Literature DB >> 17296957

Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term.

Shiliang Liu1, Robert M Liston, K S Joseph, Maureen Heaman, Reg Sauve, Michael S Kramer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rate of elective primary cesarean delivery continues to rise, owing in part to the widespread perception that the procedure is of little or no risk to healthy women.
METHODS: Using the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstract Database, we carried out a retrospective population-based cohort study of all women in Canada (excluding Quebec and Manitoba) who delivered from April 1991 through March 2005. Healthy women who underwent a primary cesarean delivery for breech presentation constituted a surrogate "planned cesarean group" considered to have undergone low-risk elective cesarean delivery, for comparison with an otherwise similar group of women who had planned to deliver vaginally.
RESULTS: The planned cesarean group comprised 46,766 women v. 2,292,420 in the planned vaginal delivery group; overall rates of severe morbidity for the entire 14-year period were 27.3 and 9.0, respectively, per 1000 deliveries. The planned cesarean group had increased postpartum risks of cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-6.3), wound hematoma (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.6-5.5), hysterectomy (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2-4.8), major puerperal infection (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.7-3.4), anesthetic complications (OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.0-2.6), venous thromboembolism (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.2) and hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.8), and stayed in hospital longer (adjusted mean difference 1.47 d, 95% CI 1.46-1.49 d) than those in the planned vaginal delivery group, but a lower risk of hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8). Absolute risk increases in severe maternal morbidity rates were low (e.g., for postpartum cardiac arrest, the increase with planned cesarean delivery was 1.6 per 1000 deliveries, 95% CI 1.2-2.1). The difference in the rate of in-hospital maternal death between the 2 groups was nonsignificant (p = 0.87).
INTERPRETATION: Although the absolute difference is small, the risks of severe maternal morbidity associated with planned cesarean delivery are higher than those associated with planned vaginal delivery. These risks should be considered by women contemplating an elective cesarean delivery and by their physicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17296957      PMCID: PMC1800583          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  28 in total

1.  ACOG Committee Opinion. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of decision making.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery.

Authors:  K S Joseph; David C Young; Linda Dodds; Colleen M O'Connell; Victoria M Allen; Sujata Chandra; Alexander C Allen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Elective cesarean section.

Authors:  John R Fernandes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-07-06       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Planned elective cesarean section: a reasonable choice for some women?

Authors:  Mary E Hannah
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-03-02       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Using administrative data to identify indications for elective primary cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Kimberly D Gregory; Lisa M Korst; Jeffrey A Gornbein; Lawrence D Platt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group.

Authors:  M E Hannah; W J Hannah; S A Hewson; E D Hodnett; S Saigal; A R Willan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-10-21       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization.

Authors:  M Lydon-Rochelle; V L Holt; D P Martin; T R Easterling
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-10       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech presentation in California: a population-based study.

Authors:  William M Gilbert; Shauna M Hicks; Nina M Boe; Beate Danielsen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term.

Authors:  V M Allen; C M O'Connell; R M Liston; T F Baskett
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  154 in total

1.  Decision Making About Method of Delivery on the U.S.-Mexico Border.

Authors:  Carla L DeSisto; Jill A McDonald; Roger Rochat; Beatriz A Diaz-Apodaca; Eugene Declercq
Journal:  Health Care Women Int       Date:  2014-12-20

2.  Should patients be entitled to cesarean section on demand?: No.

Authors:  Alain Demers
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Caesarean Delivery Rate Review: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors:  N Degani; N Sikich
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2015-03-01

4.  Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?

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

5.  Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those who do not: very different ways of viewing childbirth.

Authors:  Michael C Klein; Janusz Kaczorowski; Jocelyn Tomkinson; Stephen Hearps; Nazli Baradaran; Rollin Brant
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Measuring maternal health: focus on maternal morbidity.

Authors:  Tabassum Firoz; Doris Chou; Peter von Dadelszen; Priya Agrawal; Rachel Vanderkruik; Ozge Tunçalp; Laura A Magee; Nynke van Den Broek; Lale Say
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 9.408

7.  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

8.  Analyzing the risks of cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Vincent V Richman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-10-09       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  The association between increased use of labor induction and reduced rate of cesarean delivery.

Authors:  James M Nicholson; Peter Cronholm; Lisa C Kellar; Morghan H Stenson; George A Macones
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.681

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.