Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 2, pp 319–326 | Cite as

The impact of previous cesarean section on the success of future fetal programming pattern

  • Hamisu M. Salihu
  • Chelsea M. Bowen
  • Ronee E. Wilson
  • Phillip J. Marty
Materno-fetal Medicine
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine whether cesarean section in the first pregnancy is associated with the success or failure of programmed fetal growth phenotypes or patterns in the subsequent pregnancy.

Methods

We analyzed data from a population-based retrospective cohort of singleton deliveries that occurred in the state of Missouri from 1978 to 2005 (n = 1,224,133). The main outcome was neonatal mortality, which was used as an index of the success of fetal programming. Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression models were used to generate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Mothers delivering by cesarean section in the first pregnancy were less likely to deliver subsequent appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) neonates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89–0.92) when compared with mothers delivering vaginally. Of the 1,457 neonatal deaths in the second pregnancy, 383 early neonatal and 95 late neonatal deaths were to mothers with cesarean section deliveries in the first pregnancy. When compared with women with a previous vaginal delivery, AGA neonates of women with a primary cesarean section had 20% increased risk of both neonatal (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05–1.37) and early neonatal (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05–1.43) death.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that previous cesarean section is a risk factor for neonatal mortality among AGA infants of subsequent pregnancy. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Keywords

Cesarean section Fetal programming Fetal growth phenotypes Neonatal death Subsequent pregnancy 

References

  1. 1.
    Heron M et al (2010) Annual summary of vital statistics: 2007. Pediatrics 125(1):4–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chu SY et al (2007) Maternal obesity and risk of cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 8(5):385–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Getahun D et al (2009) Racial and ethnic disparities in the trends in primary cesarean delivery based on indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 4: 422e1–422e7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paramsothy P et al (2009) Interpregnancy weight gain and cesarean delivery risk in women with a history of gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 113(4):817–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel RR et al (2005) Prenatal risk factors for caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12, 944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 34(2):353–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailit JL, Love TE, Mercer B (2004) Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3):800–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacDorman MF et al (2006) Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk”, United States, 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth 33(3):175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menacker F (2005) Trends in cesarean rates for first births and repeat cesarean rates for low-risk women: United States, 1990–2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep 54(4):1–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith GC et al (2002) Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 287(20):4684–4690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R (2003) Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 362(9398):1779–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Towner D et al (1999) Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 341(23):1709–1714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salihu HM et al (2006) Risk of stillbirth following a cesarean delivery: Black–White disparity. Obstet Gynecol 107(2 Pt 1):383–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin J et al (2003) Development of the matched multiple birth file. In: 1995–1998 matched multiple birth dataset, NCHS CD-ROM series 21, no. 13a. National Center for Health Statistics, HyattsvilleGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herman AA et al (1997) Data linkage methods used in maternally-linked birth and infant death surveillance datasets from the United States (Georgia, Missouri, Utah and Washington State), Israel, Norway, Scotland and Western Australia. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 11(Suppl 1):5–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alexander GR et al (1998) What are the fetal growth patterns of singletons, twins, and triplets in the United States? Clin Obstet Gynecol 41(1):114–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taffel S, Johnson D, Heuser R (1982) A method of imputing length of gestation on birth certificates. Vital Health Stat 2 93:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piper JM et al (1993) Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 137(7):758–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wingate MS et al (2007) Comparison of gestational age classifications: date of last menstrual period vs. clinical estimate. Ann Epidemiol 17(6):425–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salihu HM et al (2008) AGA-primed uteri compared with SGA-primed uteri and the success of subsequent in utero fetal programming. Obstet Gynecol 111:935–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salihu HM et al (2009) Success of programming fetal growth phenotypes among obese women. Obstet Gynecol 114:333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alexander GR, Cornely DA (1987) Prenatal care utilization: its measurement and relationship to pregnancy outcome. Am J Prev Med 3(5):243–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M (1996) Quantifying the adequacy of prenatal care: a comparison of indices. Public Health Rep 111(5):408–418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herman AA, Yu KF (1997) Adolescent age at first pregnancy and subsequent obesity. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 11(Suppl 1):130–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parker JD, Abrams B (1992) Prenatal weight gain advice: an examination of the recent prenatal weight gain recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. Obstet Gynecol 79(5 Pt 1):664–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ananth CV et al (2009) Recurrence of fetal growth restriction in singleton and twin gestations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 22(8):654–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okah FA et al (2010) Risk factors for recurrent small-for-gestational-age birth. Am J Perinatol 27(1):1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walsh CA et al (2007) Recurrence of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol 27(4):374–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daltveit AK et al (2008) Cesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 111:1327–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hemminki E, Shelley J, Gissler M (2005) Mode of delivery and problems in subsequent births: a register-based study from Finland. AJOG 193:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kannare R et al (2007) Risks of adverse outcomes in next birth after a first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 109:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kristensen S et al (2007) SGA subtypes and mortality risk among singleton births. Early Hum Dev 83:99–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lydon-Rochelle M et al (2001) First-birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth. Obstet Gynecol 97(5 Pt 1):765–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hemminki E, Meriläinen J (1996) Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(5):1569–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gardosi J, Francis A (2009) Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(1):28.e1–28.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gardosi J (2006) New definition of small for gestational age based on fetal growth potential. Horm Res 65(Suppl 3):15–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamisu M. Salihu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Chelsea M. Bowen
    • 3
  • Ronee E. Wilson
    • 3
  • Phillip J. Marty
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research and Evaluation, Lawton and Rhea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and BabiesUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations