Literature DB >> 18598118

Do risk factors for elective cesarean section differ from those of cesarean section during labor in low risk pregnancies?

Horace Roman1, Béatrice Blondel, Gérard Bréart, François Goffinet.   

Abstract

AIMS: As the rate of cesarean sections has continuously increased over the last three decades, we sought to identify the factors related to elective cesarean section (ECS) and cesarean section during labor (LCS) in low risk pregnancies and to determine if they differ for the two types of cesarean.
METHODS: We conducted an observational study that included all maternity units in metropolitan France. Using the sample from the National Perinatal Survey 2003, we included 5393 women who met the criteria of a low risk pregnancy. The odds ratios (OR) corresponding to ECS and LCS were calculated for various characteristics for the women, fetus and maternity units, using a multinomial logistic regression model. For each factor, the adjusted OR corresponding to ECS and LCS were compared using the Wald's test.
RESULTS: The rates of ECS and LCS in our population were 2.9% and 4.3%, respectively. Maternal age >or=30 years, body mass index >or=25 kg/m(2), primiparity and nationality from an African country were associated with an increased risk for both ECS and LCS. Those maternity units registering a low volume of deliveries (<1000/year) and those with a high rate of cesarean section during the previous year had an increased rate of LCS.
CONCLUSION: Women with low risk pregnancies at term may present several factors that appear to create an "environment" favorable for cesarean section, leading to an increase in the likelihood of both ECS and LCS. Furthermore, several characteristics concerning maternity units are associated with an increased likelihood of LCS. Understanding the impact of various factors on the decision about the mode of delivery is essential for obstetrical teams concerned with controlling the progressive increase in the rate of cesarean sections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18598118     DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2008.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinat Med        ISSN: 0300-5577            Impact factor:   1.901


  8 in total

1.  Women's preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Taiwanese women undergoing different modes of delivery.

Authors:  Kuei-Hui Chu; Chen-Jei Tai; Chun-Sen Hsu; Mei-Chiang Yeh; Li-Yin Chien
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean delivery in first pregnancy?

Authors:  Ali Gholami; Shaker Salarilak
Journal:  Iran J Reprod Med       Date:  2013-04

3.  Factors associated with preference for repeat cesarean in neyshabur pregnant women.

Authors:  Ali Gholami; Zahra Faraji; Pegah Lotfabadi; Zohre Foroozanfar; Mitra Rezaof; Abdolhalim Rajabi
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2014-09

4.  Intrapartum Fetal and Maternal Complications in Low-Risk Pregnancy: Experience of a Tertiary Hospital in Low-Income Countries.

Authors:  Mohamed Alkhatim Alsammani; Khalid Nasralla; Sumeya A Khieri; Zaheera Saadia; Mohamed Abdelgadir Shaaeldin; Ali Osman Ali
Journal:  Open Access Maced J Med Sci       Date:  2019-06-30

5.  The Ontario Mother and Infant Study (TOMIS) III: a multi-site cohort study of the impact of delivery method on health, service use, and costs of care in the first postpartum year.

Authors:  Wendy Sword; Susan Watt; Paul Krueger; Lehana Thabane; Christine Kurtz Landy; Dan Farine; Marilyn Swinton
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 6.  International migration and caesarean birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lisa Merry; Rhonda Small; Béatrice Blondel; Anita J Gagnon
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Mood disorders and parity - a clue to the aetiology of the postpartum trigger.

Authors:  Arianna Di Florio; Lisa Jones; Liz Forty; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Emma Robertson Blackmore; Jess Heron; Nick Craddock; Ian Jones
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.839

8.  Are risk factors for preterm and early-term live singleton birth the same? A population-based study in France.

Authors:  Marie Delnord; Béatrice Blondel; Caroline Prunet; Jennifer Zeitlin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.