Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Risk factors associated with adverse maternal outcomes following intrapartum cesarean birth: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health, 2004–2008

verfasst von: Margo S. Harrison, Ana Pilar Betrán, Krithika Suresh, Joshua P. Vogel, Robert L. Goldenberg, A. Metin Gülmezoglu

Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

To identify risk factors associated with a composite adverse maternal outcomes in women undergoing intrapartum cesarean birth.

Methods

We used the facility-based, multi-country, cross-sectional WHO Global Survey of Maternal and Perinatal Health (2004–2008) to examine associations between woman-, labor/obstetric-, and facility-level characteristics and a composite adverse maternal outcome of postpartum morbidity and mortality. This analysis was performed among women who underwent intrapartum cesarean birth during the course of labor.

Results

We analyzed outcomes of 29,516 women from low- and middle-income countries who underwent intrapartum cesarean birth between the gestational ages of 24 and 43 weeks, 3.5% (1040) of whom experienced the composite adverse maternal outcome. In adjusted analyses, factors associated with a decreased risk of the adverse maternal outcome associated with intrapartum cesarean birth included having four or more antenatal visits (AOR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43–0.84; p = 0.003), delivering in a medium- or high-human development index country (vs. low-human development index country: AOR 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01–0.85 and AOR 0.02; 95% CI: 0.001–0.39, respectively; p = 0.03), and malpresentation (vs. cephalic: breech AOR 0.52; CI: 0.31–0.87; p = 0.04). Women who were medically high risk (vs. not medically high risk: AOR 1.81; CI: 1.30–2.51, p < 0.0004), had less education (0–6 years) (vs. 13+ years; AOR 1.64; CI: 1.03–2.63; p = 0.01), were obstetrically high risk (vs. not high risk; AOR 3.67; CI: 2.58–5.23; p < 0.0001), or had a maternal or obstetric indication (vs. elective: AOR 4.74; CI: 2.36–9.50; p < 0.0001) had increased odds of the adverse outcome.

Conclusion

We found reduced adverse maternal outcomes of intrapartum cesarean birth in women with ≥ 4 antenatal visits, those who delivered in a medium or high human development index country, and those with malpresenting fetuses. Maternal adverse outcomes associated with intrapartum cesarean birth were medically and obstetrically high risk women, those with less education, and those with a maternal or obstetric indication for intrapartum cesarean birth.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
WHO
World Health Organization
WHOGS
WHO Global Survey of Maternal and Perinatal Health
UOR
Unadjusted odds ratio
AOR
Adjusted odds ratios

Key message

Certain woman-level, obstetric-level, and available facility-level risk factors are associated with a greater likelihood of adverse maternal outcomes following an intrapartum cesarean birth. The modifiable factors could be targeted for interventions to reduce adverse maternal outcomes of intrapartum cesarean birth.

Background

Cesarean birth rates are increasing gobally [1]. This increase in cesarean birth rates is due, in part, to the performance of medically unnecessary cesareans [2]. Cesarean birth can be a life-saving procedure for mothers and babies, but it can also be associated with maternal morbidity and mortality [3]. Cesarean birth can potentially result in longer hospitalization and neonatal respiratory complications [4]. Compared with cesarean births conducted before the onset of labor, women are at the greatest risk of harm from cesarean birth when it is performed during labor, which is variably described as an unplanned, intrapartum, or emergency cesarean birth [5]. This is often due to lack of availability of anesthetic and surgical workforce and availability of supplies such as oxygen, anesthesia, and bloodbanks [6]. In order to mitigate the risks of adverse outcomes, cesarean birth should be used at the right time, for the right indications, and with appropriate surgical technique [7].
Given that cesarean birth rates are increasing globally, identifying actionable, modifiable risk factors associated with adverse maternal outcomes following intrapartum cesarean birth may help prevent some maternal morbidity and mortality related to this procedure [5]. We conducted a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health dataset in order to compare women from low- and middle-income countries who gave birth by intrapartum cesarean and experienced an adverse maternal outcome, to women who experienced an intrapartum cesarean birth without having an adverse outcome [8]. Our aim was to identify any modifiable risk factors associated with a composite adverse maternal outcome following intrapartum cesarean birth to determine if there are any target areas that might improve pregnancy outcomes in this population.

Methods

Dataset

The methodology of the WHO Global Survey of Maternal and Perinatal Health (WHOGS) has been published [9]. In brief, WHOGS was undertaken in 2004–05 (in 8 Latin American and 7 African countries) and in 2007–08 in 9 Asian countries [1012]. Data were gathered for 2 months in these low- and middle-income countries in institutions with at least 6000 deliveries per year and for 3 months in institutions with fewer than 6000 annual deliveries [9]. Data about the sociodemographic, obstetric, birth, and labor characteristics, and a range of maternal and perinatal outcomes, were captured from all women who gave birth in participating institutions during the data collection period [9]. Data were collected for 290,610 deliveries in 373 facilities in 24 countries [9]. Data were collected prospectively from the time of maternal presentation at the facility until discharge, death or the seventh day postpartum, whichever occurred first [9]. Data collectors reviewed medical records daily and abstracted de-identified data from these records into an individual data form [9]. Additionally, an institutional data form was completed for each participating facility via an interview with the head of the obstetrics/gynaecology department [9]. All countries were included except for Angola, which was dropped due to outlier data related to the ICU admission variable, which has been noted in prior WHOGS analyses [13].

Study overview

This was a secondary analysis of the prospectively collected WHOGS data. Our study population included women who underwent intrapartum cesarean birth after the onset of spontaneous or induced labor between the gestational ages of 24 and 43 weeks. We compared women who experienced a composite adverse maternal outcome to those women who did not experience the composite outcome.

Primary outcome

Our primary outcome of interest was a composite measure of severe maternal morbidity and mortality. A woman was considered to have had this composite outcome associated with cesarean birth if she experienced any one or more of the following: hysterectomy, intensive care unit (ICU) admission greater than or equal to 2 days, or maternal death [14]. It should be noted that an assumption of our analysis was that the ICU admission occurred after birth, but there is no method to verify this in the dataset, which was the methodology used in our major WHOGS analyses.

Analysis

Covariates considered in our analysis were sociodemographic characteristics (education, human development index (2008) of the country where woman gave birth, number of antenatal visits, medical risk level (defined below), age, marital status, body mass index, obstetric risk level (defined below), referral to a higher level of care during the course of labor, gestational age, and birthweight [15]. We also included parity, number of fetuses, fetal presentation, onset of labor, and history of prior cesarean birth [16, 17]. Facility-level covariates considered in the analysis were teaching facility status, total deliveries at facility per year, and location of facility (urban versus rural).
The WHOGS collected the indication for cesarean birth as a checklist of 21 non-mutually exclusive possibilities; more than one indication for cesarean could be assigned to each woman [8, 9]. We considered the indication for cesarean birth in our analysis by dividing the 21 indications into five mutually exclusive groups—women had to have one of the indications in a given group, and none of the indications under the definition of another indication group; these are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Mutually exclusive classification system for indication for intrapartum cesarean birth
Indication Group
Description
1
Fetal
Fetal growth restriction, fetal Distress, “other fetal indication”
2
Failure to Progress/Dystocia
Cephalopelvic disproportion, dystocia, failure to progress, failed vacuum or forceps, failed induction of labor, post-term, and suspected or imminent uterine rupture
3
Maternal/Obstetric
Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, third trimester vaginal bleeding, “other maternal indication”, “other obstetric indication”
4
Multiples/Malpresentation
Multiple gestation, non-vertex presenting fetus
5
Elective
Previous cesarean section, tubal ligation/sterilization, maternal request, previous repaired urogenital fistula
6
No Other Indication
Does not have any of the other indications specified
For this secondary analysis, women were categorized into the “high” maternal medical risk category if the survey reported they had HIV, chronic hypertension, cardiac or renal disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, malaria, anemia, urinary tract infection, genital ulcers, or condyloma. In addition, we defined obstetric risk level as “high” for women who experienced pregnancy-related hypertension, pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, or suspected fetal growth impairment. Though multiple gestation, non-cephalic presenting fetuses, and history of prior cesarean birth are considered high-risk issues, these are considered obstetric variables and are presented separately from those who experienced the aforementioned pregnancy complications that made them “obstetrically high risk” for the purposes of this analysis.
Due to the hierarchical structure of the data, mixed effects logistic regression analyses was performed with a random effect for country and for facility nested within country. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess the association between the adverse maternal composite outcome of cesarean birth and the identified facility- and individual-level covariates. P-values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported, and statistical analyses was conducted using SAS v.9.4 software.

Results

Primary outcome

From a total 290,610 women included in the WHOGS, 29,516 (10.2%) of women gave birth by intrapartum cesarean at a gestational age between 24 and 43 weeks and had the composite adverse outcome data available. Women experiencing cesarean birth prior to the onset of labor were not included in the analysis population. The CONSORT diagram in Fig. 1 illustrates the studied cohort. In total, 1040 (3.5%) of these women experienced the maternal adverse composite outcome (Table 2). The remaining 28,476 (96.5%) of the women experienced uncomplicated, intrapartum cesarean births.
Table 2
Prevalence of composite adverse maternal outcome
Complication
Prevalence (n = 29,516)
Prevalence of Composite Outcome in Total Population
1040 (3.5%)
Prevalence Components of Composite:
 ICU Admission ≥ 2 Days
846 (2.9%)
 Hysterectomy
160 (0.5%)
 Maternal Death
49 (0.2%)
81.3% (846/1040) are from ICU admission, 15.4% (160/1040) are hysterectomy, 4.7% (49/1040) for death. These will sum to > 100% because people can fall into multiple categories

Summary of populations

Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of the women in the study population. The majority of women lived in medium human development index countries (74%), attended four or more antenatal visits (72%), were not medically high risk (81%), were between the age of 19 and 34 (81%), had 7–12 years of education (55%), were married or cohabitating (87%), and were of normal (28%) or overweight (39%) body mass index. The majority of women had not had a cesarean (80%), were not obstetrically high-risk (90%), were not referred during the course of labor (74%), had a term birth (91%) of a cephalic fetus (87%), had a baby between 2500 and 3499 g (61%), went into spontaneous labor (86%), were nulliparous (53%), and delivered a singleton (97%) baby. Most women were delivered by an obstetrician (59%) at a teaching facility (82%), and at facilities that had 3500–9999 deliveries in a year (43%). 89% of deliveries were at facilities that were not in an urban setting. The most prevalent indication for cesarean birth was “no other indication” (32%), which was defined as not having another specific indication (Table 1), followed by failure to progress/dystocia (24%), fetal indication (17%), “elective” (11%), multiples or malpresentation (8%), and maternal or obstetric indication (7%).
Table 3
Summary of women-, obstetric-, labor-, and facility-level factors by adverse outcomes associated with intrapartum cesarean birth, WHOGS 2004–2008
 
No Adverse Outcomes
(n = 28,476)
Adverse Outcomes
(n = 1040)
All
(n = 29,516)
Woman-Level Factors
Human Development Index 2008 of Country in Which Woman Delivered
  Lowa
1394
5%
164
16%
1558
5%
  Mediumb
20,977
74%
801
77%
21,778
74%
  Highc
6105
21%
75
7%
6180
21%
Antenatal Visits
  < 4 visits
6211
22%
350
34%
6561
22%
  4+ visits
20,489
72%
625
60%
21,114
72%
  Missing
1776
6%
65
6%
1841
6%
Medically high riskd
  No
22,803
80%
2370
813
25,173
81%
  Yes
5283
19%
342
217
5625
18%
  Missing
390
1%
10
0%
400
1%
Age groups
  0–18
2016
7%
71
7%
2087
7%
  19–34
23,210
82%
771
74%
23,981
81%
  35+
3222
11%
189
18%
3411
12%
  Missing
28
0%
9
1%
37
0%
Education groups
  0–6 years
6065
21%
308
30%
6373
22%
  7–12 years
15,835
56%
541
52%
16,376
55%
  13+ years
4991
18%
128
12%
5119
17%
  Missing
1585
6%
63
6%
1648
6%
Marital status
  Single/Separated/Divorced/Widowed/Other
3525
12%
123
12%
3648
12%
  Married/Cohabitating
24,852
87%
917
88%
25,769
87%
  Missing
99
0%
0
0%
99
0%
BMI groups
  Underweight
147
1%
6
1%
153
1%
  Normal weight
7950
28%
265
25%
8215
28%
  Overweight
11,128
39%
355
34%
11,483
39%
  Obese
4860
17%
197
19%
5057
17%
  Missing
4391
15%
217
21%
4608
16%
Obstetric & Labour-Level Factors
Previous Cesarean
  No
22,624
79%
862
83%
23,486
80%
  Yes
5784
20%
177
17%
5961
20%
  Missing
68
0%
1
0%
69
0%
Obstetrically High Riske
  No
25,784
91%
837
80%
26,621
90%
  Yes
2560
9%
201
19%
2761
9%
  Missing
132
0%
2
0%
134
0%
Referred during labor
  No
21,216
75%
728
70%
21,944
74%
  Yes
7252
25%
311
30%
7563
26%
  Missing
8
0%
1
0%
9
0%
Gestational Age at Birth
  24–33
590
2%
36
3%
626
2%
  34–36
1907
7%
90
9%
1997
7%
  37–42
25,979
91%
914
88%
26,893
91%
Birthweight (grams)
  < 1500
249
1%
26
3%
275
1%
  1500–2500
2427
9%
119
11%
2546
9%
  2500–3500
17,359
61%
587
56%
17,946
61%
  3500–4500
8028
28%
279
27%
8307
28%
  4500+
308
1%
24
2%
332
1%
  Missing
105
0%
5
0%
110
0%
Onset of Labor
  Spontaneous
24,461
86%
881
85%
25,342
86%
  Induced
2957
10%
109
10%
3066
10%
  Missing
1058
4%
50
5%
1108
4%
Parity
  0
15,223
53%
497
2%
15,720
53%
  1+
13,194
46%
529
2%
13,723
46%
  Missing
59
0%
14
0%
73
0%
Fetal Presentation
  Cephalic
24,787
87%
866
83%
25,653
87%
  Breech
2728
10%
122
12%
2850
10%
  Other
904
3%
52
5%
956
3%
  Missing
57
0%
0
0%
57
0%
Number of neonates
  1 neonate
27,520
97%
974
94%
28,494
97%
  ≥ 2 neonates
956
3%
66
6%
1022
3%
Available facility-Level Factors
Obstetrician Performed surgery
  No
11,782
41%
450
43%
12,232
41%
  Yes
16,684
59%
590
57%
17,274
59%
  Missing
10
0%
0
0%
10
0%
Teaching Facility
  No
5058
18%
374
36%
5432
18%
  Yes
23,418
82%
666
64%
24,084
82%
Total Deliveries at Facility
  < 3500
7731
27%
336
32%
8067
27%
  [3500,10,000)
12,148
43%
590
57%
12,738
43%
  10,000+
7431
26%
103
10%
7534
26%
  Missing
1166
4%
11
1%
1177
4%
Urban Facility
  No
25,433
89%
740
71%
26,173
89%
  Yes
2993
11%
294
28%
3287
11%
  Missing
50
0%
6
1%
56
0%
Indication for CS
  Fetal Indication
4997
18%
134
13%
5131
17%
  Failure to Progress/Dystocia
7010
25%
131
13%
7141
24%
  Maternal or Obstetric Indication
1918
7%
127
12%
2045
7%
  Multiples/Malpresentation
2390
8%
88
8%
2478
8%
  Elective
3286
12%
41
4%
3327
11%
  No Other Indication
8832
31%
517
50%
9349
32%
  Missing
43
0%
2
0%
45
0%
a Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Nigeria
b Cambodia, India, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Phillipines, Thailand, Vietnam, Algeria, Ecuador, Peru, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nepal, Uganda, China
c Argentina, Japan, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico
d Medically High Risk Definition: is a dichotomous variable whereby women are considered to be medically high risk if they have chronic hypertension, cardiac or renal disease, pulmonary pathology, diabetes, malaria, sickle cell disease, severe anemia, urinary tract infection, severe condylomatous disease, or HIV or a condition associated with HIV
e Obstetrically High Risk Definition: is a dichotomous variable whereby women are considered obstetrically high risk if they experience hypertension in pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or have suspected fetal growth impairment
p-values comparing women experiencing adverse outcomes to those who did not, adjusted for country of birth, are shown in the univariate analysis in Table 4

Univariate analysis (unadjusted odds ratios, UOR)

Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the univariate analysis are presented in the first column of Table 3. The composite maternal adverse outcome of intrapartum cesarean birth was less likely to occur in women who delivered in a medium or high human development index country vs. a low human development index country, overall (p = 0.003). It was also less likely to occur in women who had at least four antenatal visits (UOR 0.46 [0.35,0.59], p < 0.0001), in babies with a birthweight of 3500–4499 (vs. 2500–3499; UOR 0.75 [0.59,0.97], p < 0.0001), and in women with a history of prior cesarean birth (vs. no prior cesarean; UOR 0.66 [0.51,0.86], p = 0.002).
Women who were medically high risk (UOR 2.17 [1.70,2.77], p < 0.0001), were less educated (0–6 years versus 13 or more years; UOR 1.82 [1.26,2.63], p < 0.0001), were obstetrically high risk (UOR 4.48 [3.50,5.74], p < 0.0001), were referred in labor (UOR 1.92 [1.47,2.50], p < 0.0001), or were preterm (24–33 weeks UOR 5.16 [3.33,8.00] and 34–36 weeks UOR 2.82 [2.06,3.87], p < 0.0001) had an increased risk of the adverse outcome. Similarly, women with babies less than 2500 g were at increased risk (< 1500 g UOR 7.37 [4.33,12.6] and 1500–2499 g UOR 2.06 [1.52,2.78], p < 0.0001), as were those with multiple gestation (UOR 2.17 [1.44,3.28], p = 0.0002). Finally, compared to the elective category of indications, women with a maternal or obstetric indication (UOR 6.81 [4.25,10.9]) or no other indication (UOR 2.41 [1.56,3.73) were at an increased risk of the composite adverse outcome, p < 0.0001.

Multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratios, AOR)

Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the multivariate analysis are presented in the second column of Table 4. The composite maternal adverse outcome of intrapartum cesarean birth was overall less likely to occur in women who delivered in a medium or high human development index country vs. a low human development index country (AOR 0.07[0.01,0.85] and AOR 0.02[0.001,0.39], respectively; p = 0.03), women having four or more antenatal visits (AOR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43–0.84; p = 0.003), and women with malpresenting fetuses (vs. cephalic: breech AOR 0.52; CI: 0.31–0.87; p = 0.04).
Table 4
Odds ratios and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals from mixed effects regression models of factors associated with adverse outcomes following intrapartum cesarean birth, WHOGS 2004–2008
 
Univariate Analysis
Multivariable Analysis
OR
95% CI
P-value
AOR
95% CI
P-value
Woman-Level Factors
Human Development Index 2008 (ref: Lowa)
  
0.003
  
0.03
  Mediumb
0.05
(0.01, 0.46)
 
0.07
(0.01, 0.85)
 
  Highc
0.01
(< 0.001, 0.16)
 
0.02
(0.001, 0.39)
 
Antenatal Visits (ref: < 4)
  
<.0001
  
0.003
  4+
0.46
(0.35, 0.59)
 
0.60
(0.43, 0.84)
 
Medically high riskd (ref: No)
  
<.0001
  
0.0004
  Yes
2.17
(1.70, 2.77)
 
1.81
(1.30, 2.51)
 
Age groups (ref: 19–34)
  
0.07
  
0.30
  0–18
1.00
(0.68, 1.46)
 
0.63
(0.35, 1.14)
 
  35+
1.39
(1.05, 1.84)
 
0.93
(0.65, 1.35)
 
Education groups (ref: 13+)
  
<.0001
  
0.01
  0–6
1.82
(1.26, 2.63)
 
1.64
(1.03, 2.63)
 
  7–12
0.97
(0.70, 1.34)
 
0.98
(0.66, 1.44)
 
Marital status (ref: Single/Separated/Divorced/Widowed/Other)
  
0.79
  
0.61
  Married/Cohabitating
1.05
(0.75, 1.46)
 
0.88
(0.54, 1.44)
 
BMI groups (ref: [18.5,25))
  
0.16
  
0.10
  [0,18.5)
2.47
(0.66, 9.18)
 
4.66
(1.12, 19.4)
 
  [25,30)
1.17
(0.87, 1.56)
 
1.33
(0.95, 1.86)
 
  30+
1.42
(0.99, 2.04)
 
1.29
(0.84, 1.96)
 
Obstetric & Labour-Level Factors
Obstetrically High Riske (ref: No)
  
<.0001
  
<.0001
  Yes
4.48
(3.50, 5.74)
 
3.67
(2.58, 5.23)
 
Referred during labor (ref: No)
  
<.0001
  
0.08
  Yes
1.92
(1.47, 2.50)
 
1.37
(0.96, 1.96)
 
Gestational Age at Birth (ref: 37–42)
  
<.0001
  
0.13
  24–33
5.16
(3.33, 8.00)
 
2.24
(0.96, 5.25)
 
  34–36
2.82
(2.06, 3.87)
 
1.36
(0.82, 2.28)
 
Birthweight (grams) (ref: [2500,3500))
  
<.0001
  
0.14
  < 1500
7.37
(4.33, 12.6)
 
1.64
(0.54, 4.97)
 
  [1500,2500)
2.06
(1.52, 2.78)
 
0.97
(0.61, 1.54)
 
  [3500–4500)
0.75
(0.59, 0.97)
 
0.72
(0.51, 1.00)
 
  4500+
1.70
(0.83, 3.47)
 
1.68
(0.68, 4.12)
 
Onset of Labor (ref: Spontaneous)
  
0.71
  
0.68
  Induced
1.07
(0.75, 1.53)
 
0.91
(0.59, 1.42)
 
Parity (ref: 0)
  
0.92
  
0.25
  1+
1.01
(0.83, 1.24)
 
1.21
(0.88, 1.68)
 
Fetal Presentation (ref: Cephalic)
  
0.15
  
0.04
  Breech
0.72
(0.52, 1.01)
 
0.52
(0.31, 0.87)
 
  Other
0.89
(0.53, 1.50)
 
0.66
(0.31, 1.39)
 
Number of neonates (ref: 1)
  
0.0002
  
0.24
  2+
2.17
(1.44, 3.28)
 
1.46
(0.78, 2.76)
 
Previous Cesarean (ref: No)
  
0.002
  
0.39
  Yes
0.66
(0.51, 0.86)
 
0.82
(0.53, 1.28)
 
Available facility-Level Factors
Obstetrician Performed surgery (ref: No)
  
0.28
  
0.57
  Yes
0.84
(0.61, 1.15)
 
0.89
(0.59, 1.34)
 
Teaching Facility (ref: No)
  
0.08
  
0.16
  Yes
0.37
(0.12, 1.14)
 
0.33
(0.07, 1.57)
 
Total Deliveries at Facility (ref: < 3500)
  
0.27
  
0.26
  [3500,10,000)
2.21
(0.70, 7.01)
 
2.84
(0.64, 12.6)
 
  10,000+
3.65
(0.54, 24.8)
 
5.39
(0.43, 67.0)
 
Urban Facility (ref: No)
  
0.16
  
0.26
  Yes
2.49
(0.70, 8.89)
 
2.89
(0.46, 18.3)
 
Indication CS (ref: Elective)
  
<.0001
  
<.0001
  Fetal Indication
1.36
(0.84, 2.20)
 
1.31
(0.65, 2.64)
 
  Failure to Progress/Dystocia
1.11
(0.69, 1.79)
 
1.39
(0.70, 2.76)
 
  Maternal or Obstetric Indication
6.81
(4.25, 10.9)
 
4.74
(2.36, 9.50)
 
  Multiples/Malpresentation
1.50
(0.88, 2.54)
 
1.65
(0.73, 3.73)
 
  No Other Indication
2.41
(1.56, 3.73)
 
1.77
(0.94, 3.33)
 
a Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Nigeria
b Cambodia, India, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Phillipines, Thailand, Vietnam, Algeria, Ecuador, Peru, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nepal, Uganda, China
c Argentina, Japan, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico
d Medically High Risk Definition: is a dichotomous variable whereby women are considered to be medically high risk if they have chronic hypertension, cardiac or renal disease, pulmonary pathology, diabetes, malaria, sickle cell disease, severe anemia, urinary tract infection, severe condylomatous disease, or HIV or a condition associated with HIV
e Obstetrically High Risk Definition: is a dichotomous variable whereby women are considered obstetrically high risk if they experience hypertension in pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or have suspected fetal growth impairment
p-values comparing women experiencing adverse outcomes to those who did not, adjusted for country of birth, are shown in the univariate analysis in Table 4
Women who were medically high risk (vs. not medically high risk: AOR 1.81; CI: 1.30–2.51, p < 0.0004), had less education (0–6 years) (vs. 13+ years; AOR 1.64; CI: 1.03–2.63; p = 0.01), were obstetrically high risk (vs. not high risk; AOR 3.67; CI: 2.58–5.23; p < 0.0001), or had a maternal or obstetric indication or no other indication (vs. elective: AOR 4.74; CI: 2.36–9.50; p < 0.0001) had increased odds of the adverse outcome.

Discussion

In this analysis of 29,516 women who underwent intrapartum cesarean birth in 22 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, factors independently associated with the composite adverse maternal outcome following intrapartum cesarean included women being medically or obstetrically high risk or having a maternal, obstetric, or no other indication for cesarean birth. Factors associated with a reduction in the composite outcome were giving birth in a country of medium or high Human Development Index of the country in which the woman delivered, having had at least four antenatal care visits, and having a breech or other malpresenting fetus compared to cephalic. We hypothesize that our result related to malpresentation represents the fact that most women with non-cephalic fetuses were likely delivered by pre-labor cesarean birth, and only those with very advanced, spontaneous labor delivered vaginally with overall good outcomes.
A potential target for modifying risk associated with intrapartum cesarean birth is attendance at antenatal care. Our analysis suggests that four or more antenatal care visits during pregnancy is associated with 40% fewer adverse outcomes in women who experienced an intrapartum cesarean birth. Though antenatal attendance has previously shown an association with cesarean birth, we could not find other analyses suggesting that increased antenatal care attendance reduces adverse maternal outcomes of intrapartum cesarean birth [18]. This suggests the possibility that this variable is confounded by another variable or may reflect that women with preterm birth attend less antenatal visits. However, researchers in the United States have suggested that improving recovery after cesarean birth does begin in early antenatal care [19]. WHO has recently published recommendations that women have at least eight antenatal contacts during the course of pregnancy to improve outcomes, which might have an impact on this composite outcome, but we have no evidence of this potential effect [20, 21].
Improving maternal outcomes of intrapartum cesarean birth could involve triaging women during antepartum care to assess their need for specialized care as another potential strategy to improve outcomes. Women with obstetric complications of pregnancy (i.e. hypertensive disorders or suspected fetal growth impairment), who were shown to have an increased risk of maternal adverse outcomes, might benefit from additional prenatal management, a more skilled antenatal care provider, or management by a high-risk service in labor [22]. Specialty clinics and risk scoring have been previously explored as methods to meet the needs of subpopulations of women with special antepartum needs [23, 24]. As such, we hypothesize that optimizing management or prevention of these obstetric and medical issues, and recommending specific birth planning that takes current or potential complications into account, may improve maternal outcomes in the event an intrapartum cesarean birth occurs.
Our definition of obstetrically high risk included women with hypertension in pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, or have suspected fetal growth impairment, with other high risk variables (history of cesarean birth, number of gestations, fetal presentation) entered separately into the model. The WHO, in addition to a number of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have published guidelines for managing hypertension in pregnancy as hypertensive disorders are a contributor to maternal mortality [2528]. Additionally, women referred during the course of labor also had an increased risk of the composite adverse outcome. WHO, in its guidelines on respectful maternity care during labor and childbirth, specifically notes that delivery of high-quality care requires timely and appropriate referral in labor when complications are encountered, through improved infrastructure and established referral pathways [20, 29, 30].
Finally, our analysis found that among women with a maternal or obstetric indication for intrapartum cesarean birth, as compared to cases where the indication was reported as “elective” (see Table 1 for definition), women were more likely to experience the composite adverse outcome. Compared to these cases, women that experience emergency cesarean birth have been shown to have worse maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes [31, 32]. That being said, cesarean birth should be provided at the right time, for appropriate reasons, and with high-quality technique [7]. It is a major abdominal surgery that can in itself result in adverse outcomes, and can be quite expensive to deliver, so it should only be provided when medically necessary [13, 33, 34]. Indication for cesarean birth is a modifiable risk factor in that it can be modified to promote best obstetric practices. Guidelines for prevention of primary cesarean birth have been produced to assist in the decision-making process to proceed to cesarean birth [35, 36].
The limitations of this study include the fact that the data were collected 10 years ago and that unmeasured facility, sociodemographic, or obstetric variables may confound the results. Due to the large amount of missingness for some maternal outcome variables (intrapartum and postpartum blood transfusion, internal iliac artery ligation, and postpartum urogenital fistula) they were not included in the definition of the composite outcome, although we ideally would have wanted to include them. Additionally, 16% of BMI data was missing, and while the weight parameter was meant to reflect the most recently recorded weight of a woman, the time of collection could vary. We also note that the criteria for definition of the various morbidities was according to local practices and the methodology of the survey did not impose any specific definition, which makes interpretation of some the results more challenging. For example, the collecting agency did not specify criteria for ICU admittance. We noted in our initial analysis that the component of the composite outcome that accounted for the most adverse outcomes was ICU admission. This was a subjective parameter in the data set as each hospital had its own admittance criteria. We ran a histogram of days in the ICU and found that most women were only admitted to the ICU for 1 day (data not shown); we hypothesized this was the result of it being common practice in some settings where the only hospital location capable of monitoring a post-operative patient is the ICU. In order to try to refine the definition to include only those women who had severe morbidity and were not just in the ICU for monitoring, we adjusted the definition to stays of greater than or equal to 2 days.
A previous paper observed the association of cesarean birth, considering indication, with maternal and perinatal outcomes in Asian populations from this dataset [10]. Our analysis adds to this prior analysis by evaluating the association of additional, potentially modifiable risk factors with a composite adverse maternal outcome following intrapartum cesarean birth in the entire dataset. Other strengths of this analysis are the use of a large data set, the collection of multiple variables potentially associated with the outcome, the fact that the survey was designed to assess method of birth, and that the multi-country data were collected using a standard approach/protocol/measurement tool and abstracted from routine medical records [9].

Conclusion

We found reduced adverse maternal outcomes following intrapartum cesarean birth associated with women giving birth in medium or high human development index countries and those who attended ≥ 4 antenatal visits. Maternal adverse outcomes of intrapartum cesarean birth were increased in medically and obstetrically high risk women and those with a maternal or obstetric indication for cesarean birth.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the women and men involved in collection of the data analyzed in this work and all the women who participated in the study—their health, well-being, and successful pregnancy outcomes are the motivation for performing this work.
This de-identified data analysis was reviewed and approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board, 18–0875. For this original WHOGS data collection each institution submitted the ethical clearance approval before commencing the project. Ethical clearance was provided by the institutional committees of the participating facilities, where available, or by the national review committees (available at: http://​www.​who.​int/​making_​pregnancy_​safer/​health_​systems/​global_​survey/​en/​index.​html). In addition, ethical clearance was obtained from WHO’s Scientific and Ethical Review Group and Ethics Review Committee. Individual informed consent was not obtained, and the ethics committee waived the need for individual consent, as this was a cluster-level study, where data were extracted from medical records without any subject identification. However, key subject information (name, study number, birth date and delivery date) was recorded in the logbook at the institution level by the data collector to assist with follow-up if required.
Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no relationships to disclose that may be deemed to influence the objectivity of this paper and its review. The authors report no commercial associations, either directly or through immediate family, in areas such as expert testimony, consulting, honoraria, stock holdings, equity interest, ownership, patent-licensing situations or employment that might pose a conflict of interest to this analysis. Additionally, the authors have no conflicts such as personal relationships or academic competition to disclose. The findings presented in this paper represent the views of the named authors only, and not the views of their institutions or organizations. Regarding data, supporting data cannot currently be accessed.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Betran AP, et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343.CrossRef Betran AP, et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Betran AP, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–68.CrossRef Betran AP, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–68.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Betran AP, et al. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667–70.CrossRef Betran AP, et al. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667–70.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Mariani GL, Vain NE. The rising incidence and impact of non-medically indicated pre-labour cesarean section in Latin America. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(1):11–7.CrossRef Mariani GL, Vain NE. The rising incidence and impact of non-medically indicated pre-labour cesarean section in Latin America. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(1):11–7.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sobhy S, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1973–82.CrossRef Sobhy S, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1973–82.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Ologunde R, et al. Assessment of cesarean delivery availability in 26 low-and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):504.e1–504.e12.CrossRef Ologunde R, et al. Assessment of cesarean delivery availability in 26 low-and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):504.e1–504.e12.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson K, Bailit JL. Cesarean delivery as a marker for obstetric quality. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58(2):211–6.CrossRef Gibson K, Bailit JL. Cesarean delivery as a marker for obstetric quality. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58(2):211–6.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Shah A, et al. Methodological considerations in implementing the WHO global survey for monitoring maternal and perinatal health. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(2):126–31.CrossRef Shah A, et al. Methodological considerations in implementing the WHO global survey for monitoring maternal and perinatal health. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(2):126–31.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lumbiganon 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.CrossRef Lumbiganon 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.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Shah A, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(3):191–7.CrossRef Shah A, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(3):191–7.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Villar J, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1819–29.CrossRef Villar J, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1819–29.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Vogel JP, et al. 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.CrossRef Vogel JP, et al. 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.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Maswime S, Buchmann E. A systematic review of maternal near miss and mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;137(1):1–7.CrossRef Maswime S, Buchmann E. A systematic review of maternal near miss and mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;137(1):1–7.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23–39.CrossRef Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23–39.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Nimi T, et al. Prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes: a cross-sectional study in Luanda, Angola. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(S1):S72–8.CrossRef Nimi T, et al. Prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes: a cross-sectional study in Luanda, Angola. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(S1):S72–8.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson RD, et al. Guidelines for antenatal and preoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (part 1). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(6):523.e1–523.e15.CrossRef Wilson RD, et al. Guidelines for antenatal and preoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (part 1). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(6):523.e1–523.e15.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience; 2016. p. 1–172. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience; 2016. p. 1–172.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Vogel JP, et al. Antenatal care packages with reduced visits and perinatal mortality: a secondary analysis of the WHO antenatal care trial. Reprod Health. 2013;10(1):19.CrossRef Vogel JP, et al. Antenatal care packages with reduced visits and perinatal mortality: a secondary analysis of the WHO antenatal care trial. Reprod Health. 2013;10(1):19.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Yeoh PL, Hornetz K, Dahlui M. Antenatal care utilisation and content between low-risk and high-risk pregnant women. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152167.CrossRef Yeoh PL, Hornetz K, Dahlui M. Antenatal care utilisation and content between low-risk and high-risk pregnant women. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152167.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Malouf R, Redshaw M. Specialist antenatal clinics for women at high risk of preterm birth: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):51.CrossRef Malouf R, Redshaw M. Specialist antenatal clinics for women at high risk of preterm birth: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):51.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Humphrey MD, Foxcroft KF, Callaway LK. Obstetric risk score - revalidated for triaging high-risk pregnancies in rural areas. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(1):63–7.CrossRef Humphrey MD, Foxcroft KF, Callaway LK. Obstetric risk score - revalidated for triaging high-risk pregnancies in rural areas. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(1):63–7.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Say L, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323–33.CrossRef Say L, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323–33.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Abalos E, et al. Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes: a secondary analysis of the World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 1):14–24.CrossRef Abalos E, et al. Pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes: a secondary analysis of the World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 1):14–24.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Chicago: World Health Organization; 2011. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Chicago: World Health Organization; 2011.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, number 222. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):e237–e260. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, number 222. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):e237–e260.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience; 2018. p. 1–210. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience; 2018. p. 1–210.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Suwal A, Shrivastava VR, Giri A. Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency cesarean section. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2013;52(192):563–6. Suwal A, Shrivastava VR, Giri A. Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency cesarean section. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2013;52(192):563–6.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Benzouina S, et al. Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;23:197. Benzouina S, et al. Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;23:197.
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Betran AP. Reducing unnecessary cesarean section: a generic formative phase protocol for implementation preparation: World Health Organization; 2019. p. 1–148. Betran AP. Reducing unnecessary cesarean section: a generic formative phase protocol for implementation preparation: World Health Organization; 2019. p. 1–148.
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Betran AP, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57. Betran AP, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57.
35.
Zurück zum Zitat ACOG, Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. 2016. ACOG, Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. 2016.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith H, Peterson N, Lagrew D, Main E. Toolkit to support vaginal birth and reduce primary cesareans: a quality improvement toolkit. Stanford: California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative; 2016. Smith H, Peterson N, Lagrew D, Main E. Toolkit to support vaginal birth and reduce primary cesareans: a quality improvement toolkit. Stanford: California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative; 2016.
Metadaten
Titel
Risk factors associated with adverse maternal outcomes following intrapartum cesarean birth: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health, 2004–2008
verfasst von
Margo S. Harrison
Ana Pilar Betrán
Krithika Suresh
Joshua P. Vogel
Robert L. Goldenberg
A. Metin Gülmezoglu
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03390-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

26.04.2024 Hirsutismus Nachrichten

Laser- und Lichtbehandlungen können bei Frauen mit polyzystischem Ovarialsyndrom (PCOS) den übermäßigen Haarwuchs verringern und das Wohlbefinden verbessern – bei alleiniger Anwendung oder in Kombination mit Medikamenten.

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Müssen sich Schwangere einer Krebstherapie unterziehen, rufen Immuncheckpointinhibitoren offenbar nicht mehr unerwünschte Wirkungen hervor als andere Mittel gegen Krebs.

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bislang gibt es kein Medikament zur Prävention von Wochenbettdepressionen. Das Injektionsanästhetikum Esketamin könnte womöglich diese Lücke füllen.

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

22.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Kongressbericht

Durch die Häufung nach der COVID-19-Pandemie sind Infektionen mit dem Respiratorischen Synzytial-Virus (RSV) in den Fokus gerückt. Fachgesellschaften empfehlen eine Impfung inzwischen nicht nur für Säuglinge und Kleinkinder.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.