Literature DB >> 16948717

Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with "no indicated risk," United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts.

Marian F MacDorman1, Eugene Declercq, Fay Menacker, Michael H Malloy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The percentage of United States' births delivered by cesarean section has increased rapidly in recent years, even for women considered to be at low risk for a cesarean section. The purpose of this paper is to examine infant and neonatal mortality risks associated with primary cesarean section compared with vaginal delivery for singleton full-term (37-41 weeks' gestation) women with no indicated medical risks or complications.
METHODS: National linked birth and infant death data for the 1998-2001 birth cohorts (5,762,037 live births and 11,897 infant deaths) were analyzed to assess the risk of infant and neonatal mortality for women with no indicated risk by method of delivery and cause of death. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model neonatal survival probabilities as a function of delivery method, and sociodemographic and medical risk factors.
RESULTS: Neonatal mortality rates were higher among infants delivered by cesarean section (1.77 per 1,000 live births) than for those delivered vaginally (0.62). The magnitude of this difference was reduced only moderately on statistical adjustment for demographic and medical factors, and when deaths due to congenital malformations and events with Apgar scores less than 4 were excluded. The cesarean/vaginal mortality differential was widespread, and not confined to a few causes of death.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the causes of these differentials is important, given the rapid growth in the number of primary cesareans without a reported medical indication.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16948717     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00102.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  39 in total

1.  Planned Cesarean Delivery at Term and Adverse Outcomes in Childhood Health.

Authors:  Mairead Black; Siladitya Bhattacharya; Sam Philip; Jane E Norman; David J McLernon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?

Authors:  B Anthony Armson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Maternal and neonatal effects of caesarean section.

Authors:  Allison Shorten
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-30

4.  Neonatal mortality risk for repeat cesarean compared to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States, 1998-2002 birth cohorts.

Authors:  Fay Menacker; Marian F MacDorman; Eugene Declercq
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2010-03

Review 5.  Elective cesarean section: its impact on neonatal respiratory outcome.

Authors:  Ashwin Ramachandrappa; Lucky Jain
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.430

6.  The impact of the active management of risk in pregnancy at term on birth outcomes: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  James M Nicholson; Samuel Parry; Aaron B Caughey; Sarah Rosen; Allison Keen; George A Macones
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Neonatal morbidity and mortality after elective cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Caroline Signore; Mark Klebanoff
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.430

8.  They said so on the news: parsing media reports about birth.

Authors:  Amy M Romano; Andrea Lythgoe; Henci Goer
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2010

Review 9.  Finding autonomy in birth.

Authors:  Rebecca Kukla; Miriam Kuppermann; Margaret Little; Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Lisa M Mitchell; Elizabeth M Armstrong; Lisa Harris
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.898

10.  Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.