S Segal1, R Blatman, M Doble, S Datta. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. bssegal@zeus.bwh.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between epidural analgesia for labor and the risk of cesarean section for dystocia remains controversial The authors hypothesized that if epidural analgesia were an important factor in determining cesarean section rates, then obstetricians with higher rates of utilization of epidural analgesia for labor would have higher rates of cesarean section for dystocia. METHODS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia and frequency of occurrence of various patient risk factors for cesarean section were calculated for 110 obstetricians caring for > or = 50 low-risk parturients. These frequencies were compared by linear regression to obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. Stepwise regression was used to attempt to predict obstetricians' cesarean rates from the incidence of various patient and provider risk factors. RESULTS: There was no relationship between frequency of epidural analgesia and rate of cesarean section for dystocia across practitioners (R2 = 0.019; P = 0.156). Weighting each obstetrician's data for the number of patients cared for during the study period did not change this result. Stepwise linear regression only modestly predicted obstetricians' cesarean section rates for dystocia, yielding a model containing 12 variables not including epidural analgesia (gestational age, induction of labor, maternal age, provider volume, nulliparity, and seven interactions; adjusted R2 = 0.312; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia does not predict obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. After accounting for a number of known patient risk factors, obstetrical practice style appears to be a major determinant of rates of cesarean section.
BACKGROUND: The association between epidural analgesia for labor and the risk of cesarean section for dystocia remains controversial The authors hypothesized that if epidural analgesia were an important factor in determining cesarean section rates, then obstetricians with higher rates of utilization of epidural analgesia for labor would have higher rates of cesarean section for dystocia. METHODS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia and frequency of occurrence of various patient risk factors for cesarean section were calculated for 110 obstetricians caring for > or = 50 low-risk parturients. These frequencies were compared by linear regression to obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. Stepwise regression was used to attempt to predict obstetricians' cesarean rates from the incidence of various patient and provider risk factors. RESULTS: There was no relationship between frequency of epidural analgesia and rate of cesarean section for dystocia across practitioners (R2 = 0.019; P = 0.156). Weighting each obstetrician's data for the number of patients cared for during the study period did not change this result. Stepwise linear regression only modestly predicted obstetricians' cesarean section rates for dystocia, yielding a model containing 12 variables not including epidural analgesia (gestational age, induction of labor, maternal age, provider volume, nulliparity, and seven interactions; adjusted R2 = 0.312; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of use of epidural analgesia does not predict obstetricians' rates of cesarean section for dystocia. After accounting for a number of known patient risk factors, obstetrical practice style appears to be a major determinant of rates of cesarean section.