Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Prematurity remains the most significant cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Knowing which group of women is at risk for developing preterm labor will define a target population for better prenatal care and prevention modalities.

Objective: To examine whether preterm delivery rates are associated with ethnicity, age, parity, and style of living.

Methods: We conducted a longitudinal case series examining obstetric and demographic data of 17,493 deliveries that occurred between June 1994 and May 1999. All deliveries were performed in the obstetric department of HaEmek Medical Center (Afula, Israel), which serves as a referral center. The main outcome measures were preterm delivery, as related to the women's ethnicity, age parity, and style of living ± namely, town, village, or kibbutz.

Results: The overall preterm delivery rate was 8.5%. The preterm delivery rate in non-Jewish women (10.5%) was higher than in Jewish women (7.1%) (P < 0.00001). The preterm delivery rate in women younger than 20 or older than 40 (12.5%) was much higher than in women between the ages of 21 and 40 (8.0%) (P< 0.00001). Grand-multipara women (>8) had a higher preterm delivery rate (13.8%) than less parous women (8.5%) (P < 0.012). Style of living was also associated with the preterm delivery rate (P< 0.00001): kibbutz 5.5%, Jewish towns 7.8%, non-Jewish towns 8.7%, Jewish villages 6.7%, and non-Jewish villages 11.0%.

Conclusions: Style of living, ethnicity, age and parity are statistically significant risk factors for preterm delivery in our area. These factors provide a more definable target population for better prenatal care.
 

Background: Pregnant diabetic women are often subjected to frequent and prolonged hospitalizations to assure tight glycemic control, but in recent years attempts have been made at ambulatory control. The financial and social advantages of ambulatory management are obvious, but no report to date has prospectively compared its efficacy with that of hospitalization.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and cost of ambulatory care as compared to repeated hospitalizations for management of diabetes in pregnancy.

Methods: We conducted an 8 year prospective controlled study that included 681 diabetic women, experiencing 801 singleton pregnancies, with commencement of therapy prior to 34 gestational weeks. During 1986–1989, 394 pregnancies (60 pre-gestational diabetes mellitus and 334 gestational diabetes mellitus) were managed by hospitalization, and for the period 1990–1993, 407 pregnancies (61 PGDM and 346 GDM) were managed ambulatorily. Glycemic control, maternal complications, perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity and hospital cost were analyzed.

Results: There was no difference in metabolic control and pregnancy outcome in women with PGDM between the hospitalized and the ambulatory groups. Patients with GDM who were managed ambulatorily had significantly lower mean capillary glucose levels, later delivery and higher gestational age at induction of labor as compared to their hospitalized counterparts. In this group there were also lower rates of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, phototherapy and intensive care unit admissions and stay. The saved hospital cost (in Israeli prices) in the ambulatory group was $6,000 and $15,000 per GDM and PGDM pregnancy, respectively.

Conclusions: Ambulatory care is as effective as hospitalization among PGDM patients and more effective among GDM patients with regard to glycemic control and neonatal morbidity. This is not only more convenient for the pregnant diabetic patient, but significantly reduces treatment costs.