Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37819872›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

The effect of prone positioning on maternal haemodynamics and fetal wellbeing in the third trimester-A primary cohort study with a scoping review.

Laura Ormesher, Jessica Catchpole, Linda Peacock, Heather Pitt, Anastasia Fabian-Hunt, Dexter Hayes, Claudia Popp, Jason M Carson, Raoul van Loon, Lynne Warrander and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04586283 (Does Maternal Prone Position Affect Maternal Cardiorespiratory Status or the Fetal Heart Rate?), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04586283 nacompletednot on this map

Does Maternal Prone Position Affect Maternal Cardiorespiratory Status or the Fetal Heart Rate?

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ManchesterRan2021 to 2022Enrolled21ConditionsPregnancy-Related Condition, UnspecifiedArmsMaternal prone position
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura OrmesherDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1820-5800
Jessica CatchpoleDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Linda PeacockSaint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Heather PittSaint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Anastasia Fabian-HuntDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Dexter HayesDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Claudia PoppDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Jason M CarsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Raoul van LoonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Lynne WarranderDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Karli BüchlingNatal Comforts, The Cotswolds, United Kingdom.
Alexander E P HeazellDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSupine sleep position is associated with stillbirth, likely secondary to inferior vena cava compression, and a reduction in cardiac output (CO) and uteroplacental perfusion. Evidence for the effects of prone position in pregnancy is less clear. This study aimed to determine the effect maternal prone position on maternal haemodynamics and fetal heart rate, compared with left lateral position.

methodsTwenty-one women >28 weeks' gestation underwent non-invasive CO monitoring (Cheetah) every 5 minutes and continuous fetal heart rate monitoring (MONICA) in left lateral (20 minutes), prone (30 minutes), followed by left lateral (20 minutes). Anxiety and comfort were assessed by questionnaires. Regression analyses (adjusted for time) compared variables between positions. The information derived from the primary study was used in an existing mathematical model of maternal circulation in pregnancy, to determine whether occlusion of the inferior vena cava could account for the observed effects. In addition, a scoping review was performed to identify reported clinical, haemodynamic and fetal effects of maternal prone position; studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes or effects or maternal prone position in pregnancy. Study records were grouped by publication type for ease of data synthesis and critical analysis. Meta-analysis was performed where there were sufficient studies.

resultsMaternal blood pressure (BP) and total vascular resistance (TVR) were increased in prone (sBP 109 vs 104 mmHg, p = 0.03; dBP 74 vs 67 mmHg, p = 0.003; TVR 1302 vs 1075 dyne.s-1cm-5, p = 0.03). CO was reduced in prone (5.7 vs 7.1 mL/minute, p = 0.003). Fetal heart rate, variability and decelerations were unaltered. However, fetal accelerations were less common in prone position (86% vs 95%, p = 0.03). Anxiety was reduced after the procedure, compared to beforehand (p = 0.002), despite a marginal decline in comfort (p = 0.04).The model predicted that if occlusion of the inferior vena cava occurred, the sBP, dBP and CO would generally decrease. However, the TVR remained relatively consistent, which implies that the MAP and CO decrease at a similar rate when occlusion occurs. The scoping review found that maternal and fetal outcomes from 47 included case reports of prone positioning during pregnancy were generally favourable. Meta-analysis of three prospective studies investigating maternal haemodynamic effects of prone position found an increase in sBP and maternal heart rate, but no effect on respiratory rate, oxygen saturation or baseline fetal heart rate (though there was significant heterogeneity between studies).

conclusionProne position was associated with a reduction in CO but an uncertain effect on fetal wellbeing. The decline in CO may be due to caval compression, as supported by the computational model. Further work is needed to optimise the safety of prone positioning in pregnancy.

trial registrationThis trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04586283).

Indexed as

Heart Rate, FetalHemodynamicsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, ThirdProne PositionProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37819872
PMCPMC10566740
OpenAlexW4387541498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.