P Zelli1, B Boussat2, A Wetzel1, C Ronin1, J-C Pons3, F Sergent4. 1. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France. 2. Service de santé publique et médecine sociale, centre d'investigation clinique 003, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France. 3. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France; Université Joseph-Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 09, France. 4. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France; Université Joseph-Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 09, France. Electronic address: sergent.fabrice@chu-amiens.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the indications of primary cesarean sections and discuss the various possibilities to reduce them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study, carried out over a period of 1 year in a university hospital having a level 3 perinatal activity, including the 499 primary cesarean sections of 2013. Two groups were defined by parity: nulliparous patients (group 1) and multiparous patients who had never previously been delivered by cesarean section (group 2). We have assessed the indication of every primary cesarean section and health status of newborns in each group. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 respectively included 369 and 130 patients. The cesarean section rate in 2013 was 24.7% with a primary cesarean section rate of 17%. Seventy-four percent of the primary caesarean deliveries were performed on nulliparous women and 26% on multiparous (P<0.001). Sixty-three percent of the primary caesarean deliveries were performed on nulliparous women with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation. The most common indications for primary cesarean delivery were non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing (47.1%), failure to progress (24.8%) for which nulliparous women were more involved (29% vs. 13%, P<0.001) and fetal malpresentation (9.6%). CONCLUSION: Further analysis of fetal heart rate during labor, a larger use of second line means to evaluate the fetal status during labor, using 6cm as the cut off for active labor, and encouraging vaginal operative delivery constitute the best way to decrease the primary cesarean section rate.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the indications of primary cesarean sections and discuss the various possibilities to reduce them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study, carried out over a period of 1 year in a university hospital having a level 3 perinatal activity, including the 499 primary cesarean sections of 2013. Two groups were defined by parity: nulliparous patients (group 1) and multiparous patients who had never previously been delivered by cesarean section (group 2). We have assessed the indication of every primary cesarean section and health status of newborns in each group. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 respectively included 369 and 130 patients. The cesarean section rate in 2013 was 24.7% with a primary cesarean section rate of 17%. Seventy-four percent of the primary caesarean deliveries were performed on nulliparous women and 26% on multiparous (P<0.001). Sixty-three percent of the primary caesarean deliveries were performed on nulliparous women with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation. The most common indications for primary cesarean delivery were non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing (47.1%), failure to progress (24.8%) for which nulliparous women were more involved (29% vs. 13%, P<0.001) and fetal malpresentation (9.6%). CONCLUSION: Further analysis of fetal heart rate during labor, a larger use of second line means to evaluate the fetal status during labor, using 6cm as the cut off for active labor, and encouraging vaginal operative delivery constitute the best way to decrease the primary cesarean section rate.