Soha Sobhy1, David Arroyo-Manzano2, Nilaani Murugesu3, Gayathri Karthikeyan4, Vinoth Kumar5, Inderjeet Kaur6, Evita Fernandez6, Sirisha Rao Gundabattula6, Ana Pilar Betran7, Khalid Khan1, Javier Zamora8, Shakila Thangaratinam9. 1. Barts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and WHO Collaborating Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain. 3. Barts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, India. 5. Department of Surgery, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, India. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fernandez Hospitals, Hyderabad, India. 7. UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development, and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. Barts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and WHO Collaborating Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain. 9. Barts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and WHO Collaborating Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: s.thangaratinam@qmul.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Universal and timely access to a caesarean section is a key requirement for safe childbirth. We identified the burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, and the risk factors following caesarean sections in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase (from Jan 1, 1990, to Nov 20, 2017), without language restrictions, for studies on maternal or perinatal outcomes following caesarean sections in LMICs. We excluded studies in high-income countries, those involving non-pregnant women, case reports, and studies published before 1990. Two reviewers undertook the study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction independently. The main outcome being assessed was prevalence of maternal mortality in women undergoing caesarean sections in LMICs. We used a random effects model to synthesise the rate data, and reported the association between risk factors and outcomes using odds ratios with 95% CIs. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015029191. FINDINGS: We included 196 studies from 67 LMICs. The risk of maternal death in women who had a caesarean section (116 studies, 2 933 457 caesarean sections) was 7·6 per 1000 procedures (95% CI 6·6-8·6, τ2=0·81); the highest burden was in sub-Saharan Africa (10·9 per 1000; 9·5-12·5, τ2=0·81). A quarter of all women who died in LMICs (72 studies, 27 651 deaths) had undergone a caesarean section (23·8%, 95% CI 21·0-26·7; τ2=0·62). INTERPRETATION: Maternal deaths and perinatal deaths following caesarean sections are disproportionately high in LMICs. The timing and urgency of caesarean section pose major risks. FUNDING: Ammalife Charity and ELLY Appeal, Barts Charity, and the UK National Institute for Health Research.
BACKGROUND: Universal and timely access to a caesarean section is a key requirement for safe childbirth. We identified the burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, and the risk factors following caesarean sections in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase (from Jan 1, 1990, to Nov 20, 2017), without language restrictions, for studies on maternal or perinatal outcomes following caesarean sections in LMICs. We excluded studies in high-income countries, those involving non-pregnant women, case reports, and studies published before 1990. Two reviewers undertook the study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction independently. The main outcome being assessed was prevalence of maternal mortality in women undergoing caesarean sections in LMICs. We used a random effects model to synthesise the rate data, and reported the association between risk factors and outcomes using odds ratios with 95% CIs. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015029191. FINDINGS: We included 196 studies from 67 LMICs. The risk of maternal death in women who had a caesarean section (116 studies, 2 933 457 caesarean sections) was 7·6 per 1000 procedures (95% CI 6·6-8·6, τ2=0·81); the highest burden was in sub-Saharan Africa (10·9 per 1000; 9·5-12·5, τ2=0·81). A quarter of all women who died in LMICs (72 studies, 27 651 deaths) had undergone a caesarean section (23·8%, 95% CI 21·0-26·7; τ2=0·62). INTERPRETATION:Maternal deaths and perinatal deaths following caesarean sections are disproportionately high in LMICs. The timing and urgency of caesarean section pose major risks. FUNDING: Ammalife Charity and ELLY Appeal, Barts Charity, and the UK National Institute for Health Research.
Authors: Carrie J Ngongo; Thomas J I P Raassen; Marietta Mahendeka; Ladeisha Lombard; Jos van Roosmalen Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Godfrey Rwambuka Mugyenyi; Joseph Ngonzi; Blair Johnson Wylie; Jessica Elizabeth Haberer; Adeline Adwoa Boatin Journal: Pan Afr Med J Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues; Paula Mendes Luz; Barbara Vasques da Silva Ayres; Jacqueline Alves Torres; Maria do Carmo Leal Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Alba Fernández-Férez; Maria Isabel Ventura-Miranda; Marcos Camacho-Ávila; Antonio Fernández-Caballero; José Granero-Molina; Isabel María Fernández-Medina; María Del Mar Requena-Mullor Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anne K Erickson; Safa Abdalla; Alice Serenska; Bete Demeke; Gary L Darmstadt Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Shehnaz Alidina; Gopal Menon; Steven J Staffa; Sakshie Alreja; David Barash; Erin Barringer; Monica Cainer; Isabelle Citron; Amanda DiMeo; Edwin Ernest; Laura Fitzgerald; Hiba Ghandour; Magdalena Gruendl; Audustino Hellar; Desmond T Jumbam; Adam Katoto; Lauren Kelly; Steve Kisakye; Salome Kuchukhidze; Tenzing Lama; William Lodge Ii; Erastus Maina; Fabian Massaga; Adelina Mazhiqi; John G Meara; Stella Mshana; Ian Nason; Chase Reynolds; Cheri Reynolds; Hannington Segirinya; Dorcas Simba; Victoria Smith; Christopher Strader; Meaghan Sydlowski; Leopold Tibyehabwa; Florian Tinuga; Alena Troxel; Mpoki Ulisubisya; John Varallo; Taylor Wurdeman; Noor Zanial; David Zurakowski; Ntuli Kapologwe; Sarah Maongezi Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.038