20-year trend in Caesarean section rates in primiparous women in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong

Tony PL YUEN; Choi Wah KONG; William WK TO

doi:10.12809/hkjgom.19.1.05

Authors

Tony PL YUEN
Choi Wah KONG
William WK TO

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.19.1.05

Keywords:

Cesarean section, Obstetric labor complications, Parity

Abstract

Introduction: Using the Robson classification, we analysed the 20-year trend of Caesarean section (CS) rates among primiparous women in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong.
Methods: Deliveries over a 20-year period (1997-2016) from United Christian Hospital were classified into one of 10 categories according to the Robson classification. The annual CS rate was calculated for each category, and data were stratified into four 5-year intervals to determine any trends.
Results: A total of 86 908 deliveries from 1997 to 2016 were included for analysis. The overall CS rate increased from 17.5% to 23.5% over the period. However, the overall primiparous CS rate only increased modestly from 20.8% to 22.8%, with main contributors being breech presentation (category 6), multiple pregnancies (category 8), and preterm labour (category 10). Contrarily, the CS rate declined mildly among those with spontaneous and induced labour (category 1 and 2). These trends were significant (p<0.001) after stratification into four 5-year intervals.
Conclusion: Despite a sharper rise in overall CS rate over the past 20 years, the CS rates in primiparous women increased modestly, mainly because of modest increases in rates of breech presentation, multiple pregnancies, and preterm labour.

References

Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:297-308.

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343.

Leung GM, Lam TH, Thach TQ, Wan S, Ho LM. Rates of cesarean births in Hong Kong: 1987-1999. Birth 2001;28:166-72.

Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436-7.

Vogel JP, Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, 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:e260-70.

Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015;12:57.

Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006;33:270-7.

Pallasmaa N, Alanen A, Ekblad U, et al. Variation in cesarean section rates is not related to maternal and neonatal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1168-74.

Howell EA, Zeitlin J, Herbert PL, Balbierz A, Egorova N. Association between hospital-level obstetric quality indicators and maternal and neonatal morbidity. JAMA 2014;312:1531-41.

Kupari M, Talola N, Luukkaala T, Tihtonen K. Does an increased cesarean section rate improve neonatal outcome in term pregnancies? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:41-6.

Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001;12:23-39.

Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PLoS One 2014;9:e97769.

Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34:53-64.

Cox KJ, King TL. Preventing primary caesarean births: midwifery care. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015;58:282-93.

Main EK, Moore D, Farrell B, et al. Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1644-52.

Chung WH, Kong CW, To WW. Secular trends in caesarean section rates over 20 years in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2017;23:340-8.

Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health 2009;6:18.

Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z; WHOMCS Research Group. The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:286.

Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010;375:490-9.

Yuen PM. Territory-wide audit in obstetrics and gynaecology 2014. Hong Kong College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Wang X, Hellerstein S, Hou L, Zou L, Ruan Y, Zhang W. Caesarean deliveries in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:54.

Lutomski JE, Murphy M, Devane D, Meaney S, Greene RA. Private health care coverage and increased risk of obstetric intervention. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:13.

Einarsdottir K, Haggar F, Pereira G, et al. Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002789.

Brick A, Layte R, Nolan A, Turner MJ. Differences in nulliparous caesarean section rates across models of care: a decomposition analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:239.

Pang MW, Lee TS, Leung AK, Leung TY, Lau TK, Leung TN. A longitudinal observational study of preference for elective caesarean section among nulliparous Hong Kong Chinese women. BJOG 2007;114:623-9.

Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China’s 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG 2015;122:160-4.

Wei S, Wo BL, Qi HP, et al. Early amniotomy and early oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in first stage spontaneous labour compared with routine care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;8:CD006794.

Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG. Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD007123.

Boatin AA, Cullinane F, Torloni MR, Betran AP. Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review. BJOG 2018;125:36-42.

O’Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:485-90.

Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;4:CD004907.

Sadler LC, Davison T, McCowan LM. A randomised controlled trial and meta-analysis of active management of labour. BJOG 2000;107:909-15.

Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package for care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD004907.

Nippita TA, Lee YY, Patterson JA, et al. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates and obstetric outcomes among nulliparae at term: a population-based cohort study. BJOG 2015;122:702-11.

Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and metaanalysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014;121:674-85.

Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor Induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018;379:513-23.

Sinkey RG, Lacevic J, Reljic T, et al. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks among nulliparous women: The impact on maternal and neonatal risk. PLoS One 2018;13:e0193169.

Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.

Impey LW, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG 2017;124:e151-77.

Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:CD000083.

Seelbach-Goebel B. Twin birth considering the current results of the “Twin Birth Study”. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014;74:838-44.

Smith GC, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Mode of delivery and the risk of delivery-related perinatal death among twins at term: a retrospective cohort study of 8073 births. BJOG 2005;112:1139-44.

Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1295-305.

Schmitz T, Prunet C, Azria E, et al. Association between planned Cesarean delivery and neonatal mortality and morbidity in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:986-95.

Yeoh SGJ, Rolnik DL, Regan JA, Lee PYA. Experience and confidence in vaginal breech and twin deliveries among obstetric trainees and new specialists in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2018 [Epub ahead of print].

Racusin DA, Antony KM, Haase J, Bondy M, Aagaard KM. Mode of delivery in premature neonates: does it matter? AJP Rep 2016;6:e251-9.

Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;6:CD000078.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guideline [NG25]: Preterm labour and birth. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng25/chapter/Recommendations. Accessed 28 December 2018.