Modest Rise in Caesarean Section from 2000-2010: The Dutch Experience

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2016 May 19

PMID 27192534

Citations 3

Authors

Yanjun Zhao

Jun Zhang

Chantal Hukkelhoven

Pien Offerhaus

Joost Zwart

Ank de Jonge

Caroline Geerts

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The caesarean delivery (CD) rate has risen in most countries over the last decades, but it remains relatively low in the Netherlands. Our objective was to analyse the trends of CD rates in various subgroups of women between 2000 and 2010, and identify the practice pattern that is attributable to the relative stability of the Dutch CD rate.

Methods: A total of 1,935,959 women from the nationwide Perinatal Registry of the Netherlands were included. Women were categorized into ten groups based on the modified CD classification scheme. Trends of CD rates in each group were described.

Results: The overall CD rate increased slightly from 14.0% in 2000-2001 to 16.7% in 2010. Fetal, early and late neonatal mortality rates decreased by 40-50% from 0.53%, 0.21%, 0.04% in 2000-2001 to 0.29%, 0.12%, 0.02% in 2010, respectively. During this period, the prevalence of non-vertex presentation decreased from 6.7% to 5.3%, even though the CD rate in this group was high. The nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labor at term and a singleton child in vertex presentation had a CD rate of 9.9%, and 64.7% of multiparous women with at least one previous uterine scar and a singleton child in vertex presentation had a trial of labor and the success rate of vaginal delivery was 45.9%.

Conclusions: The Dutch experience indicates that external cephalic version for breech presentation, keeping the CD rate low in nulliparous women and encouraging a trial of labor in multiparous women with a previous scar, could help to keep the overall CD rate steady.

Citing Articles

In which groups of pregnant women can the caesarean delivery rate likely be reduced safely in the USA? A multicentre cross-sectional study.

Zhang J, Branch W, Hoffman M, de Jonge A, Li S, Troendle J BMJ Open. 2018; 8(8):e021670.

PMID: 30082355 PMC: 6078266. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021670.

Possible relationship between general and pregnancy-related anxiety during the first half of pregnancy and the birth process: a prospective cohort study.

Koelewijn J, Sluijs A, Vrijkotte T BMJ Open. 2017; 7(5):e013413.

PMID: 28490549 PMC: 5623367. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013413.

Risk factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in planned vaginal breech labors at term: a retrospective population-based case-control study.

Macharey G, Gissler M, Ulander V, Rahkonen L, Vaisanen-Tommiska M, Nuutila M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1):93.

PMID: 28320344 PMC: 5359881. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1278-8.

References

Offerhaus P, de Jonge A, van der Pal-de-Bruin K, Hukkelhoven C, Scheepers P, Lagro-Janssen A . Change in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands in 2000–2008: A descriptive study of caesarean sections and other interventions among 807,437 low-risk births. Midwifery. 2015; 31(6):648-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.01.013. View

Betran A, Vindevoghel N, Souza J, Gulmezoglu A, Torloni M . A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e97769. PMC: 4043665. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769. View

Joseph K, Young D, Dodds L, OConnell C, Allen V, Chandra S . Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(4):791-800. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00620-3. View

Hofmeyr G, Hannah M . Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; (3):CD000166. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000166. View

Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J . Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG. 2006; 113(6):647-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00933.x. View

Dodd J, Crowther C, Huertas E, Guise J, Horey D . Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (4):CD004224. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub2. View

Murthy K, Grobman W, Lee T, Holl J . Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110(6):1264-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000287294.89148.23. View

Guise J, Berlin M, McDonagh M, Osterweil P, Chan B, Helfand M . Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(3):420-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000116259.41678.f1. View

Molina G, Weiser T, Lipsitz S, Esquivel M, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T . Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA. 2015; 314(21):2263-70. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.15553. View

10.

Meray N, Reitsma J, Ravelli A, Bonsel G . Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(9):883-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.021. View

11.

Robson M . Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 15(1):179-94. DOI: 10.1053/beog.2000.0156. View

12.

Elferink-Stinkens P, Brand R, van Hemel O . Trends in caesarean section rates among high- and medium-risk pregnancies in The Netherlands 1983-1992. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995; 59(2):159-67. DOI: 10.1016/0028-2243(95)02050-3. View

13.

Porreco R, Thorp J . The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(2):369-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70148-5. View

14.

Spong C . Prevention of the first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015; 42(2):377-80. PMC: 4441950. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.01.010. View

15.

Vogel J, Betran A, Vindevoghel N, Souza J, Torloni M, Zhang J . Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015; 3(5):e260-70. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X. View

16.

Macones G . Clinical outcomes in VBAC attempts: what to say to patients?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(1):1-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.040. View

17.

Brennan D, Murphy M, Robson M, OHerlihy C . The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(2 Pt 1):273-279. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318204521a. View

18.

Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C . Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2011; 343:d7400. PMC: 3223531. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d7400. View

19.

Zhang J, Geerts C, Hukkelhoven C, Offerhaus P, Zwart J, de Jonge A . Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes. BJOG. 2015; 123(5):754-61. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13520. View

20.

Hannah M, Hannah W, Hewson S, Hodnett E, Saigal S, Willan A . Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239):1375-83. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3. View