Metformin Use in Nondiabetic Obese Pregnancy

Article from The Daily Mail, 2011

One of the strongest concerns doctors have about pregnancies in the "obese" is that larger people tend to have larger (macrosomic) babies. Although most macrosomic babies are born just fine, they do have higher rates of shoulder dystocia (babies who get stuck) and related injuries, as well as low blood sugar at birth and more cesareans. So doctors want to do everything they can to prevent abnormally big babies.

Some macrosomia is tied to high blood sugar and high insulin levels. So in hopes of preventing big babies, doctors have been using the diabetes medication, metformin, in those diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes (GD) or Polcystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS).

A number of studies have confirmed that metformin use in women with GD does modestly reduce the rate of big babies. It also lowers the rate of early pregnancy loss and prematurity in PCOS. More research is needed but metformin does seem to be a very helpful drug for people with GD or PCOS. No one is questioning this use of metformin.

However, the use of metformin in obese women WITHOUT gestational diabetes or PCOS is a different story. Doctors note that even high BMI people who are not diabetic have larger babies on average. So the working theory has been that these women must be pre-diabetic or have strong insulin resistance that increases fetal size.

So doctors began prescribing metformin to nondiabetic obese women in hopes that lowering insulin levels and borderline blood sugar would cut the odds of a big baby.

The practice was aggressively marketed to the public as a way to prevent "obese babies" before its research was even completed (see headlines quoted here from The Daily Mail 2011 and 2012).

But what does the research say about this use of metformin? Here is a quick summary of the three largest trials.

The Studies on Non-Diabetic High BMI Women

From article in the Daily Mail, 2012

Chiswick 2015

Several years ago, a large study called the EMPOWaR trial (Chiswick 2015) tested this theory in the U.K.

This study involved 15 hospitals and was a large, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, the gold standard of research. It had n=434 participants with a BMI over 30 for analysis. The maximum metformin dose was 2500 mg.

To authors' great surprise, they found that metformin did NOT lower neonatal size.

Syngelaki 2016

Some common criticisms of the EMPOWaR study were that the metformin dose was too low, the participants weren't fat enough to show any big effect, and they did not take doses strictly enough.

Therefore, in a subsequent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Syngelaki 2016, the MOP trial), n=400 participants were limited to those with a BMI over 35. This study, too, was a randomized, double-blind study with placebo controls and was more racially diverse.

The researchers increased the metformin dose to a maximum of 3000 mg and made sure there was strong adherence to the medication. By limiting the analysis to those with a BMI over 35, increasing the dosage, including more women of color, and making sure metformin was consistently used, the authors hoped to show more of an effect.

To their surprise, results were again similar. While the metformin group had a slightly lower weight gain, fetal size was the same between groups.

Dodd 2019

Researchers just can't leave this theory alone.

Now there is a new study (the GRoW trial) out, also testing the metformin theory (Dodd 2019). This trial was done in Australia and included women with a BMI over 25 (in other words, both "overweight" and "obese"). No previous study had included those in the overweight category.

This also was a gold standard randomized study, n=514 participants. It used doses of up to 2000 mg.

It also found slightly less weight gain in the metformin group but NO difference in birthweight of the babies.

Research Summary

There have been a few other, small studies about metformin use in nondiabetic women, but none have been as large or as strong as these studies. No study so far has found that metformin lowers neonatal birthweight in nondiabetic women. That message is very clear and consistent.

There were other outcomes that weren't as clear. Some, but not all, studies found a mild lowering of prenatal weight gain. Some found decreased incidence of preeclampsia, while others did not. No other outcomes were routinely affected.

At this point, the hypothesis that metformin will "normalize" the size of high BMI women's babies has pretty well been disproven. I'm sure there will be more studies on it because the theory is a favorite of many OBs, but these are strong studies and frankly, I doubt they'll be overturned.

The good news is that no babies seem to have been harmed in these studies. However, many of the mothers experienced significant gastrointestinal side effects from the metformin and this some caused drop-outs or scaled-back dosing. If you've ever taken metformin, you know the G.I. effects can be considerable. This certainly affects people's quality of life. As a result, it's not something that should be prescribed lightly.

The take-home message from research: Metformin is a great drug that can be useful for some indications (like GD or PCOS) but in nondiabetic high BMI women it does not lower neonatal birthweight. As the authors of the EMPOWaR study concluded:

... metformin should not be used to improve pregnancy outcomes in obese women without diabetes.

The Fat-Shaming Around These Studies

Illustration from the 2012 Daily Mail article

It has to be pointed out that the U.K. public health campaign around these studies was glaringly fat-shaming.

Look at the caption above. Fat women are accused of letting their babies be "born obese," of passing on their toxic obesity in the womb through their carelessness about their health. They use the classic picture of a fat body with the head cut off, depersonalizing the subject. The person is even holding a roll of fat, pointing out visual blame so the negative message is even clearer. 

The articles were filled with scary summaries of the risks of obesity and pregnancy, without any context for those risks, how often they don't happen, and what can be done about them when they do. It's not unreasonable to inform women of size of the possible risks around weight and pregnancy, but it's another thing to misrepresent those risks to scare or shame women out of pregnancy.

The campaign was attempting to inflame the public about irresponsible fat people, implying that they refuse to be healthy and are costing the NHS huge amounts of money, taking money away from everyone else. The U.K. is a very fat-phobic place and the government is scapegoating fat people for their healthcare budget woes.

The language of the campaign was also offensive. They used the terms "fat babies" or "obese babies" in order to shame the mothers, but a big baby is not necessarily the same as an "obese" baby. They are conflating fetal size caused by diabetic complications with big babies that are simply larger than average.

All big babies are not alike. Some babies are big because of blood sugar issues, and these babies do tend to be abnormally proportioned and have more issues at birth. On the other hand, some babies are just naturally larger without it being pathological. There is a significant difference between a diabetic's baby that is 9 lbs. but only 16 inches long and a 9 lb. baby that is 22 inches long. The first is abnormal and a true concern; the second is proportional and most likely genetic. The first type often has problems being born safely and has many complications; the second type of big baby is proportional and can usually be born vaginally.

Furthermore, the campaign is simplistic and misleading. Not all obese mothers have macrosomic babies; one study found that only 17% of obese women had macrosomic babies while 83% of them did NOT. Subjecting all obese women to metformin "just in case" means medicating many people who wouldn't produce a big baby anyhow. What potential harm might that be doing?

Some people of average size also have macrosomic babies without blood sugar or insulin issues; no one knows why some babies are bigger than others. And many big babies do have vaginal births; Navti 2007 found that 83% of women who had babies around 10 pounds or more were able to have vaginal births. This shows that even very big babies can often be born vaginally, given time, patience, sufficient mobility, and a calm caregiver. We need to stop panicking over babies that are larger than average and save our intervention for those who truly need it.

Researchers: Stop trying to put the baby on a diet before it is even born. Metformin for reducing fetal size does not work in nondiabetics. 

Public Health Campaigns: Stop promoting weight stigma and fat-shaming in your campaigns about obesity and pregnancy. 



References

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jan;7(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30310-3. Epub 2018 Dec 4. Effect of metformin in addition to dietary and lifestyle advice for pregnant women who are overweight or obese: the GRoW randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dodd JM, Louise J, Deussen AR, Grivell RM, Dekker G, McPhee AJ, Hague W.  PMID: 30528218

... GRoW was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which pregnant women at 10-20 weeks' gestation with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher were recruited from three public maternity units in Adelaide, SA, Australia. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated schedule to receive either metformin (to a maximum dose of 2000 mg per day) or matching placebo. Participants, their antenatal care providers, and research staff (including outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation...  FINDINGS: Of 524 women who were randomly assigned between May, 28 2013 and April 26, 2016, 514 were included in outcome analyses (256 in the metformin group and 258 in the placebo group). Median gestational age at trial entry was 16·29 weeks (IQR 14·43-18·00) and median BMI was 32·32 kg/m2 (28·90-37·10); 167 (32%) participants were overweight and 347 (68%) were obese. There was no significant difference in the proportion of infants with birthweight greater than 4000 g (40 [16%] with metformin vs 37 [14%] with placebo; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·47; p=0·899). Women receiving metformin had lower average weekly gestational weight gain (adjusted mean difference -0·08 kg, 95% CI -0·14 to -0·02; p=0·007) and were more likely to have gestational weight gain below recommendations (aRR 1·46, 95% CI 1·10 to 1·94; p=0·008). ... INTERPRETATION: For pregnant women who are overweight or obese, metformin given in addition to dietary and lifestyle advice initiated at 10-20 weeks' gestation does not improve pregnancy and birth outcomes.

N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 4;374(5):434-43.doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509819. Metformin versus Placebo in Obese Pregnant Women without Diabetes Mellitus. Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH, Balani J, Hyer S, Akolekar R, Kotecha R, Pastides A, Shehata H. PMID: 26840133

[kmom summary] Randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Limited to those with BMI over 35 and upped the metformin dosage. Less preeclampsia and less weight gain in metformin group but no difference in birth weight. "CONCLUSIONS: Among women without diabetes who had a BMI of more than 35, the antenatal administration of metformin reduced maternal weight gain but not neonatal birth weight."

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Oct;3(10):778-86. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00219-3. Epub 2015 Jul 9. Effect of metformin on maternal and fetal outcomes in obese pregnant women (EMPOWaR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Chiswick C, Reynolds RM, Denison F, Drake AJ, Forbes S, Newby DE, Walker BR, Quenby S, Wray S, Weeks A, Lashen H, Rodriguez A, Murray G, Whyte S, Norman JE. PMID: 26165398 Free full text here.

[kmom summary] Randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind study in 15 hospitals in the U.K. on nondiabetic women. Results: "Metformin has no significant effect on birthweight percentile in obese pregnant women."

Previous discussion of these studies and others:

• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2011/12/fourth-annual-turkey-awards-leaps-of.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2015/10/metformin-does-not-lower-birthweight.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2016/03/once-again-metformin-does-not-reduce.html

Metformin for Gestational Diabetes or PCOS

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Nov 20:1-141. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1550480. [Epub ahead of print] Metformin-treated-GDM has lower risk of macrosomia compared to diet-treated GDM- A retrospective cohort study. Bashir M, Aboulfotouh M, Dabbous Z, Mokhtar M, Siddique M, Wahba R, Ibrahim A, Al-Houda Brich S, Konje JC, Abou-Samra AB. PMID: 30458653

...This is a retrospective cohort study that included GDM women compared to normoglycaemic controls between March 2015-December 2016 in the Women's Hospital, Qatar. RESULTS: The study included 2221 women; of which 1420 were normoglycaemic, and 801 were GDM (358 GDM-D and 443 GDM-T)... Women in the GDM-T group had lower GWG/week compared to GDM-D (-0.01 ± 0.7 versus 0.21 ± 0.51 kg/week; p < 0.001). After correcting for age, prepregnancy weight and GWG; GDM-T had higher risk of preterm labour (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.20-2.22), and C-section (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02-1.85) and reduced risk of macrosomia (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32-0.96) and neonatal hypoglycaemia (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.82). CONCLUSION: ... Treatment with metformin reduces maternal weight gain, the risk of macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycaemia compared to diet alone.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Dec;95(12):E448-55. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0853. Epub 2010 Oct 6. Metformin versus placebo from first trimester to delivery in polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, controlled multicenter study. Vanky E et al.  PMID: 20926533

[kmom summary] n=274 PCOS pregnancies. Randomized controlled trial with placebos. Less prematurity, but more pre-eclampsia in metformin group. Less weight gain in metformin group. No difference in fetal size between groups.  

Hospitals with Midwives on Staff Have Better Outcomes

Here are two recent studies showing that hospitals with midwives and doctors practicing together ("interprofessional" centers) have better outcomes than hospitals with only doctors. One study is on first-time mothers (nulliparous), and the other study is on women who have given birth before (multiparous), to separate out the possible effects of parity.

In first-time mothers, women were much less likely to be induced or have oxytocin augmentation of labor in interprofessional/collaborative centers. The cesarean rate was 12% lower in interprofessional centers too.

For multiparous mothers (multips), women were again much less likely to be induced or have augmentation of labor in interprofessional centers. The first-time cesarean rate was 36% lower, and the Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) rate was 31% higher than in institutions with only doctors. Neonatal outcomes were similar between the two types of centers.

The implication here is that not only do midwives lower the rates of interventions without endangering outcomes, they also influence the hospital culture in a positive way. Doctors who work with midwives tend to be more flexible about interventions, less likely to push a cesarean without need, and more likely to support VBACs.

If you are considering a hospital birth, try to choose a hospital with both doctors and midwives on staff, one with low overall cesarean rates, and strongly consider hiring a doula for professional labor support. Most women can safely be attended by a midwife, so make that your first choice if you can. If a risk comes up that means that you need to see an OB or high-risk maternal fetal medicine (MFM) specialist, the midwife will refer you to one, probably one that is supportive of the parents' birth wishes whenever conditions allow.



References

Birth. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/birt.12407. [Epub ahead of print] Midwifery presence in United States medical centers and labor care and birth outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study. Neal JL, Carlson NS, Phillippi JC, Tilden EL, Smith DC, Breman RB, Dietrich MS, Lowe NK. PMID: 30417436

...Our objective was to compare labor processes and outcomes for low-risk nulliparous women birthing in United States medical centers with interprofessional care (midwives and physicians) versus noninterprofessional care (physicians only). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk nulliparous women who birthed in interprofessional (n = 7393) or noninterprofessional centers (n = 6982). .. women at interprofessional medical centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 74% less likely to undergo labor induction (risk ratio [RR] 0.26; 95% CI 0.24-0.29) and 75% less likely to have oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.22-0.29). The cesarean birth rate was 12% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in only 0.3% of births and were thus too rare to be modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The care processes and birth outcomes at interprofessional and noninterprofessional medical centers differed significantly. Nulliparous women receiving care at interprofessional centers were less likely to experience induction, oxytocin augmentation, and cesarean than women at noninterprofessional centers. Labor care and birth outcome differences between interprofessional and noninterprofessional centers may be the result of the presence of midwives and interprofessional collaboration, organizational culture, or both.

Birth. 2018 Nov 9. doi: 10.1111/birt.12405. [Epub ahead of print] Influence of midwifery presence in United States centers on labor care and outcomes of low-risk parous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study. Carlson NS, Neal JL, Tilden EL, Smith DC, Breman RB, Lowe NK, Dietrich MS, Phillippi JC. PMID: 30414200

...We sought to use national United States data to analyze the association between midwifery presence in maternity care teams and the birth processes and outcomes of low-risk parous women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk parous women in either interprofessional care (n = 12 125) or noninterprofessional care centers (n = 8996). .. women at interprofessional centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 85% less likely to have labor induced (risk ratio [RR] 0.15; 95% CI 0.14-0.17). The risk for primary cesarean birth among low-risk parous women was 36% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.64; 95% CI 00.52-0.79), whereas the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean for this population was 31% higher (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.56). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Parous women have significantly higher rates of vaginal birth, including vaginal birth after cesarean, and lower likelihood of labor induction when cared for in centers with midwives. Our findings are consistent with smaller analyses of midwifery practice and support integrated, team-based models of perinatal care to improve maternal outcomes.

How to Find a Chiropractor in Pregnancy: Part Two

We have been discussing chiropractic care in pregnancy and how it can be helpful towards a more comfortable pregnancy and possibly a more efficient labor and birth.

Many people are interested in seeing a chiropractor, but some know nothing about how to find a good chiropractor for pregnancy.

Basically, all chiropractors receive some training in treating pregnant women, so you could see most chiropractors and get at least some help. However, some chiropractors are more highly trained in pregnancy than others and you are probably better off with those.

Your best bet is to find a chiropractor who is trained in the Webster Technique, which is a specific protocol that looks at the alignment of the sacrum and pelvis and the balancing of soft tissues (muscles, ligaments) around it:

The Webster technique is a specific chiropractic analysis and diversified adjustment. The goal of the adjustment is to reduce the effects of subluxation and/or SI [sacroiliac] joint dysfunction. In so doing neurobiomechanical function in the sacral/pelvic region is improved.

The Webster Technique is not just for pregnant people, but can be applied to any weight-bearing person. However, its focus on relieving restrictions in the pelvis and restoring balance to the soft tissues in the area may be particularly very useful for pregnancy.

Chiropractors who have extra training in working with pregnant people can be found in several ways. There are several chiropractic professional organizations, and they can be a good place to start your search. These organizations are similar in many ways, but may have differences of opinion on certain philosophies or treatments, etc.

International Chiropractic Pediatric Association

The International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA) has a list of chiropractors who specialize in working with kids and pregnant mothers, or who have completed a training course in Webster's Technique, which addresses the specific needs of the pregnant body.

You can find a pediatric chiropractor with the ICPA at http://icpa4kids.org/Find-a-Chiropractor/.

However, this is not a complete list of all the chiropractors who are certified in the Webster Technique. The chiropractors on this list are ones who have asked to be put on this referral list. There may well be other chiropractors in your area who have been trained in the Webster Technique but did not sign up for this list. You can call the ICPA and ask if there are others in your area trained in the Webster Technique.

According to the ICPA website, the ICPA has created a tiered level of training. The first level is "Webster-Certified," which means extra class time beyond the chiropractic degree specializing in the Webster Technique for pregnancy. It is often the starting point for even more advanced training.

The next level is Pediatric Certification, but there are several levels of this. Some program participants have the initials F.I.C.P.A after their names, and undergo 120 hours of continuing education. Other participants undergo an expanded program of 200 hours and have the initials, C.A.C.C.P., after their names. The highest level of training is the Pediatric Diplomate, which requires 400 hours of continuing education, and these chiropractors have the initials D.A.C.C.P. after their names.

International Chiropractic Association

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) has a Council on Pediatric Chiropractics. Their focus is on treating children, but their definition of "pediatrics" includes in-utero babies so they treat pregnant women as well. Many of these ICA members have gone on to become Board Certified in chiropractic pediatrics in a 3-year post-graduate course of over 360 hours. These chiropractors have "D.I.C.C.P." after their names as well as "D.C." Look here for lists of those with a DICCP diploma.

The ICA also has a list of members who are trained chiropractors who are interested in and specialize in children, but who may or may not have the further training that a "DICCP" diplomate has. Some of the chiropractors on this list are in the process of working on the DICCP diplomate program but have not finished it yet. Regardless, they may be excellent possibilities as well.

In addition, the ICA can be reached at 1 (800) 423-4690 to ask for referrals in person. Ask for a pediatric chiropractor who knows the Webster Technique. 

Other Possible Sources

Not everyone who is certified in Webster's Technique is going to be on the ICA or ICPA lists, but they are good first places to start looking. If you can't find anyone in your area from these lists, it doesn't mean there is no one to help you. Keep looking; many women who initially think there is no one in their area who can help them do eventually find help. It just may not be from the above sources.

One of the best ways to find a Webster-certified chiropractor is to try calling your local homebirth midwives, childbirth educators, and doulas and asking for a recommendation. Often they are familiar with the healthcare professionals in the area that offer pregnancy-related services and can recommend the best ones to you, saving you a lot of time and trouble.

If you cannot find a chiropractor trained in the Webster Technique in your area, you could consider a chiropractor who has extensive experience with pregnant women. Even basic chiropractic care may help enough to make a difference in your comfort level. But if you have a choice, someone trained in the Webster technique is probably preferable. 

People in countries that don't have chiropractors may want to try an osteopath. Osteopaths also do body manipulation to help align the body and relieve restrictions, although not quite in the same way as chiropractors. However, not all osteopaths do manipulations anymore. You might need to find one who has had classical osteopath training.

In some areas, chiropractors can be hard to find. If all else fails, try cold-calling all the chiros and/or osteopaths in your area. Ask them:

• If they have experience and training in treating pregnant women (and what that training might be)
• How much of their practice is devoted to pregnant women and babies
• What kind of special equipment they have for accommodating the growing belly of pregnant women
• If they have been trained in either Webster Technique, the pelvic "diaphragmatic release," or any other technique which might be especially helpful to a pregnant person
• If they have not been trained in any of these techniques and/or are not experienced with pregnant women, do they know of any chiropractors in the area who are?

Talk to them on the phone if you can and get an idea of how experienced they are and whether they "click" with you. If they sound good, consider trying them for one visit to see how things go. Some chiropractors will do a free consultation so you can visit their practice and check them out. Others might let you observe someone else's treatment (with the patient's permission) so you can see the techniques in action. Ask how many pregnant women the doctor usually sees. Ask for referrals from other patients. Call the midwives in your area and see if they have any experience with that chiropractor.

Remember, all chiropractors are not alike. Some use pretzel adjustments by twisting and turning the patient's body. Some use a drop table to give a little bit of extra force to the adjustment without having to push on the patient as hard. Some use an activator, a spring-loaded small tool that exerts less force for those who dislike traditional adjustments. Some do hands-on work so subtle it's hard to know they are doing anything. There are many, many techniques and styles out there.

Keep your "quackometer" on alert and don't be afraid to try a different chiropractor if one doesn't seem right to you, if the treatment seems unreasonable or ineffective to you, or if they seem too profit-driven. If one chiropractor doesn't work well for you, it doesn't mean that none will. Sometimes it's just a matter of finding the one that fits you and your needs.

If in the end you decide that chiropractic care is not for you, that is a perfectly legitimate choice as well. Many women go through pregnancy without chiropractic care and do just fine. But if you have lots of back pain, pelvic pain, or a history of falls and/or accidents, it may be worth searching a little harder to find the right chiropractor for your needs. 

My Chiropractic Search Story

Although I didn't really experience much significant back problems before pregnancy, once I was pregnant I began to have tremendous back pain, sciatica, and pubic symphysis pain, probably from a series of minor car accidents years before. My care providers shrugged my pain off as a normal part of pregnancy, but by the end of my second pregnancy I could hardly walk at times. This certainly didn't seem normal to me, so I decided to consider a chiropractor.

My search for a chiropractor was long and involved. At the time, there were no lists from the ICA or the ICPA to check, and the local chiros I consulted did not even know about the Webster Technique. I saw several different chiros or osteopaths (D.O.s) over the years, looking for some help. It took a long time to find the right one. 

The first chiro I tried was a sports specialist available through the local family doctor's office. Unfortunately, he was majorly fat-phobic and obviously disgusted by my body. He never physically evaluated my back or pelvis, and he never touched me. He told me that my back pain was because I wasn't getting enough exercise, and gave me some special exercises to do for the muscles in the area. I tried them; they didn't help. I gave up the idea of chiro care for several years.

In my third pregnancy, I stepped up the effort to find some help. None of the doctors or midwives I saw knew of anyone who knew the Webster Technique. I saw an osteopath who had never heard of the Webster Technique, told me my back and pelvis were fine despite all my pain, and was basically no help.

My prenatal yoga teacher in that pregnancy eventually mentioned a chiropractor who used a less forceful "Network" technique for adjustments and who specialized in sacrum pain. I decided that this was better than nothing and saw this chiro. These treatments did not really help much but he happened to know of a young chiropractor in the area who was in the process of getting her DICCP diplomate from the ICA, so he referred me to her.

Amazingly, this chiro had just learned the Webster Technique at a recent class session and was able to help me out. She was shocked at how badly my back and pelvis were out of alignment. My back and pubic symphysis pain improved greatly within an hour or two after treatment. Although we weren't trying to turn the baby with the adjustment, the baby turned from posterior to anterior within an hour after the adjustment, the first time any of my babies had been anterior in three pregnancies. I went on to have a few more appointments in that pregnancy to keep things aligned and fine tune everything. Two weeks later, my baby was born by VBAC, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean.

My third labor and birth was SO much easier than my first two. In my first pregnancy, I had pushed for 2 hours with a malpositioned baby, then had a cesarean. In my second pregnancy, I had pushed for 5 hours with a posterior baby, then had a cesarean. In this pregnancy, I pushed for 12 minutes and the baby was born. He was born so quickly the doctor didn't even make it to the birth; the nurse had to catch the baby. I attribute the relative ease of this birth to the chiropractic care and the fact that the baby had turned to anterior, unlike my previous babies. 

In my fourth pregnancy, I tried an ICPA-trained chiro who was located much closer to home because I was tired of the long drive to my usual chiropractor. The new chiro was perfectly nice and very competent, but she didn't "get" my body and was not able to give much relief. So even though this chiropractor knew the Webster Technique, was very well-trained and knowledgeable, and was certified through the ICPA, she wasn't the right chiropractor for me. 

At one point, I also tried a different osteopath, one with more "classical" manipulation training, and did not find those results as effective either. I eventually went back to a chiropractor trained by my original chiropractor, realizing that a long drive was well worth the trouble to get better results. He focused not only on my back/sacrum, but especially on my pubic symphysis and supporting ligaments because of my pain there, and we found that I tended to respond to that protocol best.

I gave birth to my ten-pound baby (a pound bigger than my cesarean babies) with just 24 minutes of pushing. I'm sure it was not all due to just chiropractic care, but I do believe that a lot of it was. I was glad I had persevered in my chiropractic search.

Summary

Finding a good chiropractor for pregnancy is not always easy. Just as not every OB or midwife is equally effective for everyone, it's important to find a chiropractor that "gets" your body, uses techniques that you find helpful, and is always respectful and responsive to your concerns.

Don't just stop at the first chiro you find, try it once, and then conclude that chiropractic care is not for you. Try out several different styles if you can. If you can't do that, get the advice of local midwives and doulas because they often know the very best people in the area to recommend. Their guidance can save you a lot of time and effort. Remember, just as with an OB or midwife, it's all about finding a provider who is compatible with you.

My own story shows the importance of searching for the practitioner who is right for you. The first chiros and osteopaths I tried were not able to help me. Had the ICA or ICPA lists been available then, my original pregnancy chiro would not have been listed because she was still in the process of training. An ICPA-trained chiro that I tried later looked great on paper but was not effective for me. The chiros I saw saw for the fourth pregnancy were not listed because neither of them is a DICCP diplomate ─ but they were trained by a DICCP diplomate and so were familiar with the techniques needed. The chiropractor that was the closest and most convenient to me did not turn out to be the best chiropractor for my body. It took quite a bit of "shopping around" to find a chiro that worked well for my needs, but in the end it was well worth the work.

There are no easy or quick answers to searching for a good chiropractor for pregnancy. If at first you don't find a Webster Technique chiropractor, keep trying. If the chiro you try at first doesn't seem able to help you or you don't get good results with them, be willing to try others. Good and bad chiros are all over; lists can be a good place to start your search but ultimately they don't tell you much about the quality of the chiropractors themselves.

Nothing substitutes for actually trying something and keeping the search up till you find one that really clicks with your needs.

Chiropractic Care in Pregnancy: Part One

Many people experience back and pelvic pain in pregnancy.

For some this is just a passing phenomenon, a little discomfort that goes along with the hormones of pregnancy relaxing the pelvis and helping it expand for the birth. Some mild back and joint discomfort is common in pregnancy and does not have to be a problem.

For others, however, back and joint pain becomes a significant and long-lasting problem that can become debilitating. Some find it difficult to turn over in bed, to get dressed in the morning, to walk any distance, or even to sit comfortably for long. Some are in constant pain from it; a few even end up using a walker or in a wheelchair, unable to walk without aid.

Fortunately, chiropractic care is often helpful in these cases. Many pregnant people report pain relief and more mobility with chiropractic care. Yet some are not sure about the wisdom of chiropractic care in pregnancy.

Here are some answers to the most common questions about chiropractic care for pregnancy, and help in finding a pregnancy chiropractor for those who want it.

Purpose of Chiropractic Care During Pregnancy

While many doctors say that back and pelvis pain is "normal" in pregnancy and there is nothing that can be done to help it, chiropractors do not believe that significant or long-lasting pain is "normal" at all, and they know from experience that much of it can be helped.

They believe pain occurs when the spine or pelvis are out of alignment or the muscles and soft tissues around them are unbalanced. This can present as back pain, pain in the buttocks that radiates down the leg (sciatica), pubic symphysis pain in the front of the pelvis, hip pain, tailbone (coccyx) pain, stabbing pains in the abdomen when the mother moves too quickly or sneezes (round ligament spasm), neck pain, difficulty walking, difficulty turning over or lifting one leg, difficulty getting in and out of cars, and sometimes shoulder or rib/side pain.

If you are experiencing this kind of pain in pregnancy, chiropractic care may help make pregnancy more comfortable. Chiropractors believe that chiropractic care can help pregnant people in several different ways:

• By creating more room in the pelvis for baby to maneuver through
• By improving nerve function so that contractions are more effective
• By relieving imbalances or tensions in the ligaments and soft tissues supporting the uterus

The most basic component of chiropractic care is to make sure the bony passage around the baby (the pelvis) is as open and well-aligned as possible, creating the largest possible space for the baby to move through.

Many women who have had cesareans have been told that their "sacrum is too prominent" or "too flat," that their pubic arch is "too flat/narrow," that "there is a bone in the way," or simply that their "pelvis is too small/narrow" for a baby to maneuver through. However, after chiropractic care, many of these same women have gone on to give birth to bigger babies than their "stuck" cesarean babies, simply because the pelvic passage is now optimized and the baby has more room. It doesn't seem like such treatment would make much more space, but getting into good alignment can actually make enough difference to maximize the space and help make an easier birth.

Chiropractors also place great importance on good nerve function. They believe that a misaligned spine impedes nerve function. They believe that poor alignment can not only affect the body physically by making less room for the baby to get out, but also by causing ineffective, uncoordinated contractions because of poor nerve function. From his article on "The Safety of Chiropractic Care in Pregnancy," Dr. Jason Lindekugel (D.C.) writes:

Chiropractic manipulation seeks to balance the joints of the body in order to normalize nerve function...In restoring joint function, chiropractors are relieving nerve irritation which in turn relaxes muscles and the ligaments of the pelvis and uterus. So, proper nerve function is the goal, not just “cracking” joints.

Finally, chiropractors believe that by relieving any misalignments, they will create more space and improve nerve function, lessening the risk for dystocia (slow, unproductive labors) and hopefully resulting in safer, faster, and more effective labors and births.

Some people mistakenly think that chiropractors are practicing obstetrics and manually trying to turn babies into position. This is not true. Chiropractors are trying to create conditions to normalize the body's functions so the mother has the best possible chance at an effective labor and birth.

Effectiveness of Chiropractic Care in Pregnancy

But is seeing a chiropractor in pregnancy that helpful? What does the research say?

Traditionally, chiropractors have done research differently than mainstream medicine. They have  relied more on case reports and case series rather than gold-standard randomized studies. They often didn't use control groups because they were loathe to deny anyone care, especially in pregnancy. Even when mainstream studies were done, sample sizes tended to be small. So there are limits to many studies done in the past.

However, there are now a number of studies and reviews using more rigorous methodology that are reassuring. Here is a summary of a few.

A 2013 prospective randomized study in pregnant patients with low back and pelvic pain compared usual obstetric care with obstetric care plus additional chiropractic care. It found that those patients who received the additional chiropractic care improved significantly, while those who received just standard obstetric care did not improve at all.

A 2014 study found that the improvement from chiropractic care was long lasting. Nearly 90% of study participants were improved a year later. Several other studies (see references below) have also found significant improvement with chiropractic care in pregnancy, with few adverse events.

A 2012 Canadian review stated:

Massage therapy and chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, are highly safe and effective evidence-based options for pregnant women suffering from mechanical low back and pelvic pain.

In 2015, the Cochrane Collaboration, a leader in evidence-based care, reviewed a series of studies on alternative care practices in pregnancy like acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, and osteomanipulation (basically chiropractic care). They found the quality of evidence "moderate," and that osteomanipulative therapy did significantly  reduce low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy. Furthermore, any adverse events were "minor and transient."

It should be noted that no matter what the research says, some people will never be comfortable trying chiropractic care, and that's okay. If chiropractic care is not for you, don't feel pressured into it. Women have been having babies for thousands of years without having chiropractic care. Most will do fine without it. However, if you are having lots of back pain or pelvic pain, you might want to reconsider it.

If you are still not sure, you might try exploring the possibility further without committing to it. Ask local midwives and doulas for recommendations of good pregnancy chiropractors, then call and ask if you can do a non-treatment consult about your case. Find out how the chiropractor makes room for the pregnancy belly during treatment and the techniques they might use. See if you can observe treatment during an appointment (if the patient gives permission). Often this is enough to reassure people that chiropractic care in pregnancy is reasonable and safe. However, whatever you decide, remember that it's always your choice.

When To See a Chiropractor and How Often

Photo credit: Garden State Chiropractic 

If you do decide to see a chiropractor in pregnancy, one common question is when to start seeing them and how often. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this. The answer totally varies from woman to woman, depending on each person's unique needs.

Ideally, people would start seeing a chiropractor before or between pregnancies so that any serious issues can be taken care of before the hormones of pregnancy start softening and loosening the ligaments, making it hard to maintain chiropractic adjustments. The more serious a person's issues, the smarter it would be to start care before pregnancy instead of waiting till after they are pregnant.

However, many people only start experiencing significant pain once they are already pregnant. Others may have limits on the amount of chiropractic visits that are covered under their insurance, or they have no chiropractic coverage and must pay cash. Therefore, many want to try and maximize the benefit of the visits by timing them carefully, and that may mean limiting them to pregnancy only, or even to the last third of pregnancy only.

The problem is that no two people's problems are alike, and there is no one prescription that fits all everyone's needs. The loosening hormones of pregnancy increase as pregnancy progresses, so generally speaking it's better to start treatment sooner than later. However, if you have only a few visits that are covered by insurance or you have limited ability to pay for them out-of-pocket, then you may want to save your visits for the third trimester. However, if you do this and you have really significant alignment issues, you also run the risk of not getting enough treatment to really fix the problem in time. So there is no one answer for every woman. It really depends on the unique circumstances of your particular situation. If you are in a significant amount of discomfort, that usually indicates a problem that should be addressed sooner than later.

Generally speaking, chiropractors prefer to see women before they become pregnant to start resolving any long-standing misalignment issues. Once you become pregnant, most chiropractors want to see you on the same approximate schedule that a doctor or midwife sees you, which is about once a month in the first 2 trimesters, bi-weekly in weeks 32-36, and every week after 36 weeks until the baby is born.

Now obviously, that's the ideal schedule. A lot depends on what's happening with the body. If a pregnant woman comes in as a new patient and has a lot of major alignment issues going on, most chiropractors are going to want to see her weekly (or more) until her alignment issues are better, and then they will go back to the standard schedule noted above.

Other women may not need to be seen even every month. If the chiropractor finds that there is nothing to adjust, then he/she should send you home and elongate the time between visits. Some lucky women find that their pain goes away after a couple of chiropractic treatments and then they're done and never need to go back.

On the other hand, some women need to visit more often than weekly. When treatment is first initiated, frequent visits are important to start retraining the body's muscles and ligaments to "remember" the new alignment consistently. So there may be a flurry of frequent visits in the beginning that slowly space out farther and farther as the woman's body adapts to the new patterns, and then visit frequency comes and goes, depending on the woman's needs. In women with a history of major alignment issues, it's not unusual for the woman to go back to seeing the chiropractor very frequently near the end of pregnancy because the ligaments are so loose by then that it's difficult to maintain any adjustments. It all depends on the needs of the woman and her comfort levels.

However, a chiropractor should not force you to buy a pre-packaged bundle of "x" amount of visits for "x" cost. Some doctors offer this as a way for patients to save money, but the package should be flexible so that if you didn't end up needing "x" amounts of visits, you wouldn't have to have them. Furthermore, a pre-defined schedule of visits cannot anticipate what your body will need and how it responds to treatment; for some people more frequent visits might be needed, while others may need much less. A "one size fits all" package is a sign you should seek out a different chiropractor instead.

Unfortunately, there are bad chiropractors/quacks out there, just as there are quack doctors. Because of this, some people reject all chiropractors altogether. But the reasonable response to quack doctors is not to ignore all medical advice and shun all doctors, but instead to find a better, reputable doctor, one whose treatment philosophy and methods align with your preferences.

The same goes for chiropractors. If you find a bad one, don't be afraid to leave and try another one. Get recommendations from other mothers or childbirth professionals to help guide you to the more reputable and helpful practitioners. Also, there are many different styles of chiropractic care and ways to adjust people. If you don't like one style, keep trying till you find a chiropractor that uses techniques you are comfortable with and seems to "get" your particular body needs. Listen to your instincts; if your intuition is saying that a particular chiropractor is not for you, then find a new one.

Fortunately, most chiropractors are legitimate professionals and are not just out to make a quick buck. They should evaluate your condition, suggest a plan of care, and then keep re-evaluating your need for visits based on how well you respond to treatments. Their care plan should be dynamic and changing in response to your own needs and comfort.

In short, there is no one pattern of visits that you "should" follow. Ideally, you should try to start chiropractic care before pregnancy, and then in pregnancy see the chiropractor monthly, then bi-weekly, then weekly in the last month. However, this schedule is not set in stone and should be adjusted to the unique needs of each person.

Summary

To summarize, the purpose of chiropractic care during pregnancy is to:

• Keep the body well-aligned to make the maximum possible space available for baby to pass 
• To optimize nerve function so that contractions can be effective and coordinated
• To balance joints, ligaments, and muscles of the uterine supporting structures so baby has the best chance to assume the easiest possible position for being born 

In other words, chiropractic care during pregnancy may help pregnancy be more comfortable, and hopefully help labor and birth be easier for mother and baby. Although further research is needed, the research we have so far suggests that chiropractic care in pregnancy can be very helpful for low back and pelvic pain.

References

Chiropractic Care for Low Back and Pelvic Pain in Pregnancy

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 30;(9):CD001139. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub4. Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy. Liddle SD, Pennick V. PMID: 26422811

"...There was moderate-quality evidence...from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient."

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;208(4):295.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.869. Epub 2012 Oct 23. A randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal intervention and standard obstetrics care for low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy. George JW, Skaggs CD, Thompson PA, Nelson DM, Gavard JA, Gross GA. PMID: 23123166

...We examined whether a multimodal approach of musculoskeletal and obstetric management (MOM) was superior to standard obstetric care to reduce pain, impairment, and disability in the antepartum period.  STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial of 169 women was conducted. Baseline evaluation occurred at 24-28 weeks' gestation, with follow-up at 33 weeks' gestation.... Both groups received routine obstetric care. Chiropractic specialists provided manual therapy, stabilization exercises, and patient education to MOM participants. RESULTS: The MOM group demonstrated significant mean reductions in Numerical Rating Scale scores (5.8 ± 2.2 vs 2.9 ± 2.5; P < .001) and Quebec Disability Questionnaire scores (4.9 ± 2.2 vs 3.9 ± 2.4; P < .001) from baseline to follow-up evaluation. The group that received standard obstetric care demonstrated no significant improvements. CONCLUSION: A multimodal approach to low back and pelvic pain in mid pregnancy benefits patients more than standard obstetric care.

Chiropr Man Therap. 2014 Apr 1;22(1):15. doi: 10.1186/2045-709X-22-15. Outcomes of pregnant patients with low back pain undergoing chiropractic treatment: a prospective cohort study with short term, medium term and 1 year follow-up. Peterson CK, Mühlemann D, Humphreys BK. PMID: 24690125

...RESULTS: 52% of 115 recruited patients 'improved' at 1 week, 70% at 1 month, 85% at 3 months, 90% at 6 months and 88% at 1 year...CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant patients undergoing chiropractic treatment reported clinically relevant improvement at all time points. No single variable was strongly predictive of 'improvement' in the logistic regression model.

J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006 Jan-Feb;51(1):e7-10. Chiropractic spinal manipulation for low back pain of pregnancy: a retrospective case series. Lisi AJ. PMID: 16399602

...This retrospective case series was undertaken to describe the results of a group of pregnant women with low back pain who underwent chiropractic treatment including spinal manipulation. Seventeen cases met all inclusion criteria. The overall group average Numerical Rating Scale pain score decreased from 5.9 (range 2-10) at initial presentation to 1.5 (range 0-5) at termination of care. Sixteen of 17 (94.1%) cases demonstrated clinically important improvement. The average time to initial clinically important pain relief was 4.5 (range 0-13) days after initial presentation, and the average number of visits undergone up to that point was 1.8 (range 1-5). No adverse effects were reported in any of the 17 cases. The results suggest that chiropractic treatment was safe in these cases and support the hypothesis that it may be effective for reducing pain intensity.

J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):129-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.04.003. Epub 2016 May 25. Chiropractic Management of Pregnancy-Related Lumbopelvic Pain: A Case Study. Bernard M, Tuchin P. PMID: 27330515

...A pregnant 35-year-old woman experienced insidious moderate to severe pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain and leg pain at 32 weeks' gestation. Pain limited her endurance capacity for walking and sitting. Clinical testing revealed a left sacroiliac joint functional disturbance and myofascial trigger points reproducing back and leg pain...The patient was treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation, soft tissue therapy, exercises, and ergonomic advice in 13 visits over 6 weeks. She consulted her obstetrician for her weekly obstetric visits. At the end of treatment, her low back pain reduced from 7 to 2 on a 0-10 numeric pain scale rating. Functional activities reported such as walking, sitting, and traveling comfortably in a car had improved. CONCLUSION: This patient with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain improved in pain and function after chiropractic treatment and usual obstetric management.

Further articles: http://icapediatrics.com/resources/articles/pregnancy-and-chiropractic/

Safety of Chiropractic Care, Attitudes Towards Chiropractic Care

JAMA. 2017 Apr 11;317(14):1451-1460. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.3086. Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige NM. PMID: 28399251

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain...Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.

Chiropr Man Therap. 2012 Mar 28;20:8. doi: 10.1186/2045-709X-20-8. Adverse events from spinal manipulation in the pregnant and postpartum periods: a critical review of the literature. Stuber KJ, Wynd S, Weis CA. PMID: 22455720

CONCLUSIONS: There are only a few reported cases of adverse events following spinal manipulation during pregnancy and the postpartum period identified in the literature. While improved reporting of such events is required in the future, it may be that such injuries are relatively rare.

Can Fam Physician. 2013 Aug;59(8):841-2.Optimizing pain relief during pregnancy using manual therapy. Oswald C, Higgins CC, Assimakopoulos D. PMID: 23946024

...As pregnant women move into their second and third trimesters, their centres of mass shift anteriorly, causing an increase in lumbar lordosis, which causes low back and pelvic girdle pain. Increasing recent evidence attests to the effectiveness and safety of treating this pain using manual therapy. Massage therapy and chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, are highly safe and effective evidence-based options for pregnant women suffering from mechanical low back and pelvic pain.

J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2016 Apr;21(2):92-104. doi: 10.1177/2156587215604073. Epub 2015 Sep 8. Attitudes Toward Chiropractic: A Survey of Canadian Obstetricians. Weis CA, Stuber K, Barrett J, Greco A, Kipershlak A, Glenn T, Desjardins R, Nash J, Busse J. PMID: 26350243

We assessed the attitudes of Canadian obstetricians toward chiropractic with a 38-item cross-sectional survey...Overall, 30% of respondents held positive views toward chiropractic, 37% were neutral, and 33% reported negative views. Most (77%) reported that chiropractic care was effective for some musculoskeletal complaints, but 74% disagreed that chiropractic had a role in treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions. Forty percent of respondents referred at least some patients for chiropractic care each year.... 

Timing of Elective Cesareans in High BMI Women

Doctors do far too many cesareans in high BMI women, especially planned "elective" cesareans without labor. Many of these cesareans are unnecessary and place women of size and their babies at risk. Research shows that about one-third or more of all cesareans done on high BMI women are planned, pre-labor cesareans done on moms who were never even given a chance to labor.

But sometimes cesareans are truly needed, even a planned, non-labor cesarean. And sometimes an elective repeat cesarean is chosen by women. When a planned cesarean happens, it's important not to do it sooner than absolutely necessary.

Labor helps babies prepare for breathing on their own. When a cesarean is done without labor, the baby often has more difficulty establishing breathing on its own. The earlier the cesarean is done, the higher the risk for breathing problems. Therefore, most obstetric guidelines now suggest not doing an elective cesarean before 39 weeks. If a cesarean is medically needed before then, then corticosteroids are usually used to mature the fetal lungs for a while before the cesarean is done.

Recent research on the CDC database now suggests that the 39 week benchmark for planned cesareans is even more important in "obese" women. 

The babies of high BMI women in the study were particularly prone to the need for assisted ventilation (help breathing) and treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). A dose-dependent relationship was seen between BMI and need for assisted ventilation, and this was not modified by use of corticosteroids.

One underappreciated reason for this is that many women of size have longer menstrual cycles than average-sized women. Instead of 28 days, many have menstrual cycles of 35 days or longer. That means that when their babies are delivered at what is thought to be 39 weeks, the babies are really only 38 weeks (or even younger). As a result, their lungs are less mature and less ready to function on their own. No wonder they needed more ventilation and more NICU time!

To improve outcomes in obese women and their babies, care providers should seek to adjust women's due dates to reflect the length of their menstrual cycles, or to have an extremely accurate dating ultrasound early in the pregnancy. And unless there is a critical need to deliver earlier, planned elective cesareans should be held off until between 39 or preferably 40 weeks, especially for those with longer cycles.

It's important to keep pushing doctors to do fewer planned elective non-labor cesareans in obese women; far too many are being done these days. They should be saved for truly necessary situations. But when a planned non-labor cesarean is done, it is critical not to schedule it too soon in order to lessen the risk of breathing complications in the baby.

More attention needs to be paid to ensuring accurate pregnancy dating in women of size. This can be done either by adjusting the due date to reflect the woman's cycle length, or by doing a dating ultrasound early in pregnancy (first trimester), or a combination of both.



References

J Perinat Med. 2018 Mar 15. pii: /j/jpme.ahead-of-print/jpm-2017-0384/jpm-2017-0384.xml. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2017-0384. [Epub ahead of print] Effect of pre-pregnancy body mass index on respiratory-related neonatal outcomes in women undergoing elective cesarean prior to 39 weeks. Vincent S, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Abenhaim HA. PMID: 29543593

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and neonatal respiratory-related outcomes among women who underwent an elective cesarean section (CS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s 2009-2013 period linked birth/infant death dataset. Women who had elective CSs at term were categorized by their pre-pregnancy BMI as normal, overweight, obese or morbidly obese...A dose-dependent relationship between maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and assisted ventilation was seen. Furthermore, infants born to morbidly obese women were at significantly increased risk for assisted ventilation over 6 h (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.15-1.35) and admission to intensive care units (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21). Infant mortality rates were 4.2/1000 births for normal weight women, and 5.5/1000 births among the morbidly obese group (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25-1.64). Risk for adverse outcomes was increased with elective SC performed at earlier gestational age, and this effect was not modified by use of corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Overweight and obese women are at particularly greater risk of adverse newborn outcomes when elective CSs are done before 39 weeks. In these women, elective CSs should be delayed until 39 weeks, as corticosteroid use did not eliminate this association.

Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;130(5):994-1000. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002257. Trial of Labor Compared With Cesarean Delivery in Superobese Women. Grasch JL, Thompson JL, Newton JM, Zhai AW, Osmundson SS. PMID: 29016512

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all women with body mass indexes (BMIs) at delivery of 50 or greater delivering a live fetus at 34 weeks of gestation of greater between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015...RESULTS: There were 344 women with BMIs of 50 or greater who met eligibility criteria, of whom 201 (58%) labored and 143 (42%) underwent planned cesarean delivery...CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of cesarean delivery in women with superobesity, labor is associated with lower composite maternal and neonatal morbidity. Severe maternal morbidity may be higher in women who require a cesarean delivery after labor.

Epidemiology. 2002 Nov;13(6):668-74. Influence of medical conditions and lifestyle factors on the menstrual cycle. Rowland AS, Baird DD, Long S, Wegienka G, Harlow SD, Alavanja M, Sandler DP. PMID: 12410008

...We analyzed cross-sectional data collected from 3941 premenopausal women from Iowa or North Carolina participating in the Agricultural Health Study between 1994 and 1996. Eligible women were age 21-40, not taking oral contraceptives, and not currently pregnant or breast feeding. We examined four menstrual cycle patterns: short cycles (24 days or less), long cycles (36 days or more), irregular cycles, and intermenstrual bleeding. RESULTS: Long and irregular cycles were less common with advancing age and more common with menarche after age 14, with depression, and with increasing body mass index. The adjusted odds of long cycles increased with increasing body mass index, reaching 5.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-13.7) among women with body mass indexes of 35 or higher compared with the reference category (body mass index of 22-23)....

Preventing Complications After Cesarean in All Sizes of Women

In the United States, about 1 in 3 pregnancies end in cesarean. In some areas, the rate is even higher. Many women who have their first baby by cesarean will go on to have other babies by cesarean. That's a lot of cumulative exposure to cesareans, and a lot of potential complications from this common surgical procedure.

Therefore, learning how to prevent complications from cesarean surgery needs to be a high priority among care providers. Fortunately, there has been an increased emphasis on preventing post-surgical complications in the research in recent years.

It has been established that certain risk factors increase your risk for complications like surgical site infections (SSIs), endometritis (uterine infections), hematomas or seromas (collections of blood or fluid in the wound), and wound separations. These risk factors include things like:

• having your waters broken for a long time before labor
• waters broken for a long time during labor, especially with numerous vaginal exams
• being a smoker
• pregnancy complications like diabetes, gestational diabetes, hypertension, or pre-eclampsia
• preterm labor
• an unplanned cesarean
• having had a prior cesarean
• use of corticosteroids
• a high BMI and/or >2 cm of subcutaneous tissue thickness
• prolonged pushing stage
• twin gestations
• a lot of blood loss before or during surgery

However, even if you have multiple risk factors, there are many things that can be done to lower the risk for post-operative complications. The question is whether your hospital and caregiver do as many of them as they should. 

Improving Cesarean Outcomes in General

Not all post-cesarean complications can be prevented, but many of them can. There is recent new research on simple steps that hospitals can take to lower the risk for post-operative complications. These steps include:

• Antibiotics administered before skin incision
• Adding an additional antibiotic to the standard cephalosporin
• Using chlorhexidine-alcohol for disinfecting the skin instead of iodine products
• Using clippers on body hair instead of shaving the area
• Removing the placenta through gentle traction instead of by manual removal
• Closing the skin with sutures instead of with staples

Let's discuss each of these interventions in turn and the data that supports them. 

Timing of Antibiotics

Research is very clear that giving antibiotics helps prevent many infections. A 2014 Cochrane meta-analysis found that giving antibiotics reduced infections by 60-70%. This has become standard practice in modern days, though antibiotic use is still not 100% in some areas. But chances are very strong that if you had a cesarean in recent years, you probably had antibiotics.

Timing of antibiotic administration is probably important. Hospitals used to give antibiotics after the baby was born and the cord was clamped; now the standard of care has become to give antibiotics 30-60 minutes before the first incision.

Giving antibiotics before the first incision has lowered the rate of surgical site infections in a number of studies but not in all. Still, most hospitals now opt to give antibiotics before the operation actually begins. 

Additional Antibiotics

The most recent advance is the addition of extended spectrum antibiotics.

It is customary to use a narrow-spectrum cephalosporin like cezafolin for cesareans, but now many hospitals are adding additional antibiotics that cover a wider spectrum of bacteria. Antibiotics like azithromycin, metronidazole, and others have been added in recent studies.

Adding an additional, wider-spectrum antibiotic has been shown to lower the rate of SSIs in several studies. In one study, the addition of azithromycin to cefazolin during surgery lowered the risk for infection by 60%.

In another very large, randomized, multi-center study, the addition of azithromycin to the usual cephalosporin lowered the risk for infection and serious complications by about half compared to a placebo. The azithromycin group and the placebo group differed in rates of endometritis (3.8% vs. 6.1%), wound infection (2.4% vs. 6.6%), and serious maternal adverse events (1.5% vs. 2.9%).

A different option is to continue antibiotics for a few days after surgery. This can be done either orally or through I.V. fluids. A post-operative course of antibiotics has been shown to lower the risk for SSIs and wound complications in certain populations. 

If you have a cesarean and are in a group that is at higher-than-usual risk for infections and complications, ask about extended spectrum or longer regimens of antibiotics. If you develop a really serious infection, ask about IV antibiotics instead of oral ones. 

Skin Preparation

How the skin is prepared for surgery may make a difference in Sugical Site Infections as well. 

Some guides recommend showering the night before surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate soap (Hibiclens), but this has not been found to lower the rate of SSIs. It probably won't hurt, but it doesn't seem to help either. Showering with usual soap is probably good enough. However, showering in the morning before a cesarean seems to be common sense and is recommended by many hospitals.

Pre-operatively, the area will be cleaned even more thoroughly. The use of a chlorhexidine-alcohol preparation (instead of povidone-iodine) to disinfect the surgical site has been found in some research to lower SSIs after cesareans, especially when given adequate time to dry before operating. Not all research has found a difference, but even when statistical significance was not reached, a trend towards fewer SSIs and complications has been seen.

The jury is still out on a final answer about the best way to prepare the skin before surgery, but many experts believe that chlorhexidine-alcohol with adequate drying time is the way to go. It may also be that a combination of the two is superior. More research is needed. 

Using Clippers Instead of Shaving 

It used to be that the nurses shaved your body and pubic hair with a razor before a cesarean. Now it is thought that this makes many micro-cuts in the skin that serve as potential entryways for bacteria.

It has become standard practice to use electric clippers just before most surgeries to remove body hair before all different types of surgery, including cesareans. A meta-analysis of research shows that shaving increases the odds of infection as compared to clipping. However, some surgeons still insist on razors, against all evidence.

The very latest thinking is to leave most body hair intact and not shave or clip at all, unless the hair is substantial enough to interfere with surgery. The trend towards a slightly higher transverse skin incision (Joel-Cohen) in cesareans these days often makes hair removal unnecessary. 

Placental Removal Method 

In a normal vaginal birth, the placenta separates on its own and if left alone, the uterus contracts to push it out of the vagina. However, giving birth by cesarean bypasses this process, and caregivers must offer assistance.

In the past, doctors used to go into the uterus to forcibly remove the placenta, scooping it out in a hurried manner ("manual" removal). They reasoned that time was of the essence and there was less risk for infection if they hurried the process.

However, recent research clearly shows that manual removal results in more infections, blood loss, and other complications than spontaneous separation and traction. Research strongly suggests that a little more patience for spontaneous separation and gentle traction to remove the placenta results in less infections and complications.

An additional benefit of waiting a bit longer (at least 1-2 minutes, preferably 2-5 minutes) before cutting the cord and removing the placenta is that the baby gets more blood from the placenta. Delayed cord clamping improves the baby's transition to air breathing (especially in cesareans with no labor). It also lowers the chances of the baby developing anemia and increases the stem cells in baby's circulation.

Still, many care providers resist waiting a couple of minutes to let the placenta deliver spontaneously and to delay cutting the cord, but there is no medical justification for this, even in cesareans. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) now endorses a small delay in cord clamping (at least 1 minute), and the World Health Organization advocates at least 1-3 minutes. 

Sutures vs. Staples vs. Glue

For many years, surgical staples were the standard of care for closing skin incisions after a cesarean. The two edges of the skin incision are approximated and then stapled together. This is much easier than taking the time to stitch together the edges.

Using staples is fast and easy for surgeons, and surgeons do take pride in how quickly they can perform a cesarean. In addition, they point out that a shorter surgery has been shown to lower the risk for infection ─ the longer a patient's insides are exposed to open air, the more time there is for infection to start. As a result, many automatically use staples for skin closure unless the patient requests otherwise.

However, new evidence suggests that using sutures instead of staples results in superior outcomes, both in lowering the rate of wound separations and in preventing infections. One California hospital considerably lowered its wound complication rate when it switched from primarily staples to primarily sutures. 

Two different meta-analyses found that sutures lowered the rate of wound complications considerably. This adds to the argument that most women should receive sutures instead of staples for skin closure.

Sutures do take longer to do, so some doctors are concerned about the risk for infection. However, the difference is usually only 5-10 minutes. Furthermore, if the increased time for suturing really did raise the risk for infection very much, it would show in the studies, yet using sutures decreases the risk by nearly half compared to staples.

Using sutures is probably the research recommendation most resisted by surgeons. Many of the other recommendations found in surgical evidence bundles are being implemented, yet many women today still receive staples instead of sutures after a cesarean. 

Some surgeons are using surgical glue to close cesarean skin incisions now too. There is less research comparing results from glue with sutures or staples, but what research we have is conflicting. A Cochrane meta-analysis of tissue adhesives (glue) in all types of surgical incisions had more problems with wound separations, but a recent randomized controlled trial found similar outcomes in wound complications between sutures and glue. More research is needed but for now, sutures should be the standard of care. 

Summary

Research is clear that there are many things providers can do to lower a woman's risk for complications after a cesarean, even in the presence of multiple risk factors.

Some of these interventions have been adopted quickly by the obstetric community, while other interventions are still struggling to find widespread acceptance. Usage is quite inconsistent, despite research.

One recent review of over 1,000 patients found that only one-third of cesarean mothers received all four of the evidence-based bundle recommendations in that study (prophylactic antibiotics within 60 minutes of cesarean delivery and before skin incision, chlorhexidine-alcohol for skin antisepsis with 3 minutes of drying time before incision, closure of subcutaneous layer if ≥2 cm of depth, and subcuticular skin closure with suture) to reduce wound complications. These are extremely basic precautions, and yet two-thirds of women receiving cesareans did not get them! Obviously, there is huge room for improvement here.

• Antibiotics administered before skin incision - This recommendation seems to have been widely adopted now. Hospitals have done excellent work in quickly changing long-standing protocols
• Adding additional antibiotics to the standard cephalosporin - This is based on very recent research so it has yet to be widely adopted, but evidence suggests that it is time to expand the use of adjunctive antibiotics, especially in those patients with strong risk factors for infection
• Using chlorhexidine-alcohol for disinfecting the skin instead of iodine - This is mostly in place nowadays, but personnel may not be allowing proper drying time yet
• Using clippers on body hair instead of shaving the area - This practice seems to be inconsistent and up to the preferences of the doctor, even through research shows clipping is safer
• Removing the placenta through gentle traction instead of by manual removal - This practice seems to be left to the preference of the surgeon, though fewer are using manual removal these days
• Closing the wound with sutures instead of with staples - This practice remains widely unadopted in many areas unless the patient specifically requests sutures. The difference in operating time is minimal, so hospitals need to start emphasizing switching to sutures whenever possible

In addition, there are things that can be done during labor to minimize the risk for infection, should a cesarean be eventually needed. One review suggested:

• Avoid unnecessary vaginal examinations in labor
• Avoid unnecessary instrumentation in labor (including fetal scalp electrodes and intrauterine pressure catheters)
• Maintain strict glycemic control in diabetic women
• Consider early removal of bladder catheters postoperatively

Of course, the best way to prevent post-cesarean complications is to do fewer cesareans. However, if a cesarean does occur, it's good to know that there are ways to lessen the risk for complications. Now it's up to hospitals and caregivers to ensure that best practices are actually followed.

*Next post: Preventing Complications After Cesarean in High BMI Women

References

General References

• Infectious Morbidity After Cesarean Delivery: 10 Strategies to Reduce Risk - Conroy et al., 2012

Combinations of Interventions

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun 8. pii: S0002-9378(17)30734-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.070. [Epub ahead of print] Impact of evidence-based interventions on wound complications after cesarean delivery. Temming LA, Raghuraman N, Carter EB, Stout MJ, Rampersad RM, Macones GA, Cahill AG, Tuuli MG. PMID: 28601567

...Risk of wound complications in women who received all 4 evidence-based measures (prophylactic antibiotics within 60 minutes of cesarean delivery and before skin incision, chlorhexidine-alcohol for skin antisepsis with 3 minutes of drying time before incision, closure of subcutaneous layer if ≥2 cm of depth, and subcuticular skin closure with suture) were compared with those women who did not...RESULTS: Of 1082 patients with follow-up data, 349 (32.3%) received all the evidence-based measures, and 733 (67.7%) did not. The risk of wound complications was significantly lower in patients who received all the evidence-based measures compared with those who did not (20.3% vs 28.1%; adjusted relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.95)...Other risk factors, which include obesity, smoking, diabetes mellitus, chorioamnionitis, surgical experience, and skin incision type, were not significant among patients who received all of the 4 evidence-based measures....

Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2017 Jul 5;3:12. doi: 10.1186/s40748-017-0051-3. eCollection 2017. Surgical site infections after cesarean delivery: epidemiology, prevention and treatment. Kawakita T, Landy HJ. PMID: 28690864  Free full text available here.

...Many risk factors for SSI have been described. These include maternal factors (such as tobacco use; limited prenatal care; obesity; corticosteroid use; nulliparity; twin gestations; and previous CD), intrapartum and operative factors (such as chorioamnionitis; premature rupture of membranes; prolonged rupture of membranes; prolonged labor, particularly prolonged second stage; large incision length; subcutaneous tissue thickness > 3 cm; subcutaneous hematoma; lack of antibiotic prophylaxis; emergency delivery; and excessive blood loss), and obstetrical care on the teaching service of an academic institution. Effective interventions to decrease surgical site infection include prophylactic antibiotic use (preoperative first generation cephalosporin and intravenous azithromycin), chlorhexidine skin preparation instead of iodine, hair removal using clippers instead of razors, vaginal cleansing by povidone-iodine, placental removal by traction of the umbilical cord instead of by manual removal, suture closure of subcutaneous tissue if the wound thickness is >2 cm, and skin closure with sutures instead of with staples....

Antibiotics

N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1231-41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602044. Adjunctive Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Cesarean Delivery. Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, Saade G, Longo S, Clark E, Esplin S, Cleary K, Wapner R, Letson K, Owens M, Abramovici A, Ambalavanan N, Cutter G, Andrews W; C/SOAP Trial Consortium. PMID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27682034

...METHODS: In this trial conducted at 14 centers in the United States, we studied 2013 women who had a singleton pregnancy with a gestation of 24 weeks or more and who were undergoing cesarean delivery during labor or after membrane rupture. We randomly assigned 1019 to receive 500 mg of intravenous azithromycin and 994 to receive placebo. All the women were also scheduled to receive standard antibiotic prophylaxis... RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 62 women (6.1%) who received azithromycin and in 119 (12.0%) who received placebo (relative risk, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.68; P<0.001). There were significant differences between the azithromycin group and the placebo group in rates of endometritis (3.8% vs. 6.1%, P=0.02), wound infection (2.4% vs. 6.6%, P<0.001), and serious maternal adverse events (1.5% vs. 2.9%, P=0.03)...CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing nonelective cesarean delivery who were all receiving standard antibiotic prophylaxis, extended-spectrum prophylaxis with adjunctive azithromycin was more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of postoperative infection.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214(6):751.e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.037. Epub 2016 Feb 18. A comparison of 3 antibiotic regimens for prevention of postcesarean endometritis: an historical cohort study. Ward E, Duff P. PMID: 26901276

...OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 3 different antibiotic regimens for the prevention of postcesarean endometritis. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective historical cohort study was conducted at the University of Florida, which is a tertiary care facility that serves a predominantly indigent patient population. In the period January 2003 to December 2007, our standard prophylactic antibiotic regimen for all women who had cesarean delivery was cefazolin (1 g) administered immediately after the baby's umbilical cord was clamped. In November 2008, we began to administer the combined regimen of cefazolin (1 g intravenously) plus azithromycin (500 mg intravenously); both were given 30-60 minutes before the skin incision. In the period of January-December 2014, we continued the dual agent regimen but based the dose of cefazolin on the patient's body mass index: 2 g intravenously if the body mass index was <30 kg/m(2) and 3 g if the body mass index was >30 kg/m(2). The surgical technique was consistent throughout all 3 time periods. Our primary endpoint was the frequency of endometritis in each time period...RESULTS: ... In the period January 2003 to December 2007...16.4% (95% confidence interval, 14.4-18.4%) developed endometritis. In the period November 2008 to December 2013...1.3% (95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.7%) developed endometritis (P < .0001 compared with period 1). In the year 2014...2.3% (95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.3%) developed endometritis (P < .0001 compared with period 1 and P > .5 and <.10 compared with period 2)...CONCLUSIONS: When administered before skin incision, the combination of cefazolin plus azithromycin was significantly more effective in the prevention of endometritis than the administration of cefazolin after cord clamping; the rate of endometritis was reduced to a very low level without increasing the rate of neonatal sepsis evaluations.

Placental Removal Techniques

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Mar;84(3):266-9. The effect of placental removal method and site of uterine repair on postcesarean endometritis and operative blood loss. Baksu A, Kalan A, Ozkan A, Baksu B, Tekelioğlu M, Goker N. PMID: 15715535

...This prospective randomized study involved 840 women who underwent cesarean section. The patients were grouped into four: (1) manual placental delivery + exteriorized uterine repair; (2) spontaneous placental delivery + exteriorized uterine repair; (3) manual placental delivery + in situ uterine repair; (4) spontaneous placental delivery + in situ uterine repair...The decrease in postoperative hemoglobin (P < 0.05) and hematocrit (P < 0.001) was significantly greater in the manual removal groups (groups 1 and 3) than in the spontaneous expulsion groups (groups 2 and 4) at 48 hr postoperatively. The incidence of postoperative endometritis was significantly higher in manual removal groups (15.2%) (groups 1 and 3) than in spontaneous groups (5.7%) (groups 2 and 4) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Manual removal of the placenta at cesarean delivery results in more operative blood loss and a higher incidence of postcesarean endometritis.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD004737. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004737.pub2. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Anorlu RI, Maholwana B, Hofmeyr GJ. PMID: 18646109

...CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of the placenta with cord traction at caesarean section has more advantages compared to manual removal. These are less endometritis; less blood loss; less decrease in haematocrit levels postoperatively; and shorter duration of hospital stay.

Sutures vs. Staples

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Nov;29(22):3705-11. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2016.1141886. Epub 2016 Feb 26. Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Wang H, Hong S, Teng H, Qiao L, Yin H. PMID: 26785886

...RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in this analysis. Subcuticular sutures were associated with significantly decreased incidence of wound complications compared to staples (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.45-2.45)...CONCLUSIONS: Compared with staples following cesarean delivery, subcuticular sutures are associated with decreased risk of wound complications and better long-term cosmetic outcome, but slightly prolong duration of surgery.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):621.e1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.020. Epub 2014 Dec 19. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. PMID: 25530592

...Twelve randomized trials with data for the primary outcome on 3112 women were identified. Women whose incisions were closed with suture were significantly less likely to have wound complications than those closed with staples (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.87). This difference remained significant even when wound complications were stratified by obesity. The decrease in wound complications was largely due to the lower incidence of wound separations in those closed with suture (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.43)...CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing cesarean, closure of the transverse skin incision with suture significantly decreases wound morbidity, specifically wound separation, without significant differences in pain, patient satisfaction, or cosmesis. Suture placement does take 7 minutes longer than staples.