Neonatal Mortality Risk for Repeat Cesarean Compared to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States, 1998–2002 Birth Cohorts
- First Online:
- 518 Downloads
To examine trends in repeat cesarean delivery, the characteristics of women who have repeat cesareans, and the risk of neonatal mortality for repeat cesarean birth compared to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Trends and characteristics of repeat cesareans were examined for: the period 1998–2002 for  all births,  low-risk births (singleton, term, vertex births) and  “no indicated risk” (NIR) births (singleton, term, vertex presentation births with no reported medical risks or complications). For low-risk and NIR births, neonatal mortality rates for repeat cesareans and VBACs were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the risk of neonatal mortality for repeat cesareans and VBACs, after controlling for demographic and health factors. In 2002 the repeat cesarean rate was 87.4%, and varied little by maternal risk status or by demographic and health characteristics. From 1998–2002 rates increased by 20% for low risk and by 21% for NIR births, respectively. For low-risk women for the 1998–2002 birth cohorts, the adjusted odds ratio for neonatal mortality associated with repeat cesarean delivery (compared with VBAC) was 1.36 (95% C.I. 1.20–1.55). For NIR women, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.24 (0.99–1.55). The experience of a prior cesarean has apparently become a major indication for a repeat cesarean. Regardless of maternal risk status, almost 90% of women with a prior cesarean have a subsequent (i.e., repeat) cesarean delivery. This is the case even if there was no other reported medical indication. Our findings do not support the widely-held belief that neonatal mortality risk is significantly lower for repeat cesarean compared to VBAC delivery.
KeywordsCesarean delivery Repeat cesarean delivery Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) Neonatal mortality Low-risk births
- 1.Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., et al. (2006). Births Final data for 2004. National vital statistics reports, vol 55 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
- 5.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1999). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: ACOG.Google Scholar
- 8.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2000). Task force on cesarean delivery. Evaluation of cesarean delivery. ACOG guidelines. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).Google Scholar
- 10.SAS Institute Inc. (2006). Base SAS 9.1.3. Cary, N.C: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- 13.Greene. S. B., Holmes, G. M., Slifkin, R., et al. (2005). Cesarean section rates in rural hospitals. Findings Brief, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), http://www.ask.hrsa.gov/detail_materials.cfm?ProdID=3518. Accessed 11/10/09.
- 14.Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., et al. (2002). Births: Final data for 2007: National vital statistics reports; vol 52 no 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
- 17.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2004). Practice bulletin: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104, 203–211.Google Scholar
- 18.Stolberg, S. G. (2001). A risk is found in natural birth after cesarean. New York Times. July 5, p. 1.Google Scholar
- 21.Guise, J.-M., McDonagh, M., Hashima, J., et al. (2003). Vaginal births after cesarean VBAC. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 71 prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 209-977-0018. AHRQ Publication No. 03-Eoi8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
- 27.Lavender, T., Hofmeyr, G. J., Neilson, J. P., et al. (2009). Cesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. Issue 3 Art No.: CD004660. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD004660.pub2. Accessed November 10.
- 29.Kotas, T., Saugstad, O. D., Daltveit, A., et al. (2006). Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: Comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 195, 1538–1593.Google Scholar
- 33.Kozak, L. J., Lees, K. A., & DeFrances, C. J. (2006). National hospital discharge survey. 2003 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital & Health Statistics, 160, 1–206.Google Scholar
- 34.Menacker, F., & Martin, J. A. (2008). Expanded health data from the new birth certificate, 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol 56, no. 13. Hyattsville, MD. National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar