BACKGROUND: Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth for women in preterm labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (24 April 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery for preterm birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies (involving 122 women) but only four studies (involving only 116 women) contributed data to the analyses.Infant There were very little data of relevance to the three main (primary) outcomes considered in this review: There was no significant difference between planned immediate caesarean section and planned vaginal delivery with respect to birth injury to infant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.62; one trial, 38 women) or birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women). The only cases of birth trauma were a laceration of the buttock in a baby who was delivered by caesarean section and mild bruising in another allocated to the group delivered vaginally.The difference between the two groups with regard to perinatal deaths was not significant (0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.14; three trials, 89 women) and there were no data specifically relating to neonatal admission to special care and/or intensive care unit.There was also no difference between the caesarean or vaginal delivery groups in terms of markers of possible birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.60; four trials, 115 women) and no difference in attempts at breastfeeding (RR 1.40, 95% 0.11 to 17.45; one trial, 12 women). There was also no difference in neonatal fitting/seizures (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.32; three trials, 77 women), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 82.01;one trial, 12 women) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10; three trials, 103 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to meconium aspiration. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for abnormal follow-up in childhood (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.22; one trial, 38 women) or delivery less than seven days after entry (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24; two trials, 51 women). Mother: There were no data reported on maternal admissions to intensive care. However, there were seven cases of major maternal postpartum complications in the group allocated to planned immediate caesarean section and none in the group randomised to vaginal delivery (RR 7.21, 95% CI 1.37 to 38.08; four trials, 116 women).There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to maternal satisfaction (postnatal). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postpartum haemorrhage. A number of non-prespecified secondary outcomes were also considered in the analyses. There was a significant advantage for women in the vaginal delivery group with respect to maternal puerperal pyrexia (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 7.53; three trials, 89 women) and other maternal infection (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.78; three trials, 103 women), but no significant differences in wound infection (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.70; three trials, 103 women), maternal stay more than 10 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.65; three trials, 78 women) or the need for blood transfusion (results not estimable). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery for preterm babies. Further studies are needed in this area, but recruitment is proving difficult.
BACKGROUND: Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth for women in preterm labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (24 April 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery for preterm birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies (involving 122 women) but only four studies (involving only 116 women) contributed data to the analyses.Infant There were very little data of relevance to the three main (primary) outcomes considered in this review: There was no significant difference between planned immediate caesarean section and planned vaginal delivery with respect to birth injury to infant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.62; one trial, 38 women) or birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women). The only cases of birth trauma were a laceration of the buttock in a baby who was delivered by caesarean section and mild bruising in another allocated to the group delivered vaginally.The difference between the two groups with regard to perinatal deaths was not significant (0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.14; three trials, 89 women) and there were no data specifically relating to neonatal admission to special care and/or intensive care unit.There was also no difference between the caesarean or vaginal delivery groups in terms of markers of possible birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.60; four trials, 115 women) and no difference in attempts at breastfeeding (RR 1.40, 95% 0.11 to 17.45; one trial, 12 women). There was also no difference in neonatal fitting/seizures (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.32; three trials, 77 women), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 82.01;one trial, 12 women) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10; three trials, 103 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to meconium aspiration. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for abnormal follow-up in childhood (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.22; one trial, 38 women) or delivery less than seven days after entry (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24; two trials, 51 women). Mother: There were no data reported on maternal admissions to intensive care. However, there were seven cases of major maternal postpartum complications in the group allocated to planned immediate caesarean section and none in the group randomised to vaginal delivery (RR 7.21, 95% CI 1.37 to 38.08; four trials, 116 women).There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to maternal satisfaction (postnatal). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postpartum haemorrhage. A number of non-prespecified secondary outcomes were also considered in the analyses. There was a significant advantage for women in the vaginal delivery group with respect to maternal puerperal pyrexia (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 7.53; three trials, 89 women) and other maternal infection (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.78; three trials, 103 women), but no significant differences in wound infection (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.70; three trials, 103 women), maternal stay more than 10 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.65; three trials, 78 women) or the need for blood transfusion (results not estimable). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery for preterm babies. Further studies are needed in this area, but recruitment is proving difficult.
Authors: José Villar; Guillermo Carroli; Nelly Zavaleta; Allan Donner; Daniel Wojdyla; Anibal Faundes; Alejandro Velazco; Vicente Bataglia; Ana Langer; Alberto Narváez; Eliette Valladares; Archana Shah; Liana Campodónico; Mariana Romero; Sofia Reynoso; Karla Simônia de Pádua; Daniel Giordano; Marius Kublickas; Arnaldo Acosta Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-10-30
Authors: C A Walsh; A MacTiernan; S Farrell; C Mulcahy; C J McMahon; O Franklin; D Coleman; R Mahony; S Higgins; S Carroll; P McParland; F M McAuliffe Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Sherif A Shazly; Islam A Ahmed; Ahmad A Radwan; Ahmed Y Abd-Elkariem; Nermeen Bahaa El-Dien; Esraa Y Ragab; Mostafa H Abouzeid; Ahmed H Shams; Ahmed K Ali; Heba N Hemdan; Menna N Hemdan; Ahmed A Nassr; Faten F AbdelHafez; Nashwa A Eltaweel; Khaled Ghoniem; Ali M El Saman; Mohamed K Ali; Angela C Thompson Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Herbert Kayiga; Diane Achanda Genevive; Pauline Mary Amuge; Josaphat Byamugisha; Annettee Nakimuli; Andrew Jones Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marie Delnord; Béatrice Blondel; Nicolas Drewniak; Kari Klungsøyr; Francisco Bolumar; Ashna Mohangoo; Mika Gissler; Katarzyna Szamotulska; Nicholas Lack; Jan Nijhuis; Petr Velebil; Luule Sakkeus; James Chalmers; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 3.007