Trends and determinants of increasing caesarean sections from 2010 to 2013 in a prospective population-based registry in eastern rural Maharashtra, India

Archana Patel, Yamini Vinod Pusdekar, Amber Abhijeet Prakash, Elizabeth Simmons, Manjushree Waikar, Sowmya R Rao, Patricia L Hibberd, Archana Patel, Yamini Vinod Pusdekar, Amber Abhijeet Prakash, Elizabeth Simmons, Manjushree Waikar, Sowmya R Rao, Patricia L Hibberd

Abstract

Objective: Our objective was to describe trends in caesarean section (CS) rates, characteristics of women delivering by CS, reasons for CS and impact of CS on perinatal mortality, in a rural Indian population.

Design: Secondary data analysis using a prospective population-based registry.

Setting: Four districts in Eastern Maharashtra, India, 2010 to 2013.

Participants: 39 026 pregnant women undergoing labour and delivery.

Main outcomes: CS, single most likely reason, perinatal mortality.

Results: Overall, 20% of the women delivered by CS. Rates increased from 17.4% in 2010 to 22.7% in 2013 (p<0.001) with an absolute risk increase from 1% to 5% during this time-period. Women aged 25+ years old, being nulliparous, having at least a secondary school education, a body mass index 25+ and a multiple gestation pregnancy were more likely to deliver by CS. Perinatal mortality was higher among babies delivered vaginally than those delivered by CS (4.5% vs 2.7%, p<0.001). Prolonged and obstructed labour as the reported reason for CS increased over time for both nulliparous and multiparous women (p<0.001), and 6% to 10% women had no clear reason for CS. Perinatal mortality was higher among babies born vaginally than those delivered by CS (adjusted OR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Rates of CS increased over time in rural Maharashtra, exceeding WHO recommendations. Characteristics associated with CS and outcomes of CS were similar to previous reports. Further studies are needed to ensure accuracy of reported reasons for CS, why obstructed and prolonged labour leading to CS is increasing in this population and what leads to CS without a clear indication. Such information may be helpful for implementing the Indian Government mandate that no CS be performed without strict medical indications, while ensuring that the overall CS rates are appropriate.

Trial registration number: NCT01073475.

Keywords: neonatology; obstetrics; perinatology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recruitment and flow diagram for the population-based Global Network Maternal and Newborn Health Registry and population-based secondary data analysis for the caesarean section study, 2010-2013.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trends in caesarean section rates 2010 to 2013 by parity and maternal age.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trends in the most likely reason for caesarean section 2010 to 2013 by parity and maternal age.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;326:436–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3
    1. Manasyan A, Saleem S, Koso-Thomas M, et al. . EmONC Trial Group. Assessment of obstetric and neonatal health services in developing country health facilities. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:787–94. 10.1055/s-0032-1333409
    1. World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva, Switzerland 2015.
    1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. . The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
    1. Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA, França GV, et al. . Trends in caesarean delivery by country and wealth quintile: cross-sectional surveys in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Bull World Health Organ 2013;91:914–22. 10.2471/BLT.13.117598
    1. Harrison MS, Pasha O, Saleem S, et al. . A prospective study of maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes in the setting of cesarean section in low- and middle-income countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:410–20. 10.1111/aogs.13098
    1. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. . Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG 2016;123:745–53. 10.1111/1471-0528.13592
    1. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. . Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal MortalityCesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal MortalityCesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA 2015;314:2263–70.
    1. International Institute for Population Health Sciences (IIPS), ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16. Mumbai, India. 2017. .
    1. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Macro International. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India: Volume I. Mumbai, India. 2007.
    1. Government of India. GO on C ‐ section norms to be issued. Heal. Dep 2017. (accessed 19 Jul 2017).
    1. Goudar SS, Carlo WA, McClure EM, et al. . The Maternal and Newborn Health Registry Study of the Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health Research. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;118:190–3. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.04.022
    1. Manasyan A, Saleem S, Koso-Thomas M, et al. . Assessment of obstetric and neonatal health services in developing country health facilities. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:787–94. 10.1055/s-0032-1333409
    1. 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 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6
    1. Patel AB, Prakash AA, Raynes-Greenow C, et al. . Description of inter-institutional referrals after admission for labor and delivery: a prospective population based cohort study in rural Maharashtra, India. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:360 10.1186/s12913-017-2302-4
    1. Chaturvedi S, Randive B, Diwan V, et al. . Quality of obstetric referral services in India’s JSY cash transfer programme for institutional births: a study from Madhya Pradesh province. PLoS One 2014;9:e96773 10.1371/journal.pone.0096773
    1. Khan MN, Islam MM, Shariff AA, et al. . Socio-demographic predictors and average annual rates of caesarean section in Bangladesh between 2004 and 2014. PLoS One 2017;12:e0177579 10.1371/journal.pone.0177579
    1. Nair M, Choudhury MK, Choudhury SS, et al. . Association between maternal anaemia and pregnancy outcomes: a cohort study in Assam, India. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000026 10.1136/bmjgh-2015-000026
    1. 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. 10.1056/NEJMoa1214939
    1. Witt WP, Wisk LE, Cheng ER, et al. . Determinants of cesarean delivery in the US: a lifecourse approach. Matern Child Health J 2015;19:84–93. 10.1007/s10995-014-1498-8
    1. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, et al. . Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:179–93. 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026
    1. Browning A. Pregnancy following obstetric fistula repair, the management of delivery. BJOG 2009;116:1265–7. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02182.x
    1. Al Rowaily MA, Alsalem FA, Abolfotouh MA. Cesarean section in a high-parity community in Saudi Arabia: clinical indications and obstetric outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:92 10.1186/1471-2393-14-92
    1. Hofmeyr GJ. Obstructed labor: using better technologies to reduce mortality. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85(Suppl 1):S62–72. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.01.011

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi