Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?

BMC Research Notes

Henrique Barros²  Sofia Correia²  Cristina Teixeira¹ 

[1] Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Bragança, Portugal;Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal

关键词: Women’s health;    Induction of labour;    Health care services;    Caesarean section;   

Others  :  1142592
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-214

 received in 2013-01-16, accepted in 2013-04-24,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour.

Methods

As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed.

Results

The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present].

Conclusions

Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Teixeira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]OECD Health Data 2009: Statistics and Indicators for 30 Countries. OECD Health Data 2009: Statistics and Indicators for 30 Countries. Available at http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3699,en_2649_37407_1_1_1_1_37407,00.html webcite. Accessed January 10, 2010.
• [2]RCOG: Setting Standards to Improve Women’s Heath. The Management of Breech Pesentation. Guideline No 20b. December 2006. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/GtG%20no%2020b%20Breech%20presentation.pdf webcite Accessed September 13, 2011
• [3]Oyelese Y, Ananth CV: Placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108:1005-1016.
• [4]RCOG. Setting Standards to Improve Women’s Health: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management. Green Top Gideline No 27, January 2011. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/GTG27PlacentaPraeviaJanuary2011.pdf webcite Accessed September 13, 2011
• [5]RCOG. Setting Standards to Improve Women’s Health: Umbilical Cord Prolapse. Green Top Guideline No 50, April 2008. Available at. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/GT50UmbilicalCordProlapse2008.pdf webcite Accessed September 13, 2011
• [6]Gregory KD, Fridman M, Korst L: Trends and patterns of vaginal birth after cesarean availability in the United States. Semin Perinatol 2010, 34:237-243.
• [7]Bayrampour H, Heaman M: Advanced maternal age and the risk of cesarean birth: a systematic review. Birth 2010, 37:219-226.
• [8]National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 107:1386-1397.
• [9]Simpson KR, Atterbury J: Trends and issues in labor induction in the United States: implications for clinical practice. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2003, 32:767-779.
• [10]Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL: Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 94:600-607.
• [11]Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M: Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 180(3 Pt 1):628-633.
• [12]Maslow AS, Sweeny AL: Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 95(6 Pt 1):917-922.
• [13]Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW: Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191:1511-1515.
• [14]Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Bar J, Glickman H, Kaplan B, Hod M: Indicated labor induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 increases the risk of cesarean section even in multiparous women with no previous cesarean section. J Perinat Med 2004, 32:31-36.
• [15]Battista L, Chung JH, Lagrew DC, Wing DA: Complications of labor induction among multiparous women in a community-based hospital system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:e241-e247.
• [16]Coonrod DV, Drachman D, Hobson P, Manriquez M: Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 198:694.e1-11.
• [17]Ehrenthal DB, Jiang X, Strobino DM: Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 116:35-42.
• [18]Glantz JC: Term labor induction compared with expectant management. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 115:70-76.
• [19]Thorsell M, Lyrenas S, Andolf E, Kaijser M: Induction of labor and the risk for emergency cesarean section in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011, 90:1094-1099.
• [20]RCOG: Induction of Labour. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline. Number 9, June 2001. Available at http://www.perinatal.sld.cu/docs/guiasclinicas/inductionoflabour.pdf webcite Accessed January 04, 2011
• [21]ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 10: Induction of labor. 1999. Available at: http://www.ownersguidepdf.com/download-manual-ebook/acog-bulletin-10.pdf webcite Accessed July 16, 2012
• [22]ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114(2 Pt 1):386-397.
• [23]Moore LE, Rayburn WF: Elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006, 49:698-704.
• [24]Mealing NM, Roberts CL, Ford JB, Simpson JM, Morris JM: Trends in induction of labour, 1998–2007: a population-based study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 49:599-605.
• [25]Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS: Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007, 176:455-460.
• [26]van Dillen J, Zwart JJ, Schutte J, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J: Severe acute maternal morbidity and mode of delivery in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010, 89:1460-1465.
• [27]Morris JM, Algert CS, Roberts CL: Incidence and risk factors for pulmonary embolism in the postpartum period. J Thromb Haemost 2010, 8:998-1003.
• [28]Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsen L, Stray-Pedersen B: Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstetric haemorrhage. BJOG 2008, 115:1265-1272.
• [29]Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB: Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 2008, 336:85-87.
• [30]Malloy MH: Impact of cesarean section on intermediate and late preterm births: United States, 2000–2003. Birth 2009, 36:26-33.
• [31]De Luca R, Boulvain M, Irion O, Berner M, Pfister RE: Incidence of early neonatal mortality and morbidity after late-preterm and term cesarean delivery. Pediatrics 2009, 123:e1064-e1071.
• [32]Henderson J, McCandlish R, Kumiega L, Petrou S: Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. BJOG 2001, 108:149-157.
• [33]EURO-PERISTAT project, with SCPE, EUROCAT, EURONEOSTAT: European Perinatal Health Report 2008. Available at: http://www.europeristat.com webcite Accessed October 01, 2009
• [34]Glantz JC: Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: what is the difference? Birth 2003, 30:168-174.
• [35]Main EK, Moore D, Farrell B: Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 194:1644-1651.
• [36]Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW: A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics 2001, 108:E35.
• [37]Barros AJ, Hirakata VN: Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC: Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 102:287-293.
• [39]Kim C: Gestational diabetes: risks, management, and treatment options. Int J Womens Health. 2010, 2:339-351.
• [40]Fadl HE, Ostlund IK, Magnuson AF, Hanson US: Maternal and neonatal outcomes and time trends of gestational diabetes mellitus in Sweden from 1991 to 2003. Diabet Med 2010, 27:436-441.
• [41]Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM: Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206:486. e1-9
• [42]Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ: Forty weeks and beyond: pregnancy outcomes by week of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 96:291-294.
• [43]Poobalan AS, Aucott LS, Gurung T, Smith WC, Bhattacharya S: Obesity as an independent risk factor for elective and emergency caesarean delivery in nulliparous women–systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes Rev 2009, 10:28-35.
• [44]Lin MG, Rouse DJ: What is a failed labor induction? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006, 49:585-593.
• [45]Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H: The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012, 286:739-753.
• [46]Rinehart BK, Terrone DA, Hudson C, Isler CM, Larmon JE, Perry KG Jr: Lack of utility of standard labor curves in the prediction of progression during labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000, 182:1520-1526.
• [47]Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK: Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:698-704.
• [48]Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ: Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12,944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34:353-367.