The influence of resuscitation preferences on obstetrical management of periviable deliveries

B. Tucker Edmonds, F. McKenzie, K. S. Hendrix, S. M. Perkins, G. D. Zimet

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective:To determine the relative influence of patients’ resuscitation preferences on periviable delivery management.Study Design:Surveyed 295 obstetrician-gynecologists about managing periviable preterm premature rupture of membranes. Across 10 vignettes, we systematically varied gestational age, occupation, method of conception and resuscitation preference. Physicians rated their likelihood (0 to 10) of proceeding with induction, steroids and cesarean. Data were analyzed via conjoint analysis.Result:Two hundred and five physician responses were included. Median ratings for management decisions were: induction 1.89; steroids 5.00; cesarean for labor 3.89; and cesarean for distress 4.11. Gestational age had the greatest influence on physician ratings across all decisions (importance values ranging from 72.6 to 86.6), followed by patient’s resuscitation preference (range=9.3 to 21.4).Conclusion:Gestational age is weighted more heavily than patients’ resuscitation preferences in obstetricians’ decision making for periviable delivery management. Misalignment of antenatal management with parental resuscitation preferences may adversely affect periviable outcomes. Interventions are needed to facilitate more patient-centered decision making in periviable care.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 25 September 2014; doi:10.1038/jp.2014.175.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)161-166
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Perinatology
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The influence of resuscitation preferences on obstetrical management of periviable deliveries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this