Advertisement

Methods for Safe Reduction of Cesarean Section Rates

  • Norbert Gleicher
  • Richard H. Demir
  • Jeanne B. Novas
  • Stephen A. Myers
Part of the Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology book series (CPOG)

Abstract

This chapter is presented under the assumption that cesarean section rates in the United States should be reduced. An understanding of the reasons that lead obstetricians to perform cesarean sections should provide the necessary information needed to effect such a change in practice patterns Such a recommendation was already made by a National Consensus Development Conference in 1980, when the national rate was still below 17%.1 Since then, it has further increased at an annual rate of approximately 1% until a plateau of approximately 24% was reached in the early 1990s (Figure 11.1).2,3 Some physicians have nevertheless challenged the effort toward a reduction in cesarean section rates,4,5 and a level of general hesitance within the profession seems to remain.

Keywords

Cesarean Section Vaginal Delivery Cesarean Delivery Genital Herpes Fetal Distress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health. Cesarean Childbirth: Report of a Consensus Development Conference. Bethesda, Maryland: Department of Health and Human Services, 1981. (Publication no. DHHS (NIH) 82–2067)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stafford RS. Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. JAMA 1990; 263: 683–687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous. Rates of cesarean delivery—United States 1991. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep 1993; 42: 285–289. JAMA 1993; 269: 2360.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abraham L. Cesarean on demand. Am Medical News 1988 Nov 4: 1830.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feldman GB, Friedman JA. Prophylatic cesarean section at term? N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 1264–1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guidelines for vaginal delivery after a previous cesarean birth, statement of the Committee on Obstetrics: Maternal and Fetal Medicine. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    New guidelines for VBAC. statement of the Committee on Obstetrics: Maternal and Fetal Medicine. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hannah WJ, Baskett TF, Chance GW, et al. Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Development Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 134: 1348–1352.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marieskind HI. An evaluation of cesarean section in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rostow VP, Osterweis M, Bulger RJ. Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1057–1060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carpenter MW, Soule D, Yates WT, Meeker CL. Practice environment in association with obstetric decision making regarding abnormal labor. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 657–662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goyert GL, Bottoms SF, Treadwell MC, Nehra PC. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 706–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newton ER, Higgins CS. Factors associated with hospital-specific cesarean birth rates. J Reprod Med 1989; 34: 407–411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Bengtson JA, et al. Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. JAMA 1993; 269: 366–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rutkow IM. Obstetrics and gynecologic operations in the United States, 1979 to 1984. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 755–759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 465–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porreco R, Meier P. Trial of labor in patients with multiple cesarean sections. J Reprod Med 1983; 28: 770–776.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Novas J, Myers SA, Gleicher N. Obstetric outcome of patients with more than one previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 364–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asakura H, Myers SA. Multiple cesarean section: A five year experience with 434 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 437 (abstr).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ophir E, Yagoda A, Rojansky N, Oettinger M. Trial of labor following cesarean section: dilemma. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1988; 44: 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gleicher N, Vermesh M, Rotmensch Z, Thornton J, Elrad H. Cesarean section patterns: influence of a perinatology service. Mount Sinai J Med 1985; 52: 100–105.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laube DW, ed. Core curriculum for residents of obstetrics and gynecology. Washington, DC: Council on Resident Education, 1992: 103.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gleicher N. Breast disease programs in obstetrics and gynecology: a plea for training in mammography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 267–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs. audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265: 2202–2207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barrett JFR, Jarvis GJ, MacDonald HN, Buchan PC, Tyrrell SN, Lilford RJ. Inconsistencies in clinical decisions in obstetrics. Lancet 1990; 336: 549–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Notzen FC, Placek PJ, Taffei SM. Comparison of national cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 386–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stafford RS. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265: 59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gleicher N. In reply. JAMA 1985; 253: 3248–3249.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gibbs CE. Planned vaginal delivery following cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980; 23: 507–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin JN Jr, Harris BA Jr, Huddelston JF, et al. Vaginal delivery following previous cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 255–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gellman E, Goldstein MS, Kaplan S, Shapiro WJ. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section experience in private practice. JAMA 1983; 249: 2935–2937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gleicher N. The cesarean section epidemic. Mt Sinai J Med 1986; 53: 563–565.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Placek PJ, Taffei SM, Molen M. Cesarean rates increases in 1985. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 241–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porreco RP. High cesarean section rates: a new perspective. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 307–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Penetra M, Boylan P, Chalmers I. The Dublin randomized control trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 524–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Confino E, Gleicher N, Elrad H, Ismajovich B, David MP. The breech dilemma: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1985; 156: 6–10.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Myers SA, Gleicher N. Breech delivery: why the dilemma? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 6–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Collea JV, Chein C, Quilligan EJ. The randomized management term breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 137: 235–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Green JE, McLean F, Smith LP, Usher R. Has an increased cesarean section rate for term breech delivery reduced the incidence of birth asphyxia, trauma and death? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 643–648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kitchen W, Ford GW, Doyle LW, et al. Cesarean section or vaginal delivery at 24 to 28 weeks gestation: comparison of survival and neonatal and two-year morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 149–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woods JR. Effect of low birth weight breech delivery on neonatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 53: 735–740.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gimovsky ML, Wallace RL, Shifrin BS, et al. Randomized management of the nonfrank breech presentation at term, a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 34–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fishman A, Grubb DK, Kovacs BW. Vaginal delivery of non vertex second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:861–864.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1511–1516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Quilligan E. Cesarean section: modern perspective. In: Queenan JT, ed. Management of high-risk pregnancy, 2nd Ed. Oradell, NJ: Medical Economics, 1985: 594–600.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Anonymous. Childbirth. Chicago Tribune 1993. Jan (sect 7) 17: 2.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tay SK, Tsakok FHM, Ng CSA. The use of intradepartmental audit to contain cesarean section rate. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1992; 39: 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Socol ML, Garcia PM, Peaceman AM, Dooley SL. Reducing cesarean section births at a primarily private university hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 1748–1758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. JAMA 1984; 252: 3273–3276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Inglehart JK. Health policy report. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 960–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Myers S, Gleicher N. The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program: automated data selection and peer review. Qual Lett 1991; 3: 10–17.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Battaglia FC. Reducing the cesarean section rate safely. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1540–1541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Heynes de Regt R, Minkoff HL, Feldman J, Schwarz RH. Relation of private or clinical care to the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 6619–6624.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lopez-Zeno JA, Peaceman AM, Adasher JA, Socol ML. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 450–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sandmire HF. In discussion of reference 48. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 1754–1756.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raynor BD. The experience with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in a small rural community practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 60–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Iglesias S, Burn R, Saunders LD. Reducing the cesarean rate in a rural community hospital. Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145: 1456–1459.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Peck T. Low cesarean rates possible. Ob Gyn News 1992; 27: 9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Butler J, Abrams B, Parker J, Roberts JM, Laros RK Jr. Supportive nurse-midwife care is associated with a reduced incidence of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 1407–1413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Piturro M. Managed care obstetrical services: an option where everyone wins. Group Practice Managed Health Care News 1992 Feb: 16.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dillon WP, Choate JW, Nusbaum ML, Amao-McCarthy M, McCall M, Rosen MG. Obstetric care and cesarean birth rates: a program to monitor quality of care. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 731–737.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ophir E, Oettinger M, Yagoda A, Makovits Y, Rojansky N, Shapiro H. Breech presentation after cesarean section. Always a section? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 25–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Strong TH Jr, Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Sarno AP Jr. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in the twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 29–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Flamm BL, Goings JR. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is supected fetal macro-somia a contraindication? Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:694-698.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Beall M, Eglinton GS, Clark SL, Phelan JP. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: the unknown uterine scar. J Reprod Med 1984; 29: 31–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Davison L, Easterling TR, Jackson JC, Benedetti TJ. Breech extraction of low-birth-weight second twins: can cesarean section be justified? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 497–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Taffel SM. Cesarean section in America: dramatic trends, 1970–1987. Stat Bull Metrop Life Insur Co 1989; 70: 2–11.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Williams RL, Chen PM. Identifying the sources of the recent decline in perinatal mortality rates in California. N Engl J Med 1982;306:207–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Malloy MH, Onstad L, Wright E, et al. The effect of cesarean delivery on birth outcome in very low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 498–499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Anderson GD, Bada HS, Shaver DC, et al. The effect of cesarean section on intraven-tricular hemorrhage in the preterm infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1091–1101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Haverkamp AD, Orleans M, Langendoerfer S, et al. A controlled trial of the differential effects of intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134: 399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. The scalp stimulation test: a clinical alternative to fetal scalp blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 148: 274–277.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gordon D, Milberg J, Daling J, Hickok D. Advanced maternal age and risk factor for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 493–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wagner MG, St Clair PA. Are in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer of benefit to all? Lancet 1989; 2: 1027–1030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sauer MU, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA. Reversing the natural decline in human fertility! An extended clinical trial of oocyte donation to women of advanced reproductive age. JAMA 1992; 268: 1275–1279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gibbs RS, Amstey MS, Sweek RL, Mead PB, Sever JL. Management of genital herpes infection in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 779–780.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Randolph AG, Washington E, Prober CG. Cesarean delivery for women presenting with genital herpes lesions. JAMA 1993; 270: 77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chuang T. Neonatal herpes: incidence, prevention and consequences. Am J Prev Med 1988; 4: 47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gibbs RS, Amstey MS, Lezotte DC. Role of cesarean delivery in preventing neonatal herpes infection. JAMA 1993; 170: 94–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Luthy DA, Wardinsky T, Shurtleff DB, et al. Cesarean section before the onset of labor and subsequent motor function in infants with meningomyelocele diagnosed ante-natally. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 662–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Garite TJ, Linzey EM, Freeman RK, et al. Fetal heart rate patterns and fetal distress in fetuses with congenital anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 53: 716–721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Phillips RN, Thornton J, Gleicher N. Physician bias in cesarean sections. JAMA 1982; 248: 1082–1084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Berkowitz GS, Fiarman GS, Mojica MA, Bauman J, Haynes de Regt R. Effect of physician characteristics on the cesarean birth rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 146–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bashore RA, Phillips WH Jr, Brinkman CR III. A comparison of morbidity of midforceps and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1428–1432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeco-nomic differences in rates of cesarean section N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 233–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Haas JS, Udvarhelyi S, Epstein AM. The effect of health coverage for uninsured pregnant women on maternal health and the use of cesarean section. JAMA 1993; 270: 61–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kennell J, Klaus M, McGrath S, Robertson S, Hinkley C. Continuous emotional support during labor in a U.S. hospital, a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1991; 265: 2197–2201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rosen NG. Doula at the bedside of the patient in labor. JAMA 1991; 265: 2236–2237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Public Health Service. Healthy people 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives—full report with com mentary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1991. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 91–60212)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Spellacy WN. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a reward/penalty system for national implementation. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 316–317.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Gleicher
  • Richard H. Demir
  • Jeanne B. Novas
  • Stephen A. Myers

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations