Top

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Sectio Ceasarea | Research

The incidence, risk factors and maternal and foetal outcomes of uterine rupture during different birth policy periods: an observational study in China

Authors: Yangwen Zhou, Yi Mu, Peiran Chen, Yanxia Xie, Jun Zhu, Juan Liang

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Currently, there are no studies on changes in the incidence of uterine rupture or maternal and foetal outcomes in women with uterine rupture during different birth policy periods in China. Moreover, the results of association studies of maternal age, parity and previous caesarean section number with the risk of maternal and foetal outcomes in women with uterine rupture have not been consistent. This research aims to conduct and discuss the above two aspects.

Methods

We included singleton pregnant women with no maternal complications other than uterine rupture from January 2012 to June 2019 in China’s National Maternal Near Miss Surveillance System. The data in this study did not differentiate between complete and partial uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence. Through Poisson regression analysis with a robust variance estimator, we compared the incidences of uterine rupture and maternal and foetal outcomes in women with uterine rupture during different birth policy periods in China and determined the relationship between maternal age, parity or previous caesarean section number and uterine rupture or maternal and foetal outcomes in women with uterine rupture.

Results

This study included 8,637,723 pregnant women. The total incidences of uterine rupture were 0.13% (12,934) overall, 0.05% during the one-child policy, 0.12% during the partial two-child policy (aRR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.53–2.52) and 0.22% (aRR = 2.89; 95% CI: 1.94 4.29) during the universal two-child policy. The maternal near miss and stillbirth rates in women with uterine rupture were respectively 2.35% (aRR = 17.90; 95% CI: 11.81–27.13) and 2.12% (aRR = 4.10; 95% CI: 3.19 5.26) overall, 5.46 and 8.18% during the first policy, 1.72% (aRR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.32–1.17) and 2.02% (aRR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.37–0.83) during the second policy, and 1.99% (aRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.52–1.53) and 1.04% (aRR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.24–0.54) during the third policy. The risk of uterine rupture increased with parity and previous caesarean section number.

Conclusion

The uterine rupture rate in China continues to increase among different birth policy periods, and the risk of maternal near miss among women with uterine rupture has not significantly improved. The Chinese government, obstetricians, and scholars should work together to reverse the rising rate of uterine rupture and improve the pregnancy outcomes in women with uterine rupture.

Available only for authorised users

Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200107053450101.CrossRefPubMed

Ronel D, Wiznitzer A, Sergienko R, Zlotnik A, Sheiner E. Trends, risk factors and pregnancy outcome in women with uterine rupture. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(2):317–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1977-8.CrossRefPubMed

Yap OW, Kim ES, Laros RK Jr. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1576–81. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.114855.CrossRefPubMed

Hofmeyr GJ, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG. 2005;112(9):1221–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x.CrossRefPubMed

Hesketh T, Zhou X, Wang Y. The end of the one-child policy: lasting implications for China. JAMA. 2015;314(24):2619–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.16279.CrossRefPubMed

Zeng Y, Hesketh T. The effects of China's universal two-child policy. Lancet. 2016;388(10054):1930–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31405-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Li HT, et al. Association of China's universal two child policy with changes in births and birth related health factors: national, descriptive comparative study. BMJ. 2019;366:l4680.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zhang HX, Zhao YY, Wang YQ. Analysis of the characteristics of pregnancy and delivery before and after implementation of the two-child policy. Chin Med J. 2018;131(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.221268.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zeng C, Yang M, Ding Y, Duan S, Zhou Y. Placenta accreta spectrum disorder trends in the context of the universal two-child policy in China and the risk of hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):312–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12418.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Zhang X, Chen L, Wang X, Wang X, Jia M, Ni S, et al. Changes in maternal age and prevalence of congenital anomalies during the enactment of China's universal two-child policy (2013-2017) in Zhejiang Province, China: an observational study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):e1003047. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003047.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BKS, Helfand M. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):19–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7456.19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Motomura K, Ganchimeg T, Nagata C, Ota E, Vogel JP, Betran AP, et al. Incidence and outcomes of uterine rupture among women with prior caesarean section: WHO multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):44093. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44093.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

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. 2012;9(3):e1001184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Practice Bulletin No ACOG. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e110–27.CrossRef

15.

Zhang W. Expert consensus on the Management of Vaginal Delivery during second pregnancy after cesarean section (2016). Chin J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;51(08):561–4.

16.

Kaczmarczyk M, Sparén P, Terry P, Cnattingius S. Risk factors for uterine rupture and neonatal consequences of uterine rupture: a population-based study of successive pregnancies in Sweden. BJOG. 2007;114(10):1208–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01484.x.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Al-Zirqi I, et al. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(7):809–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02533.x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Öry F, de Vries JIP, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J. Uterine rupture in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2009;116(8):1069–78; discussion 1078-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Al-Zirqi I, et al. Risk factors for complete uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):165 e1–8.CrossRef

20.

Thisted DL, Mortensen LH, Krebs L. Uterine rupture without previous caesarean delivery: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;195:151–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.10.013.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):490–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Zhu J, Liang J, Mu Y, Li X, Guo S, Scherpbier R, et al. Sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics of stillbirths in China: a census of nearly 4 million health facility births between 2012 and 2014. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(2):e109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00271-5.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Tang W, Mu Y, Li X, Wang Y, Liu Z, Li Q, et al. Low birthweight in China: evidence from 441 health facilities between 2012 and 2014. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(16):1997–2002. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1236081.CrossRefPubMed

24.

X., L. In: Xie X, editor. Childbirth complications, in Obstetrics and gynecology, G.W. Bei jing: People’s Health Publishing; 2013. p. 142.

25.

Say L, Souza JP, Pattinson RC, WHO working group on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity classifications. Maternal near miss--towards a standard tool for monitoring quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23(3):287–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.007.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh090.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cummings P. Methods for estimating adjusted risk ratios. Stata J. 2009;9(2):175–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900201.CrossRef

28.

Al-Zirqi I, et al. Uterine rupture: trends over 40 years. BJOG. 2016;123(5):780–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13394.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Vandenberghe G, Bloemenkamp K, Berlage S, Colmorn L, Deneux-Tharaux C, Gissler M, et al. The international network of obstetric survey systems study of uterine rupture: a descriptive multi-country population-based study. BJOG. 2019;126(3):370–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15271.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Colmorn LB, Petersen KB, Jakobsson M, Lindqvist PG, Klungsoyr K, Källen K, et al. The Nordic obstetric surveillance study: a study of complete uterine rupture, abnormally invasive placenta, peripartum hysterectomy, and severe blood loss at delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(7):734–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12639.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Vilchez G, Nazeer S, Kumar K, Warren M, Dai J, Sokol RJ. Contemporary epidemiology and novel predictors of uterine rupture: a nationwide population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(5):869–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4508-4.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ofir K, Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M. Uterine rupture: risk factors and pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):1042–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)01052-4.CrossRefPubMed

33.

A.J.KÃ¤llÃ©n, B. Methodological issues in the epidemiological study of the teratogenicity of drugs. Congenit Anom. 2005;45(2):44–51.CrossRef

34.

Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. Nchs Data Brief. 2010;35:1.

35.

Garnet JD. UTERINE RUPTURE DURING PREGNANCY. AN ANALYSIS OF 133 PATIENTS. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;23:898.PubMed

36.

Ofir K, Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M. Uterine rupture: differences between a scarred and an unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):425–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.026.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Barger MK, Nannini A, DeJoy S, Wisner K, Markenson G. Maternal and newborn outcomes following uterine rupture among women without versus those with a prior cesarean. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(2):183–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.725790.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Al-Zirqi I, Daltveit AK, Vangen S. Infant outcome after complete uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):109 e1–8.CrossRef

39.

Zhao J, Shan N, Yang X, Li Q, Xia Y, Zhang H, et al. Effect of second child intent on delivery mode after Chinese two child policy implementation: a cross sectional and prospective observational study of nulliparous women in Chongqing. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e018823. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018823.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: The incidence, risk factors and maternal and foetal outcomes of uterine rupture during different birth policy periods: an observational study in China
Authors: Yangwen Zhou
Yi Mu
Peiran Chen
Yanxia Xie
Jun Zhu
Juan Liang
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Sectio Ceasarea
Sectio Caesarea
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03811-8

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

The incidence, risk factors and maternal and foetal outcomes of uterine rupture during different birth policy periods: an observational study in China

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Physical activity and sedentary time during pregnancy and associations with maternal and fetal health outcomes: an epidemiological study

Psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on one-month postpartum mothers in a metropolitan area of Japan

Perinatal outcomes of high dose versus low dose oxytocin regimen used for labor induction and factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in four hospitals of Ethiopia: a multicenter comparative study

The pregnancy-related anxiety characteristics in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: why should we care?

Maternal sociodemographic characteristics, early pregnancy behaviours, and livebirth outcomes as congenital heart defects risk factors - Northern Ireland 2010-2014

The influence of exercise during pregnancy on racial/ethnic health disparities and birth outcomes