Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neonatal Mortality Risk for Repeat Cesarean Compared to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States, 1998–2002 Birth Cohorts

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 [1] all births, [2] low-risk births (singleton, term, vertex births) and [3] “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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Anemia, cardiac disease, acute or chronic lung disease, diabetes, genital herpes, hydramnios/oligohydramnios, hemoglobinopathy, chronic hypertension, pregnancy associated hypertension, eclampsia, incompetent cervix, previous infant 4000 + grams, previous preterm or small small-for-gestational-age infant, renal disease, Rh sensitization, uterine bleeding.

  2. Febrile, meconium moderate/heavy, premature rupture of membrane, abruptio placenta, placenta previa, other excessive bleeding, seizures during labor, precipitous labor, prolonged labor, dysfunctional labor, breech/malpresentation, cephalopelvic disproportion, cord prolapse, anesthetic complication, fetal distress.

References

  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 

  2. Sachs, B. P., Kobelin, C., Castro, M. A., & Frigoletto, F. (1999). The risks of lowering the cesarean delivery rate. New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 54–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McMahon, M. J., Luther, E. R., Bowes, W. A., & Olshan, A. F. (1996). Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 689–695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mozurkewich, E. L., & Hutton, E. K. (2000). Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 183, 1187–1197.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1999). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: ACOG.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lydon-Rochelle, M., Holt, V., Easterling, T., & Martin, D. (2001). Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 3–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Greene, M. (2001). Vaginal delivery after Cesarean Section- is the risk acceptable? New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 55.

    Article  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).

  9. Declercq, E. R., Menacker, F., & MacDorman, M. F. (2005). The rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the US, 1991–2001. British Medical Journal, 330, 71–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. SAS Institute Inc. (2006). Base SAS 9.1.3. Cary, N.C: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wennberg, J. E. (2002). Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. British Medical Journal, 325, 961–964.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Balcker, K., Buckles, K. S., & Chandra, A. (2006). Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, 255, w355–367.

    Article  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 

  15. Zweifler, J., Garza, A., Hughes, S., et al. (2006). Vaginal birth after cesarean in California before and after a change in guidelines. Ann Fam Med, 4(3), 228–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rybak, E. A. (2009). Hippocratic ideal, Faustian bargain and Damocles sword: Erosion of patient autonomy in obstetrics. Journal of Perinatology, 29(11), 721–725.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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 

  19. MacDorman, M. F., Declercq, E., Menacker, F., & Malloy, M. H. (2006). Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk”, United States, 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth, 333, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flamm, B. L. (1997). Once a cesarean, always a controversy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 902, 312–315.

    Article  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.

  22. Lyerly, A. D., Mitchell, L. M., Armstrong, E. M., Harris, L. H., Kukla, R., Kuppermann, M., et al. (2007). Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(4), 979–984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang, Q., Wen, S. W., & Oppenheimer, L. (2007). Association of caesarean delivery for first birth with placenta praevia and placental abruption in second pregnancy. BJOG, 114, 609–613.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Silver, M., Landon, M. B., Rouse, S. J., et al. (2006). Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(6), 1226–1232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., Leveno, K. J., et al. (2004). Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. NEJM, 351(25), 2581–2589.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dodd, J., & Crowther, C. (2004). Vaginal birth after cesarean versus elective repeat cesarean for women with a single prior cesarean birth. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 44, 387–391.

    Article  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.

  28. Kamath, B. D., Todd, J. K., Lezotte, D., et al. (2009). Neonatal outcomes after elective cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 113(6), 1231–1238.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 

  30. DiGiuseppe, D. L., Aron, D. C., Ranbom, L., et al. (2002). Reliability of birth certificate data: A multi-hospital comparison to medical records information. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 6(3), 169–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roohan, P. J., Josberger, R. E., Acar, J., et al. (2003). Validation of birth certificate data in New York state. Journal of Community Health, 28, 335–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lydon-Rochelle, M. T., Holt, V. L., Cardenas, V., et al. (2005). The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193, 125–134.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7413, Hyattsville, MD, 20782, USA

    Fay Menacker

  2. Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7417, Hyattsville, MD, 20782, USA

    Marian F. MacDorman

  3. Maternal and Child Health Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Eugene Declercq

Authors
  1. Fay Menacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marian F. MacDorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugene Declercq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fay Menacker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Menacker, F., MacDorman, M.F. & Declercq, E. Neonatal Mortality Risk for Repeat Cesarean Compared to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States, 1998–2002 Birth Cohorts. Matern Child Health J 14, 147–154 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0551-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0551-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation