Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Maternal and Child Health Journal
Published in: Maternal and Child Health Journal 2/2010

01-03-2010

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

Authors: Fay Menacker, Marian F. MacDorman, Eugene Declercq

Published in: Maternal and Child Health Journal | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
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.
 
Literature
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.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1999). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: ACOG.
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.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Greene, M. (2001). Vaginal delivery after Cesarean Section- is the risk acceptable? New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 55.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
SAS Institute Inc. (2006). Base SAS 9.1.3. Cary, N.C: SAS Institute Inc.
11.
Wennberg, J. E. (2002). Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. British Medical Journal, 325, 961–964.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
13.
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.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
17.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2004). Practice bulletin: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104, 203–211.
18.
Stolberg, S. G. (2001). A risk is found in natural birth after cesarean. New York Times. July 5, p. 1.
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.CrossRef
20.
Flamm, B. L. (1997). Once a cesarean, always a controversy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 902, 312–315.CrossRef
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
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.CrossRefPubMed
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
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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
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.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.
Metadata
Title
Neonatal Mortality Risk for Repeat Cesarean Compared to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States, 1998–2002 Birth Cohorts
Authors
Fay Menacker
Marian F. MacDorman
Eugene Declercq
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1092-7875
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6628
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0551-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Maternal and Child Health Journal 2/2010 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

The Well-Being of Parental Caregivers of Children with Activity Limitations

OriginalPaper

Nutritional Status of Mothers and Low Birth Weight in India

OriginalPaper

Pregnancy Outcomes by Pregnancy Intention in a Managed Care Setting

OriginalPaper

Vaginal Douching Among Latina Immigrants

OriginalPaper

Correlates of Pre-Pregnancy Physical Inactivity: Results from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System

OriginalPaper

Implications of Subdividing Marital Status: Are Unmarried Mothers with Partners Different from Unmarried Mothers without Partners? An Exploratory Analysis