Stillbirth following previous cesarean section in Bavaria/Germany 1987–2005

  • Maximilian B. Franz
  • Nicholas Lack
  • Barbara Schiessl
  • Ioannis Mylonas
  • Klaus Friese
  • Franz Kainer
Original Article



An elevated risk for unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies after cesarean section was reported in 2003. This finding would imply renewed discussions about stronger indications for cesarean sections.


To find out whether there is an elevated risk for stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies after cesarean section in our cohort in Bavaria.


As data linkage of records is not possible in Germany, we devised a suitable adjustment for bias correction. Second pregnancies in Bavaria/Germany after previous vaginal birth and previous cesarean section from 1987 to 2005 were analyzed. Risk of unexplained stillbirth was estimated by time-to-event analysis.


In our cohort of 629,815 second pregnancies, no elevated stillbirth risk in pregnancies after previous cesarean section compared to previous vaginal birth was noted (crude risk 0.22% in both groups; hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; P = 1.0). A slightly decreased risk for stillbirth after previous cesarean section for the period of 1994–2005 (HR 0.674; P = 0.04) could be shown.


We found no elevated stillbirth risk in pregnancies after previous cesarean section. The significantly lower risk for stillbirths after previous cesarean section in the period 1994–2005 is interpreted as consequence of improved obstetric surveillance. With our adjustment for bias correction, we hope to have found a way to make our data largely comparable with other sources reported in the literature. However, because of the strict German data protection act, the Bavarian birth register is only of limited use for the presented study.


Stillbirth Cesarean section Retrospective analysis Bavaria-Germany 


  1. 1.
    Infant Mortality. Statistics from the 1999 period linked birth/death data set. Accessed 10 Oct 2002
  2. 2.
    Hughes PM, Turton P, Evans CD (1999) Stillbirth as risk factor for depression and anxiety in the subsequent pregnancy: cohort study. BMJ 318:1721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winn HN (1996) Postterm pregnancy: fetal considerations. In: Chervenak FA, Kurjak A (eds) Current perspectives on the fetus as a patient. Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, pp 571–580Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith GC (2001) Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:489–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrison I, Olsen J (1985) Weight-specific stillbirths and associated causes of death: An analysis of 765 stillbirths. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surkan PJ, Stephansson O, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S (2004) Previous preterm and small for gestational age births and the subsequent risk of stillbirth. N Engl J Med 350:777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heifetz SA (1996) The umbilical cord: obstetrically important lesions. Clin Obstet Gynecol 39:571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pitkin RM (1987) Fetal death: diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157:583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roberts AB, Patterson NS (1990) Pregnancy in women with diabetes mellitus, twenty years of experience: 1968–87. N Z Med J 102:211Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McElvy SS, Midovonik M, Rosenn B (2000) A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal ortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med 9:14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fretts RC (2005) Etiology and prevention of stillbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1923–1935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cnattigius S, Begstrom R, Lipworth L, Kramer MS (1998) Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Eng J Med 338:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stephansson O, Dickman PW, Johansson A, Cnattigius S (2001) Maternal weight, pregnancy weight gain and the risk of antepartum stillbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:463–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fretts RC, Boyd ME, Usher RH, Uher HA (1992) The changing pattern of fetal death, 1961–1988. Obstet Gynecol 79:35–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yudkin PL, Wood L, Redman CW (1987) Risk of unexplained stillbirth at different gestational ages. Lancet 1:1192–1194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Froen JF, Arnestad M, Frey K, Vege A, Saugstad OD, Stray-Pedersen B (2001) Risk factors for sudden intrauterine unexplained death: epidemiologic characteristics of singleton cases in Oslo, Norway, 1986–1996. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:694–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R (2003) Cesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 362:1779–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liebermann E (1997) Predictors of cesarean delivery. Curr Probl Obstet Gynecol Fertil 20:98–131Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norwitz ER (2004) Patient choice caesarean delivery. Official reprint from Up To Date. Topic last changed 6 Aug 2004
  20. 20.
    Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP (2001) Risk of uterine rupture during labour among women with a prior caesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 345:3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Agostino RB Jr (1998) Tutorials in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomised control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons LS (2004) Performing a 1:n case–control match on propensity score. Poster presented at the SUGI conference, Montreal, Canada, 9–12 May 2004Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons LS (2001) Reducing bias in a propensity score matched pair sample using greedy matching techniques. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SAS Users Group international conference, Long Beach, California, 22–25 April 2001. SAS institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith GC (2001) Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(3):489–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weitzen SH et al (2005) Weakness of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 14:227–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salihu HS, Sharma PP, Kristensen S, Blot C, Alio AP, Ananth CV, Kirby RS (2006) Risk of stillbirth following a cesarean delivery, Black–White disparity. Obstet Gynecol 107:383–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gray R, Quigley MA, Hockley C, Kurinczuk JJ, Goldacre M, Brocklehurst P (2007) Caesarean delivery and risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study in an English population. BJOG 114(3):264–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thorpe-Beeston JG, Banfield PJ, Saunders NJ (1992) Outcome of breech delivery at term. BMJ 305:746–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WE, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicenter trial. Term Breech Trial Cooaborative Group. Lancet 356:1375–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian B. Franz
    • 1
  • Nicholas Lack
    • 2
  • Barbara Schiessl
    • 1
  • Ioannis Mylonas
    • 1
  • Klaus Friese
    • 1
  • Franz Kainer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Bavarian Institute for Quality Assurance of Inpatient CareMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations