Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

In the 1980s few clinicians offered delivery in water. ^{1 2} By 1993 all maternity units in England and Wales had managed labour or delivery in water and nearly half had installed birthing pools.³ Perceived advantages include women feeling relaxed⁴ and more autonomous than in conventional deliveries⁵although a review of three randomised controlled trials ^{4 6 7} of labour in water showed no clear beneficial or adverse effects on mother or baby.⁸

 The main advantage claimed for delivery in water is a gentler experience for the baby. Reports of possible adverse effectshypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy⁹ and one death attributed to labour taking place in warm water¹⁰ and infection due to delivery in water^11-13raise theoretical causal links. Only one report of a baby who died with waterlogged lungs¹⁴ is clearly attributable to delivery in water. No studies, however, have yet compared maternal or paediatric outcomes in similar groups of women delivering in water and delivering conventionally (not in water).

We conducted national surveys of maternity units and paediatricians to determine the risks of death or admission for special care for babies delivered in water and identified clinical findings that might relate to the use of water. We compared these results with rates for women at low risk of complications during labour or delivery who delivered conventionally.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

From April 1994 to April 1996 (25 months) all 1500 consultant paediatricians in the British Isles were surveyed each month by the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit¹⁵ and asked to report whether or not they knew of any births that met the case definition of "perinatal death or admission for special care within 48 hours of birth following labour or delivery in water." We analysed births in the British Isles from April 1994 to March 1996.

 Using standard questionnaires, clinicians responsible for the mother and her child provided data about the labour, delivery, use of water, the baby's condition, diagnoses, ventilator and treatment requirements, and reason for admission for special care or death.

 We evaluated underreporting of deaths by comparing our findings with reports to the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, a mandatory, regional notification scheme. Regional coordinators were contacted to determine whether any deaths after delivery in water had occurred in addition to those reported to the investigators.

 A postal questionnaire was sent to all NHS maternity units in England and Wales in 1995 and again in 1996 to determine the total number of deliveries in water during the study period. Methods are described elsewhere.¹⁶ No non-NHS units or non-NHS midwives were included in the survey.

 We analysed the data using EpiInfo version 6, and confidence limits are based on the Poisson distribution.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Survey of maternity units
Of 219 maternity units surveyed, 217 responded (213 in 1995 and 184 in 1996). We used the numbers of deliveries in water in England and Wales reported for calendar years 1994 (n=1881) and 1995 (n=2093) and for January-March 1996 (n=528) to estimate the number for the period April 1994 to March 1996 (n=4032). This constituted 0.6% of all deliveries. In all, 9% (380/4032) of deliveries in water took place at home; 83% (3328) of deliveries in water took place in southern England, 16% (633) in the northern English regions, and 2% (71) in Wales. Reports for 3304 (82%) deliveries were derived from written records; 502 (12%) were based on good estimates; and the rest were based on rough estimates. On the basis of returns from units that responded to only one survey (assuming no unit closures or change in the number of deliveries), the denominator was underestimated by 219.

Survey of paediatricians
Of 96 reports of perinatal death or admission for special care after delivery in water during the study period, 64 fulfilled the case definition; of these, 53 were reported through the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit and 11 directly to the study coordinator from one unit carrying out a large number of water births. The remaining 32 reports were duplicates,¹² made in error,⁹ or concerned births that occurred outside the study period.¹¹ No additional deaths were notified by the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. Thirty seven of the 64 reports involved delivery in water; in the other 27, only the labour took place in water.

Water conditions
No information was given about water temperature for 26/64 births. In many instances the temperature was described as comfortable or not known. In 12 cases the recorded temperature was 38°C (maximum 41°C). Women who delivered in water spent more time immersed (median 185 (range 45-510) minutes) than women who were in labour in water but who delivered conventionally (150 (15-610) minutes).

Babies delivered in water
The reported numbers of perinatal deaths or admissions for special care after delivery in water were 31 in southern England, 5 in northern England, 1 in Scotland, and none in Wales, Northern Ireland, or the Irish Republic. Of the 37 women, 35% (13/37) delivered at home, 51% (19/37) were primiparous (this was their first registrable pregnancy), 3/37 had labour induced and 2/37 received pethidine.

Perinatal mortality in babies delivered in water
There were 5 perinatal deaths among the 4030 live births in water in England and Wales (perinatal mortality 1.2 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.9) (table 1). Two babies were stillborn, one after a concealed pregnancy delivered unattended at home with no previous antenatal care. The other stillbirth was diagnosed before immersion. All three postpartum deaths were associated with abnormal pathological findings: one baby died aged 3 days with neonatal herpes infection; one died aged 30 minutes with an intracranial haemorrhage after precipitate delivery; and the third, who died aged 8 hours, was found to have hypoplastic lungs at postmortem examination.

Risk of admission for special care in babies delivered in water
In all, 35 babies in the British Islesof whom 32 survived and 3 later diedwere admitted for special care within 48 hours of delivery in water (table 2). One was born in Scotland, leaving 34 babies out of 4030 delivered alive in water in England and Wales admitted for special care, a risk of 8.4 per 1000 live births (5.8 to 11.8) (table 3). Of the 32 survivors, 13 required respiratory support (ventilation or continuous positive airways pressure⁶ or head-box oxygen⁷). Fifteen of the survivors had lower respiratory tract problems, variously labelled as pneumonia, transient tachypnoea of the newborn, or "wet lung"⁹; suspected aspiration³; meconium aspiration¹; water aspiration¹; and "freshwater drowning" (1, who had hyponatraemia)).

Outcomes in women who were in labour in water but delivered conventionally
No mortality or morbidity rates can be derived for babies born to women who were in labour in water but delivered conventionally as the denominator is unknown. Six deaths were reported, including 3 stillbirths (2 unexplained and 1 intrapartum asphyxia attributed to the umbilical cord wrapped 5 times around the neck); 2 deaths in the first week of life (one attributed to the sudden infant death syndrome and the other to hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy grade 3 in a baby with necrotic cerebral lesions at postmortem examination suggestive of antepartum hypoxia), and one death at 28 days after hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy grade 3 attributed to severe shoulder dystocia. The 6 women whose babies died left the water between 30 minutes and 6 hours before delivery.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

The risks of perinatal death or admission for special care in babies delivered in water are based on small numbers and have wide confidence intervals. Underreporting is also possible. No additional deaths were identified through the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, and it is unlikely that any were missed. Underestimation of the denominator for NHS units is likely, however, as such deliveries are unusual and may not be routinely recorded. The figure for perinatal mortality is therefore probably an upper estimate. In contrast, we could not verify the reported admissions for special care. Underreporting of such admissions is likely.

Comparison with conventional deliveries
Comparable "low risk" deliveries include women who book and deliver at home and those who have no adverse obstetric history and undergo spontaneous, normal vaginal, non-instrumental delivery. Published and unpublished rates for these groups are shown in tables 1 and 3. The perinatal mortality observed in our study was similar to the rates for (a) home deliveries, (b) the extremely low risk women who constituted 4% of hospital deliveries in North Staffordshire,¹⁷ and (c) the low risk women whose deliveries constituted 11% of all deliveries in the North West Thames region (unpublished data). Rates were slightly higher for women who delivered in Scotland, but this group included women with obstetric problems who were admitted for 24 hours or less during pregnancy.

Specific clinical problems
No comparative data are available for the risk of lower respiratory tract problems in babies of low risk women who delivered conventionally. Two admissions for water aspiration, however, may have been attributable to delivery in water, and similar cases have been reported in the literature. ^{14 19} In lambs, inhibitory mechanisms that prevent breathing until contact with cool air can be overridden by sustained hypoxia.²⁰ In theory, therefore, some babies with unrecognised chronic hypoxia may gasp underwater.

Conclusion
What implications do our findings have for practice? The similarity in perinatal mortality and morbidity in low risk women suggests that delivery in water does not substantially increase adverse perinatal outcomes. Overall rates may, however, mask specific benefits and harms, such as water aspiration or snapped umbilical cord. Owing to the small numbers in all studies of low risk women, we could not determine whether the low mortality and morbidity in babies delivered in water could be further reduced by conventional delivery.

	Acknowledgments

From the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, Natalie Kenney undertook the postal survey of maternity units, Jo Garcia and Sally Marchant gave helpful comments on the study design and manuscript, Fiona Alderdice commented on the study design; heads of local midwifery services provided the data. We thank Anne Welch and other contributors to the North West Thames region's maternity database for data on low risk women and Joannie Wilkinson, who analysed the data. We also thank the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (funded by Children Nationwide Medical Research Fund), the paediatricians who reported babies, the midwives and doctors who completed questionnaires, the coordinators of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, and others who provided advice and information to the study.

Contributors: Both authors designed the study, analysed the data, and wrote the paper. PAT collected the data and REG is the guarantor.

	Footnotes

Funding: Department of Health.

Competing interests: None declared.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

1.	Odent M. Birth underwater. Lancet 1983; ii: 1476-1477.
2.	Church L. Waterbirth: one birthing center's observations. J Nurse Midwifery 1989; 34: 165-170[Medline].
3.	Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant S, Ashurst H, Hughes P, Berridge G, et al. Labour and birth in water in England and Wales. BMJ 1995; 310: 837[Free Full Text].
4.	Cammu H, Clasen K, Van Wettere L, Derde M-P. "To bathe or not to bathe" during the first stage of labour. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1994; 73: 468-472[Medline].
5.	Page L, Kitzinger S. A midwifery perspective on the use of water in labour and birth. Matern Child Health 1995;Jan:22-6.
6.	Schorn MN, McAllister JL, Blanco JD. Water immersion and the effect on labor. J Nurse Midwifery 1993; 38: 336-342[Medline].
7.	Rush J, Burlock S, Lambert K, Loosley-Millman M, Hutchison B, Enkin M. The effects of whirlpools baths in labor: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1996; 23: 136-143[Medline].
8.	Nikodem VC. Immersion in water during pregnancy, labour and birth. In: Cochrane Collaboration ed. Cochrane Library. Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software , 1998.
9.	Levene ML, Kornberg J, Williams THC. The incidence and severity of post-asphyxial encephalopathy in full term infants. Early Hum Dev 1985; 11: 21-26[Medline].
10.	Rosevear SK, Marlow N, Stirrat GM. Birthing pools and the fetus. Lancet 1993; 342: 1048-1049[Medline].
11.	Rawal J, Shah A, Stirk F, Mehtar S. Water birth and infection in babies. BMJ 1994; 309: 511[Free Full Text].
12.	Parker PC, Boles RG. Pseudomonas otitis media and bacteremia following a water birth. Pediatrics 1997; 99: 653[Free Full Text].
13.	Roome APCH, Spencer RC. Birthing pools and infection control. Lancet 1996; 348: 274[Medline].
14.	Rosser J. Is water birth safe? The facts behind the controversy. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 1994; 4: 4-6.
15.	Hall S, Nicoll A. The British Paediatric Surveillance Unita pioneering method for investigating the less common disorders of childhood. Report of a seminar held in June 1995. Child Care Health Dev 1997; 24: 129-143.
16.	Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant M, Ashurst H, Hughes P, Berridge G, et al. Labour and delivery in water in England and Wales: survey report. Br J Midwifery 1995; 3: 375-382.
17.	Arya R, Pethen T, Johanson R, Spencer S. Outcome in low risk pregnancies. Arch Dis Child 1996; 75: F97-102.
18.	Middle C, MacFarlane A. Labour and delivery of "normal" primiparous women: analysis of routinely collected data. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102: 970-977[Medline].
19.	Barry CN. Could saline in the pool reduce the potential hazards? BMJ 1995; 310: 1602[Free Full Text].
20.	Johnson P. Birth under waterto breathe or not to breathe. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 202-208[Medline].
21.	Hull J, Dodd KL. Falling incidence of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in term infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 386-391[Medline].
22.	Northern Region Perinatal Mortality Survey Coordinating Group. Collaborative survey of perinatal loss in planned and unplanned home births. BMJ 1996; 313: 1306-1309[Abstract/Free Full Text].
23.	Ford C, Iliffe S, Franklin O. Outcome of planned home births in an inner city practice. BMJ 1991; 303: 1517-1519.
24.	Cleary R, Beard R, Chapple J, Coles J, Griffin M, Joffe M, et al. The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 223-229[Medline].

(Accepted 25 May 1999)