Cristina Plevani1, Maddalena Incerti2, Davide Del Sorbo3, Armando Pintucci1, Patrizia Vergani2, Luca Merlino4, Anna Locatelli1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASST Vimercate, Carate Brianza Hospital, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione MBBM, ASST Monza, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Informatics, ASST Vimercate, Vimercate Hospital, Vimercate, Italy. 4. General Management for Health, Lombardy Region, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cesarean delivery rates are rising due to multiple factors, including less use of operative vaginal delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, which often reflect local obstetric practices. Objectives of the study were to analyze the relations between cesarean delivery, these practices, and perinatal outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included all deliveries in the 72 hospitals of Lombardia, a region in northern Italy, during the year 2013. The delivery certificate was used as data source. Pearson's correlation coefficient and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 87 896 deliveries. The number of deliveries per hospital ranged from 140 to 6123. The rate of cesarean delivery was 28.3% (range 9.9-86.4%), operative vaginal delivery 4.7% (range 0.2-10.0%), and vaginal birth after cesarean 17.3% (range 0-79.2%). We found a significant inverse correlation between rates of overall cesarean delivery and operative vaginal delivery (r = -0.25, p = 0.04). The correlation between rate of overall cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean was also inverse and significant (r = -0.57, p < 0.001). There was no association between overall cesarean delivery rate and the rates of Apgar score at 5 min <7 in term and late preterm neonates (r = -0.92, p = 0.46) and of perinatal mortality (r = -0.19, p = 0.13), respectively. The associations were independent of hospital volume of activity. CONCLUSIONS: An obstetric practice that encourages vaginal instrumental delivery in delayed second stage of labor or vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery, could reduce the rising cesarean delivery rate. This will require a change in obstetric culture, continuing education of healthcare providers, and leadership.
INTRODUCTION: Cesarean delivery rates are rising due to multiple factors, including less use of operative vaginal delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, which often reflect local obstetric practices. Objectives of the study were to analyze the relations between cesarean delivery, these practices, and perinatal outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included all deliveries in the 72 hospitals of Lombardia, a region in northern Italy, during the year 2013. The delivery certificate was used as data source. Pearson's correlation coefficient and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 87 896 deliveries. The number of deliveries per hospital ranged from 140 to 6123. The rate of cesarean delivery was 28.3% (range 9.9-86.4%), operative vaginal delivery 4.7% (range 0.2-10.0%), and vaginal birth after cesarean 17.3% (range 0-79.2%). We found a significant inverse correlation between rates of overall cesarean delivery and operative vaginal delivery (r = -0.25, p = 0.04). The correlation between rate of overall cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean was also inverse and significant (r = -0.57, p < 0.001). There was no association between overall cesarean delivery rate and the rates of Apgar score at 5 min <7 in term and late preterm neonates (r = -0.92, p = 0.46) and of perinatal mortality (r = -0.19, p = 0.13), respectively. The associations were independent of hospital volume of activity. CONCLUSIONS: An obstetric practice that encourages vaginal instrumental delivery in delayed second stage of labor or vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery, could reduce the rising cesarean delivery rate. This will require a change in obstetric culture, continuing education of healthcare providers, and leadership.
Authors: Anna E Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; Thomas van den Akker; Eva Rydahl; Katrien Beeckman; Annick Bogaerts; Lorena Binfa; Lucy Frith; Mechthild M Gross; Björn Misselwitz; Berglind Hálfdánsdóttir; Deirdre Daly; Paul Corcoran; Jean Calleja-Agius; Neville Calleja; Miriam Gatt; Anne Britt Vika Nilsen; Eugene Declercq; Mika Gissler; Anna Heino; Helena Lindgren; Ank de Jonge Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ana Casteleiro; M Santibanez; Paula Paras-Bravo; Amada Pellico-Lopez; María Paz-Zulueta Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 2.692