Stabilising the caesarean rate: Which target population?

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 122, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 690-699

  Le Ray, C ^a,b,c   Blondel, B ^a,c   Prunet, C ^a,c   Khireddine, I ^a,c   Deneux Tharaux, C ^a,c   Goffinet, F ^a,b,c  

^a PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris ^*  (France)

^c DHU Risk in Pregnancy ^*  (France)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; France; Robson classification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMAN; LABOR; LABOR INDUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; POPULATION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TERM BIRTH; BODY MASS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITAL; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEWBORN; PARITY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

ADULT; BODY MASS INDEX; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME;

EID: 84925067901     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13199     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. EURO-PERISTAT Project with SCPE and EUROCAT. European perinatal health report. The health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. 2013 [ www.europeristat.com ]. Accessed November 2014.
2. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health data 2012. [ www.oecd.org/health/healthdata ]. Accessed November 2014.
3. Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J,. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 2011; 38: 99-104.
4. Torloni MR, Betrán AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e14566.
5. Robson MS,. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 179-94.
6. Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M,. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27: 297-308.
7. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR,. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e97769.
8. Blondel B, Lelong N, Kermarrec M, Goffinet F, National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal S. Trends in perinatal health in France from 1995 to 2010. Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2012; 41: e1-15.
9. Blondel B, Breart G, du Mazaubrun C, Badeyan G, Wcislo M, Lordier A, et al. The perinatal situation in France. Trends between 1981 and 1995. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1997; 26: 770-80.
10. Quantin C, Cottenet J, Vuagnat A, Prunet C, Mouquet MC, Fresson J, et al. Quality of perinatal statistics from hospital discharge data: comparison with civil registration and the 2010 National Perinatal Survey. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2014; 43: 680-90.
11. Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Temmerman M,. Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk pregnancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliveries: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 3.
12. Kelly S, Sprague A, Fell DB, Murphy P, Aelicks N, Guo Y, et al. Examining caesarean section rates in Canada using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35: 206-14.
13. Brennan DJ, Murphy M, Robson MS, O'Herlihy C,. The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 273-9.
14. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C,. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 308.e1-8.
15. Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Laughon SK,. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 33-40.
16. Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E,. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6: CD004945.
17. Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S,. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014; 121: 674-85.
18. Mishanina E, Rogozinska E, Thatthi T, Uddin-Khan R, Khan KS, Meads C,. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2014; 186: 665-73.
19. Vrouenraets F, Roumen F, Dehing C, van den Akker E, Aarts M, Scheve E,. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 690-7.
20. Le Ray C, Carayol M, Breart G, Goffinet F,. Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 657-65.
21. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cardenas V, Nelson JC, Holt VL, Gardella C, Easterling TR,. Induction of labor in the absence of standard medical indications: incidence and correlates. Med Care 2007; 45: 505-12.
22. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top guideline; no. 45. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), 2007.
23. Deneux-Tharaux C,. Women with previous caesarean or other uterine scar: epidemiological features. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2012; 41: 697-707.
24. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89: 319-31.
25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450-63.
26. Fitzpatrick KE, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M,. Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med 2013; 9: e1001184.
27. MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F,. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 179-92.
28. Europeristat. European Perinatal Health Report. 2004. [ www.europeristat.com/reports.html ]. Accessed November 2014.
29. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR, Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375-83.
30. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, van Loon AJ, Van Hemel OJ, Visser GH,. Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33 824 infants. BJOG 2003; 110: 604-9.
31. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D,. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1002-11.
32. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 864-71.
33. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 917-27.