Prediction of cesarean delivery in the term nulliparous woman: results from the prospective, multicenter Genesis study

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 216, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 598.e1-598.e11

  Burke, Naomi ^a   Burke, Gerard ^b   Breathnach, Fionnuala ^a   McAuliffe, Fionnuala ^c   Morrison, John J ^d   Turner, Michael ^e   Dornan, Samina ^f   Higgins, John R ^g   Cotter, Amanda ^b   Geary, Michael ^h   McParland, Peter ^c   Daly, Sean ^e   Cody, Fiona ^a   Dicker, Pat ^e,i   Tully, Elizabeth ^a   Malone, Fergal D ^a  

^a ROTUNDA HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

^c NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

^d NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^e Tallaght and Coombe Women's and Infant's University Hospital   (Ireland)

^f ROYAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

^h ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

ⁱ ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

cesarean delivery; Genesis study; nulliparous women; prediction algorithm; predictive tool

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL CIRCUMFERENCE; ADULT; ALGORITHM; BODY HEIGHT; BODY MASS; CALIBRATION; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; GESTATION PERIOD; HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LABOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; MORBIDITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NOMOGRAM; NULLIPARA; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; VAGINAL DELIVERY; ABDOMEN; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIAL; EMBRYOLOGY; FETUS; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS WEIGHT; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEAD; IRELAND; OBSTETRIC DELIVERY; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TERM BIRTH;

ABDOMEN; BODY HEIGHT; BODY MASS INDEX; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FETAL WEIGHT; FETUS; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEAD; HUMANS; IRELAND; LABOR PRESENTATION; LABOR, OBSTETRIC; MATERNAL AGE; NOMOGRAMS; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERM BIRTH; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 85016027948     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.017     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Osterman, M.J., Martin, J.A., Epidural and spinal anesthesia use during labor: 27-state reporting area, 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 59 (2011), 1–13 16.
2. Gibbons, L., Belizan, J.M., Lauer, J.A., Betran, A.P., Merialdi, M., Althabe, F., Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206 (2012), 331.e1–331.e19.
3. Allen, V.M., O'Connell, C.M., Liston, R.M., Baskett, T.F., Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 102 (2003), 477–482.
4. Allen, V.M., O'Connell, C.M., Baskett, T.F., Maternal and perinatal morbidity of caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation compared with caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour. BJOG 112 (2005), 986–990.
5. Dietz, H.P., Campbell, S., Toward normal birth-but at what cost?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215 (2016), 439–444.
6. Patel, R.R., Peters, T.J., Murphy, D.J., Team, A.S., Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12 944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 34 (2005), 353–367.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey, A.B., Cahill, A.G., Guise, J.-M., Rouse, D.J., Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210 (2014), 179–193.
8. Zaretsky, M.V., Alexander, J.M., McIntire, D.D., Hatab, M.R., Twickler, D.M., Leveno, K.J., Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry and the prediction of labor dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 106 (2005), 919–926.
9. Pattinson, R.C., Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2), 2000, CD000161.
10. Rozenholc, A.T., Ako, S.N., Leke, R.J., Boulvain, M., The diagnostic accuracy of external pelvimetry and maternal height to predict dystocia in nulliparous women: a study in Cameroon. BJOG 114 (2007), 630–635.
11. Al Housseini, A., Newman, T., Cox, A., Devoe, L.D., Prediction of risk for cesarean delivery in term nulliparas: a comparison of neural network and multiple logistic regression models. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201 (2009), 113.e1–113.e6.
12. Eggebo, T.M., Wilhelm-Benartzi, C., Hassan, W.A., Usman, S., Salvesen, K.A., Lees, C.C., A model to predict vaginal delivery in nulliparous women based on maternal characteristics and intrapartum ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213 (2015), 362.e1–362.e6.
13. Healthcare Pricing Office. National Perinatal Statistics Report Ireland. 2013, Health Service Executive, Dublin.
14. Ender, P., University Statistical Reporting Group. Powerlog: command for Logistic Regression Power Analysis. 2006, StataCorp, College Station, TX.
15. Stone, M., An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and Akaike's criterion. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 39 (1977), 44–47.
16. Wu, Y.C., Lee, W.C., Alternative performance measures for prediction models. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e91249.
17. Hosmer, D.W., Hosmer, T., Le Cessie, S., Lemeshow, S., A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 16 (1997), 965–980.
18. Austin, P.C., Steyerberg, E.W., Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers. Stat Med 33 (2014), 517–535.
19. Zlotnik, A., Abraira, V., A general purpose nomogram generator for predictive logistic regression. Stata J 15 (2015), 537–546.
20. Joseph, K.S., Young, D.C., Dodds, L., et al. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 102 (2003), 791–800.
21. Smith, G.C., Cordeaux, Y., White, I.R., et al. The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates. PLoS Med, 5, 2008, e144.
22. Poobalan, A.S., Aucott, L.S., Gurung, T., Smith, W.C., Bhattacharya, S., Obesity as an independent risk factor for elective and emergency caesarean delivery in nulliparous women—systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes Rev 10 (2009), 28–35.
23. Jolly, M.C., Sebire, N.J., Harris, J.P., Regan, L., Robinson, S., Risk factors for macrosomia and its clinical consequences: a study of 350,311 pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 111 (2003), 9–14.
24. Kennelly, M.M., Anjum, R., Lyons, S., Burke, G., Postpartum fetal head circumference and its influence on labour duration in nullipara. J Obstet Gynaecol 23 (2003), 496–499.
25. Turner, M.J., Rasmussen, M.J., Turner, J.E., Boylan, P.C., MacDonald, D., Stronge, J.M., The influence of birth weight on labor in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 76 (1990), 159–163.
26. Chauhan, S.P., Grobman, W.A., Gherman, R.A., et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193 (2005), 332–346.
27. Dudley, N.J., A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25 (2005), 80–89.
28. Little, S.E., Edlow, A.G., Thomas, A.M., Smith, N.A., Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207 (2012), 309.e1–309.e6.
29. Grobman, W.A., Lai, Y., Landon, M.B., et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 109 (2007), 806–812.
30. Mazouni, C., Rouzier, R., Collette, E., et al. Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the risk of cesarean delivery in macrosomia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87 (2008), 518–523.
31. Sinnott, S.J., Layte, R., Brick, A., Turner, M.J., Variation in induction of labour rates across Irish hospitals; a cross-sectional study. Eur J Public Health 26 (2016), 753–760.
32. Kleinrouweler, C.E., Cheong-See, F.M., Collins, G.S., et al. Prognostic models in obstetrics: available, but far from applicable. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214 (2016), 79–90.e36.