to hospital); and neonatal outcomes (early mortality; Apgar score at 5 minutes; birth weight; breast - feeding initially and at 6 weeks; significant morbidity; transfer to hospital; admission to a special care nursery).

So a team of Dutch researchers decided to test whether low risk women at the onset of labour with planned home birth have a higher rate of rare but severe outcomes (known as severe acute maternal morbidity or SAMM) than those with planned hospital births.

The follow up study showed that despite initial morbidity, there were no differences at two years.

Overall, they conclude: «Low risk women in primary care with planned home birth at the onset of labour had a lower rate of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth.

«Among women who intended to birth at home with midwives in Ontario, the risk of stillbirth, neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity was low and did not differ from midwifery clients who chose hospital birth,» writes Dr. Eileen Hutton, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Midwifery Education Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, with coauthors.

Other outcomes of interest were stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at other time points (two, three, four, nine and 12 months), measures of neonatal and infant morbidity (where available), and measures of maternal satisfaction with care or feeding method.

Additionally, results from the same analysis looking at breastfeeding promotion interventions found that diarrhoea morbidity was lower in the group receiving the intervention.

The study authors provided data from multiples for infant morbidity (jaundice, infant feeding difficulty, weight loss, dehydration, illness not related to jaundice / feeding, ER visit, and hospitalisation) at two weeks after discharge, and two months after discharge, and measures ofmaternal satisfaction (amount of information on feeding your baby, clarity of information on feeding your baby, amount of help with feeding your baby, and total satisfaction with care), assessed in hospital, two weeks after discharge, and two months after discharge.

Using data from a national study into maternal morbidity and national birth registry data from 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, they identified over 146,000 low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour.

Morbidity and mortality The reported risk of food allergy at 12 months of age was statistically significantly reduced among exclusively breastfed infants relative to mixed breastfed infants by 81 % (RR 0.19, 95 % CI [0.08 to 0.48], p = 0.00036; 1 study / 135 infants); however, when double - challenged with food in the same study, the effect size was reduced and became non-significant (RR 0.77, 95 % CI [0.25 to 2.41], p = 0.66).

Failed trial of labor in women at term with prior cesarean is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidities.

So, initially a high risk mom may have a worse labor morbidity chance but in the first 24 hours - her baby would be less likely to die at home than it would in the hospital.

«Low risk women in primary care with planned home birth at the onset of labour had a lower rate of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth.

Newborns whose mothers planned a home birth were at similar or reduced risk of fetal and neonatal morbidity compared with newborns whose mothers planned a hospital birth, except for admission to hospital (or readmission if born in hospital), which was more likely compared with newborns whose mothers were in the physician - attended cohort.

Targeting these women for early screening of postpartum depression may identify women at risk and allow clinicians to reduce the morbidity associated with both postpartum depression and curtailed breastfeeding.

Conclusions: Predominant breast feeding for at least six months and partial breast feeding for up to one year may reduce the prevalence and subsequent morbidity of respiratory illness and infection in infancy.

«Elective deliveries prior to 39 weeks definitely have some increased morbidity,» says Abdulla Al - Khan, MD, the director and chief of maternal and fetal medicine and surgery at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey Other factors such as type of delivery and reason for early term delivery also affect these risks, he says.

there's some stuff looking at morbidity and mortality in young children who have been weaned (or not) that might be worth looking at... all developing country contexts but that's where you find enough children breastfeeding past infancy to look at!

Our data agrees with that of others, 1223 that suggest that delaying the introduction of formula milk protects against the morbidity associated with respiratory infection, illness, and associated hospitalisations in the first year of life.24 Prolonged breast feeding was only marginally associated with less respiratory illness when examined in a New Zealand birth cohort to 2 years of age, 25 and the Dundee study8 showed a small, yet significant protective effect of breast feeding against respiratory illness at 0 — 13 weeks and 40 — 52 weeks after adjustment for social class, maternal age, and parental smoking.

Today is is about the same on mortality rates, and morbidity is far lower at home, simply because women are NOT messed with as much during their labors, allowing for a safer passage of the baby.