Why 'down under' is a cut above: a comparison of rates of and reasons for caesarean section in England and Australia

Background Most studies examining determinants of rising rates of caesarean section have examined patterns in documented reasons for caesarean over time in a single location. Further insights could be gleaned from cross-cultural research that examines practice patterns in locations with disparate rates of caesarean section at a single time point. Methods We compared both rates of and main reason for pre-labour and intrapartum caesarean between England and Queensland, Australia, using data from retrospective cross-sectional surveys of women who had recently given birth in England (n = 5,250) and Queensland (n = 3,467). Results Women in Queensland were more likely to have had a caesarean birth (36.2%) than women in England (25.1% of births; OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.61), after adjustment for obstetric characteristics. Between-country differences were found for rates of pre-labour caesarean (21.2% vs. 12.2%) but not for intrapartum caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Compared to women in England, women in Queensland with a history of caesarean were more likely to have had a pre-labour caesarean and more likely to have had an intrapartum caesarean, due only to a previous caesarean. Among women with no previous caesarean, Queensland women were more likely than women in England to have had a caesarean due to suspected disproportion and failure to progress in labour. Conclusions The higher rates of caesarean birth in Queensland are largely attributable to higher rates of caesarean for women with a previous caesarean, and for the main reason of having had a previous caesarean. Variation between countries may be accounted for by the absence of a single, comprehensive clinical guideline for caesarean section in Queensland. Keywords: Caesarean section; Childbirth; Pregnancy; Cross-cultural comparison; Vaginal birth after caesarean; Previous caesarean section; Patient-reported data; Quality improvement

Preventing infections following caesarean section

Surgical site infections following caesarean section are a serious and costly adverse event for Australian hospitals. In the United Kingdom, 9% of women are diagnosed with a surgical site infection following caesarean section either in hospital or post-discharge (Wloch et al 2012, Ward et al 2008). Additional staff time, pharmaceuticals and health supplies, and increased length of stay or readmission to hospital are often required (Henman et al 2012). Part of my PhD investigated the economics of preventing post-caesarean infection. This paper summarises a review of relevant infection prevention strategies. Administering antibiotic prophylaxis 15 to 60 minutes pre-incision, rather than post cordclamping, is probably the most important infection prevention strategy for caesarean section (Smaill and Gyte2010, Liu et al 2013, Dahlke et al 2013). However the timing of antibiotic administration is reportedly inconsistent in Australian hospitals. Clinicians may be taking advice from the influential, but out-dated RANZCOG and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines (Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2011, Mangram et al 1999). A number of other important international clinical guidelines, including Australia's NHMRC guidelines, recommend universal prophylactic antibiotics pre-incision for caesarean section (National Health and Medical Research Council 2010, National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health 2008, Anderson et al 2008, National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health 2011, Bratzler et al 2013, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2011a, Antibiotic Expert Group 2010). We need to ensure women receive preincision antibiotic prophylaxis, particularly as nurses and midwives play a significant role in managing an infection that may result from sub-optimal practice. It is acknowledged more explicitly now that nurses and midwives can influence prescribing and administration of antibiotics through informal approaches (Edwards et al 2011). Methods such as surgical safety checklists are a more formal way for nurses and midwives to ensure that antibiotics are administered pre-incision (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2011 b). Nurses and midwives can also be directly responsible for other infection prevention strategies such as instructing women to not remove pubic hair in the month before the expected date of delivery and wound management education (Ng et al 2013). Potentially more costly but effective strategies include using a Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) sponge preoperatively (in addition to the usual operating room skin preparation) and vaginal cleansing with a povidone-iodine solution (Riley et al 2012, Rauk 2010, Haas, Morgan, and Contreras 2013).

What are the 'best buys' in preventing infection following caesarean section?

Caesarean section is the most common surgical procedure performed on women worldwide and infections following caesarean section occur in approximately 10% of Australian women...

Caesarean section and subsequent pregnancy outcome: a Danish register-based cohort study

Background and Aims: Caesarean section rates have increased in recent decades and the effects on subsequent pregnancy outcome are largely unknown. Prior research has hypothesised that Caesarean section delivery may lead to an increased risk of subsequent stillbirth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and sub-fertility. Structure and Methods: Papers 1-3 are systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Papers 4-6 are findings from this thesis on the rate of subsequent stillbirth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and live birth by mode of delivery. Results Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A 23% increased odds of subsequent stillbirth; no increase in odds of subsequent ectopic pregnancy and a 10% reduction in the odds of subsequent live birth among women with a previous Caesarean section were found in the various meta-analyses. Danish cohorts: Results from the Danish Civil Registration System (CRS) cohort revealed a small increased rate of subsequent stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy among women with a primary Caesarean section, which remained in the analyses by type of Caesarean. No increased rate of miscarriage was found among women with a primary Caesarean section. In the CRS data, women with a primary Caesarean section had a significantly reduced rate of subsequent live birth particularly among women with primary elective and maternal-requested Caesarean sections. In the Aarhus Birth Cohort, overall the effect of mode of delivery on the rate and time to next live birth was minimal. Conclusions: Primary Caesarean section was associated with a small increased rate of stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy, which may be in part due to underlying medical conditions. No increased rate of miscarriage was found. A reduced rate of subsequent live birth was found among Caesarean section in the CRS data. In the smaller ABC cohort, a small reduction in rate of subsequent live birth was found among women with a primary Caesarean section and is most likely due to maternal choice rather than any ill effects of the Caesarean. The findings of this study, the largest and most comprehensive to date will be of significant interest to health care providers and women globally.

What is a reasonable time from decision to delivery by Caesarean section? Evidence from 533 deliveries.

Objective To determine how long it takes from the decision to achieve delivery by non-elective caesarean section (DDI), the influence on this interval, and the impact on neonatal condition at birth. Design Twelve months prospective data collection on all non-elective caesarean sections. Methods Prospective collection of data relating to all caesarean sections in 1996 in a major teaching hospital obstetric unit was conducted, without the knowledge of the other clinicians providing clinical care. Details of the indication for section, the day and time of the decision and the interval till delivery were recorded as well as the seniority of the surgeon, and condition of the baby at birth. Results The mean time from decision-to-delivery for 100 emergency intrapartum caesarean sections was 42.9 minutes for fetal distress and 71.1 minutes for 230 without fetal distress (P<0.0001). For 22 'crash' sections the mean time from decision-to-delivery was 27.4 minutes; for 13 urgent antepartum deliveries for fetal reasons it was 124.7 minutes and for 21 with maternal reasons it was 97.4 minutes. The seniority of the surgeon managing the patient did not appear to influence the interval, nor did the time of day or day of the week when the delivery occurred. Intrapartum sections were quicker the more advanced the labour, and general anaesthesia was associated with shorter intervals than regional anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (P<0.001). Babies born within one hour of the decision tended to be more acidaemic than those born later, irrespective of the indication for delivery. Babies tended to be in better condition when a time from decision-to-delivery was not recorded than those for whom the information had been recorded. Conclusion Fewer than 40% intrapartum deliveries by caesarean section for fetal distress were achieved within 30 minutes of the decision, despite that being the unit standard. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that overall an interval up to 120 minutes was detrimental to the neonate unless the delivery was a 'crash' caesarean section. These data thus do not provide evidence to sustain the recommendation of a standard of 30 minutes for intrapartum delivery by caesarean section.

A meta-analysis of the association between Caesarean section and childhood asthma

Background: Children born by Caesarean section have modified intestinal bacterial colonization and consequently may have an increased risk of developing asthma under the hygiene hypothesis. The results of previous studies that have investigated the association between Caesarean section and asthma have been conflicting.

Objective: To review published literature and perform a meta-analysis summarizing the evidence in support of an association between children born by Caesarean section and asthma.

Methods: MEDLINE, Web Science, Google Scholar and PubMed were searched to identify relevant studies. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each study from the reported prevalence of asthma in children born by Caesarean section and in control children. Meta-analysis was then used to derive a combined OR and test for heterogeneity in the findings between studies.

Results: Twenty-three studies were identified. The overall meta-analysis revealed an increase in the risk of asthma in children delivered by Caesarean section (OR=1.22, 95% CI 1.14, 1.29). However, in this analysis, there was evidence of heterogeneity (I2=46%) that was statistically significant (P<0.001). Restricting the analysis to childhood studies, this heterogeneity was markedly decreased (I2=32%) and no longer attained statistical significance (P=0.08). In these studies, there was also evidence of an increase (P<0.001) in the risk of asthma after Caesarean section (OR=1.20, 95% CI 1.14, 12.6).

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, we found a 20% increase in the subsequent risk of asthma in children who had been delivered by Caesarean section.

Caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis of observational studies

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence of an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section by systematically reviewing the published literature and performing a meta-analysis with adjustment for recognised confounders.
Methods: After MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE searches, crude ORs and 95% CIs for type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section were calculated from the data reported in each study. Authors were contacted to facilitate adjustments for potential confounders, either by supplying raw data or calculating adjusted estimates. Meta-analysis techniques were then used to derive combined ORs and to investigate heterogeneity between studies.
Results: Twenty studies were identified. Overall, there was a significant increase in the risk of type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.15-1.32, p<0.001). There was little evidence of heterogeneity between studies (p=0.54). Seventeen authors provided raw data or adjusted estimates to facilitate adjustments for potential confounders. In these studies, there was evidence of an increase in diabetes risk with greater birthweight, shorter gestation and greater maternal age. The increased risk of type 1 diabetes after Caesarean section was little altered after adjustment for gestational age, birth weight, maternal age, birth order, breast-feeding and maternal diabetes (adjusted OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.36, p=0.01).
Conclusions/interpretation: This analysis demonstrates a 20% increase in the risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes after Caesarean section delivery that cannot be explained by known confounders.

Deep vein thrombosis and caesarean section

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) presents a significant risk for women requiring Caesarean section.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the leading direct cause of maternal death in the
UK and is the second most common cause of maternal death worldwide, accounting for 11%
of maternal deaths (RCOG 2009). This article uses a reflective cycle to explore the role of the
preoperative practitioner in the prevention of DVT for women undergoing elective Caesarean
section.