Article

Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes.

Reproductive Statistics Branch, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7318, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA.
Clinics in Perinatology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 07/2008; 35(2):293-307, v. DOI: 10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The percentage of United States cesarean births increased from 20.7% in 1996 to 31.1% in 2006. Cesarean rates increased for women of all ages, race/ethnic groups, and gestational ages and in all states. Both primary and repeat cesareans have increased. Increases in primary cesareans in cases of "no indicated risk" have been more rapid than in the overall population and seem the result of changes in obstetric practice rather than changes in the medical risk profile or increases in "maternal request." Several studies note an increased risk for neonatal and maternal mortality for medically elective cesareans compared with vaginal births.

1 Follower
 · 
278 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract OBJECTIVE: To compare extra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery with in situ repair. METHODS: The present study was a double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted at a university hospital in Egypt during 2012-2013, and included women with an indication for cesarean delivery. Extra-abdominal repair was used in group 1 (n=500) and in situ repair in group 2 (n=500). The primary outcome measure was the surgery duration. RESULTS: Surgery duration was significantly longer in group 1 than group 2 (49.9±2.3minutes vs 39.9±1.8minutes; P<0.001). More patients in group 1 than in group 2 had postoperative moderate-to-severe pain (165 [33.0%] vs 115 [23.0%]; P=0.001) and needed additional postoperative analgesia (100 [20.0%] vs 50 [10.0%]; P<0.001). Moreover, mean time to bowel movement was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (17.0±2.7hours vs 14.0±1.9hours; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In situ uterine closure is more advantageous than extra-abdominal repair in terms of surgery duration, postoperative pain and need for additional analgesia, and return of bowel movement. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01723605. Copyright © 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. KEYWORDS: Cesarean delivery; Exteriorization; In situ repair; Uterine repair site
    International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 11/2014; 127(2):163-6. DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.05.004 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to adjust the indications for caesarean delivery in a Brazilian teaching hospital in accordance with a specific protocol. Methods The present before-and-after study was carried out in three stages. In stages 1 and 3, data were obtained for 160 cesarean deliveries that occurred between May 20 and July 10 in 2011 and 2012, respectively. For stage 2, the protocol was implemented for 12 months. The deliveries in stages 1 and 3 were classified as high or low risk, and as consistent or inconsistent clinical cases on the basis of the protocol. Results A total of 160 (61.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 55.2–67.0) of 262 deliveries in stage 1 were by cesarean, compared with 160 (71.4%; 95% CI 65.5–77.3) of 224 in stage 3 (P = 0.67). In stage 1, 125 (78.1%; 95% CI 71.7–84.5) showed indications consistent with the protocol, compared with 136 (85.0%; 95% CI 79.5–90.5) in stage 3 (P = 0.11). Among the low-risk cesarean deliveries, 27 (51.9%; 95% CI 38.3–65.5) of 52 were consistent with the protocol in stage 1, compared with 49 (72.1%; 95% CI 61.4–86.1) of 68 in stage 3 (P = 0.02). Conclusion The proposed intervention improved the suitability of indications for cesarean delivery among low-risk pregnancies only.
    International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 10/2014; 128(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.08.011 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Despite similarities, perinatal and infant mortality rates between British Columbia, (BC) Canada and Finland differ. Key variables that may influence stillbirth, early neonatal, perinatal and infant mortality rates in BC and Finland were studied. Methods: After standardizing definitions, data for all births between 2001 and 2009 from provincial and national registries were used to compare perinatal outcomes between BC and Finland. Annual change was evaluated with regression analyses. Results: Births before 22 weeks gestation were excluded. All mortality rates per 1000 were lower in Finland vs BC (perinatal: 5.1 vs 6.2, stillbirth: 3.4 vs 3.9, early neonatal 1.7 vs 2.4, infant 2.9 vs 4.0; all p < 0.0001). Multiple and preterm births were higher in BC with lower mean birth weight. Annual mortality rates decreased in both countries during the study period. Prenatal visits were more frequent in Finland. Caesarean section rates were markedly lower and stable in Finland but higher and increasing in BC. Discussion: Differences in perinatal mortality rate definitions were found. Higher multiple birth and preterm birth rates in BC are affecting mortality rates. Finland’s policy of single embryo transfer is a potential explanation. It is possible to have good perinatal outcomes and low caesarean section rates. Conclusions: The Finnish health care system may suggest possible solutions for improved perinatal outcomes. Lower per capita health care expenditures in Finland do not appear to have adversely affected perinatal outcomes.
    Open Journal of Pediatrics 01/2013; DOI:10.4236/ojped.2013.31007

Preview

Download
10 Downloads
Available from