OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical indications for repeat cesarean delivery and to compare these with indications for primary procedures. METHODS: We reviewed cesarean deliveries at our academic nonprofit hospital during 1992 (n = 1885). The indication for the procedure was abstracted based on surgeon operative reports and discharge ICD-9 codes (International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, 9th Edition). RESULTS: The hospital cesarean rate was 28.7%; 34% of these were repeat procedures (n = 643). Elective cesarean delivery was the leading cause of repeat cesareans, followed by "other" indications, dystocia, breech, and fetal distress. In contrast, dystocia was the leading cause for primary cesarean, followed by fetal distress, "other," and breech presentation. One hundred women (15.6%) undergoing repeat cesarean had absolute or relative contraindications to a trial of labor. CONCLUSIONS: Indications for cesareans using hierarchies based on ICD-9 codes do not attempt to differentiate categories of indications for repeat cesarean. Current recommendations for lowering cesarean rates by increasing vaginal birth after previous cesarean are based on aggregate data and do not recognize that some repeat cesareans are clinically indicated. A coding system designed to distinguish elective from indicated repeat cesareans would be useful for future prospective studies.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical indications for repeat cesarean delivery and to compare these with indications for primary procedures. METHODS: We reviewed cesarean deliveries at our academic nonprofit hospital during 1992 (n = 1885). The indication for the procedure was abstracted based on surgeon operative reports and discharge ICD-9 codes (International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, 9th Edition). RESULTS: The hospital cesarean rate was 28.7%; 34% of these were repeat procedures (n = 643). Elective cesarean delivery was the leading cause of repeat cesareans, followed by "other" indications, dystocia, breech, and fetal distress. In contrast, dystocia was the leading cause for primary cesarean, followed by fetal distress, "other," and breech presentation. One hundred women (15.6%) undergoing repeat cesarean had absolute or relative contraindications to a trial of labor. CONCLUSIONS: Indications for cesareans using hierarchies based on ICD-9 codes do not attempt to differentiate categories of indications for repeat cesarean. Current recommendations for lowering cesarean rates by increasing vaginal birth after previous cesarean are based on aggregate data and do not recognize that some repeat cesareans are clinically indicated. A coding system designed to distinguish elective from indicated repeat cesareans would be useful for future prospective studies.
Authors: Maria Regina Torloni; Ana Pilar Betran; Joao Paulo Souza; Mariana Widmer; Tomas Allen; Metin Gulmezoglu; Mario Merialdi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240