Potential avoidability of planned cesarean sections in a French national database

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 93, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 905-912

  Coulm, Benedicte ^a   Blondel, Beatrice ^a   Alexander, Sophie ^b   Boulvain, Michel ^c   Le Ray, Camille ^a,d  

^a PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b FREE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS   (Belgium)

^c GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^d Institut Cochin   (France)

Author keywords

avoidability; Cesarean section; classification; determinants; France; obstetric situations; routine survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; CLASSIFICATION; DATA BASE; FRANCE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LABOR; MATERNAL AGE; MULTIPARA; OBESITY; PREGNANCY; PRIMIPARA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION;

AVOIDABILITY; CESAREAN SECTION; CLASSIFICATION; DETERMINANTS; FRANCE; OBSTETRIC SITUATIONS; ROUTINE SURVEY;

ADULT; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; PREGNANCY; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 84905996051     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: 16000412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12439     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Menacker F, Hamilton BE,. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2010; 35: 1-8.
2. Europeristat. Europeristat project with SCPE and EUROCAT European Perinatal Health Report The health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. May 2013: 252 p. Available online at: www.europeristat.com (accessed 27 March, 2014).
3. Blondel B, Lelong N, Kermarrec M, Goffinet F,. Trends in perinatal health in France from 1995 to 2010. Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012; 41: e1-e15.
4. Tita AT, Landon MB, Spong CY, Lai Y, Leveno KJ, Varner MW, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 111-20.
5. Hyde MJ, Modi N,. The long-term effects of birth by caesarean section: the case for a randomised controlled trial. Early Hum Dev. 2012; 88: 943-9.
6. Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, Evans SR, Kotelchuck M, Simon C, et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 669-77.
7. Holm C, Langhoff-Roos J, Petersen KB, Norgaard A, Diness BR,. Severe postpartum haemorrhage and mode of delivery: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2012; 119: 596-604.
8. Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS, Liston RM, Huang L, Sauve R, et al. Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 836-42.
9. Maaloe N, Bygbjerg IC, Onesmo R, Secher NJ, Sorensen BL,. Disclosing doubtful indications for emergency cesarean sections in rural hospitals in Tanzania: a retrospective criterion-based audit. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012; 91: 1069-76.
10. Karlstrom A, Radestad I, Eriksson C, Rubertsson C, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I,. Cesarean section without medical reason, 1997 to 2006: a Swedish register study. Birth. 2010; 37: 11-20.
11. Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF,. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol. 2006; 30: 235-41.
12. Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K,. Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 1506-16.
13. Collège National des gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF). Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: la césarienne (Guidelines for clinical practice: cesarean section: consequences and indications.). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2000; 29: 9-108.
14. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e14566.
15. Robson MS,. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 15: 179-94.
16. Quantin C, Cottenet J, Vuagnat A, Prunet C, Mouquet M, Fresson J, et al. Quality of perinatal statistics from hospital discharge data: comparison with civil registration and the 2010 National Perinatal Survey. J Gyn Obstet Biol Reprod. 2013; in press.
17. Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Henriksen T, Hager R, et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 864-70.
18. Robson SJ, Tan WS, Adeyemi A, Dear KB,. Estimating the rate of cesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Birth. 2009; 36: 208-12.
19. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG. 2006; 113: 647-56.
20. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E,. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol 2008; 35: 293-307, v.
21. Roman H, Blondel B, Breart G, Goffinet F,. Do risk factors for elective cesarean section differ from those of cesarean section during labor in low risk pregnancies? J Perinat Med. 2008; 36: 297-305.
22. Hibbard JU, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, et al. Trial of labor or repeat cesarean delivery in women with morbid obesity and previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 125-33.
23. Kominiarek MA, Vanveldhuisen P, Hibbard J, Landy H, Haberman S, Learman L, et al. The maternal body mass index: a strong association with delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 264 e1-7.
24. Coonrod DV, Drachman D, Hobson P, Manriquez M,. Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198: 694-e1.
25. Coulm B, Le Ray C, Lelong N, Drewniak N, Zeitlin J, Blondel B,. Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: do maternity unit characteristics make a difference? Birth. 2012; 39: 183-91.
26. Roberts CL, Tracy S, Peat B,. Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study. BMJ. 2000; 321: 137-41.
27. Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS,. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 48 e1-8.
28. Iriye BK, Huang WH, Condon J, Hancock L, Hancock JK, Ghamsary M, et al. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 251. e1-6.
29. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O'Brien MA, Oxman AD,. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3): CD000259.
30. Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 363: 1934-40.