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 Bookmark
  • 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. 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. · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The rate of cesarean delivery in the United States is variable across geographic areas. The aims of this study are two-fold: (1) to determine whether the geographic variation in cesarean delivery rate is consistent for private insurance and Medicaid (2) to identify the patient, population, and market factors associated with cesarean rate and determine if these factors vary by payer.Methods We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID) to measure the cesarean rate at the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) level. We linked the hospitalization data to data from other national sources to measure population and market characteristics. We calculated unadjusted and risk-adjusted CBSA cesarean rates by payer. For the second aim, we estimated a hierarchical logistical model with the hospitalization as the unit of analysis to determine the factors associated with cesarean delivery.ResultsThe average CBSA cesarean rate for women with private insurance was higher (18.9 percent) than for women with Medicaid (16.4 percent). The factors predicting cesarean rate were largely consistent across payers, with the following exceptions: women under age 18 had a greater likelihood of cesarean section if they had Medicaid but had a greater likelihood of vaginal birth if they had private insurance; Asian and Native American women with private insurance had a greater likelihood of cesarean section but Asian and Native American women with Medicaid had a greater likelihood of vaginal birth. The percent African American in the population predicted increased cesarean rates for private insurance only; the number of acute care beds per capita predicted increased cesarean rate for women with Medicaid but not women with private insurance. Further we found the number of obstetricians/gynecologists per capita predicted increased cesarean rate for women with private insurance only, and the number of midwives per capita predicted increased vaginal birth rate for women with private insurance only.Conclusions Factors associated with geographic variation in cesarean delivery, a frequent and high-resource inpatient procedure, vary somewhat by payer. Using this information to identify areas for intervention is key to improving quality of care and reducing healthcare costs.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 11/2014; 14(1):387. · 2.15 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; · 1.56 Impact Factor


Available from