The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014

Ana Pilar Betrán, Jianfeng Ye, Anne-Beth Moller, Jun Zhang, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betrán, Jianfeng Ye, Anne-Beth Moller, Jun Zhang, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Maria Regina Torloni

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section (CS) rates continue to evoke worldwide concern because of their steady increase, lack of consensus on the appropriate CS rate and the associated additional short- and long-term risks and costs. We present the latest CS rates and trends over the last 24 years.

Methods: We collected nationally-representative data on CS rates between 1990 to 2014 and calculated regional and subregional weighted averages. We conducted a longitudinal analysis calculating differences in CS rates as absolute change and as the average annual rate of increase (AARI).

Results: According to the latest data from 150 countries, currently 18.6% of all births occur by CS, ranging from 6% to 27.2% in the least and most developed regions, respectively. Latin America and the Caribbean region has the highest CS rates (40.5%), followed by Northern America (32.3%), Oceania (31.1%), Europe (25%), Asia (19.2%) and Africa (7.3%). Based on the data from 121 countries, the trend analysis showed that between 1990 and 2014, the global average CS rate increased 12.4% (from 6.7% to 19.1%) with an average annual rate of increase of 4.4%. The largest absolute increases occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (19.4%, from 22.8% to 42.2%), followed by Asia (15.1%, from 4.4% to 19.5%), Oceania (14.1%, from 18.5% to 32.6%), Europe (13.8%, from 11.2% to 25%), Northern America (10%, from 22.3% to 32.3%) and Africa (4.5%, from 2.9% to 7.4%). Asia and Northern America were the regions with the highest and lowest average annual rate of increase (6.4% and 1.6%, respectively).

Conclusion: The use of CS worldwide has increased to unprecedented levels although the gap between higher- and lower-resource settings remains. The information presented is essential to inform policy and global and regional strategies aimed at optimizing the use of CS.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Latest available data on caesarean…
Fig 1. Latest available data on caesarean section rates by country (not earlier than 2005).
Fig 2. Global and regional trends in…
Fig 2. Global and regional trends in caesarean section, 1990–2014.
Sub-Saharan Africa includes Eastern, Middle, Southern and Western Africa subregions. For the purpose of this graph, a linear interpolation between available data from 1990 and 2014 was calculated. When data for 2014 were not available, the CS rate for the latest year available was used also for all subsequent years up to 2014.

References

    1. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(1):7–18. 10.1055/s-0031-1285829
    1. Huang X, Lei J, Tan H, Walker M, Zhou J, Wen SW. Cesarean delivery for first pregnancy and neonatal morbidity and mortality in second pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):204–8. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.05.006
    1. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):14–29. 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007
    1. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):262 e1-8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.035
    1. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan 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. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5
    1. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC medicine. 2010;8:71 10.1186/1741-7015-8-71
    1. Lin HC, Xirasagar S. Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: policy and research implications. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):128–36.
    1. Linton A, Peterson MR, Williams TV. Effects of maternal characteristics on cesarean delivery rates among U.S. Department of Defense healthcare beneficiaries, 1996–2002. Birth. 2004;31(1):3–11.
    1. Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: a nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. Am J Perinatol. 2011;28(4):277–84. 10.1055/s-0030-1271213
    1. Mi J, Liu F. Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet. 2014;383(9927):1463–4. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60716-9
    1. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-19. 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.026
    1. Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis. Lancet. 2006;368(9546):1516–23.
    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2007;21:98–113.
    1. The DHS Program—Demographic and Health Surveys: USAID; [cited 2015 23 March 2015]. Available: . Accessed 23 March 2015.
    1. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys: UNICEF. Available: .
    1. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, Pujades M, Ronsmans C. Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(6):449–55.
    1. European Health for All database: World Health Organization—Regional Office for Europe; [cited 2015 23 March 2015]. Available: . Accessed 23 March 2015.
    1. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other grouping: United Nationas Statistics Division; [cited 2015 23 March 2015]. Available from: . Accessed 23 March 2015.
    1. United Nations. World Population prospects. The 2012 revision New York, USA: United Nations; 2013 [cited 2013]. Available: . Accessed 2013.
    1. Bruggmann D, Lohlein LK, Louwen F, Quarcoo D, Jaque J, Klingelhofer D, et al. Caesarean Section-A Density-Equalizing Mapping Study to Depict Its Global Research Architecture. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2015;12(11):14690–708. 10.3390/ijerph121114690
    1. Vogel JP, Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global health. 2015;3(5):e260–70. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
    1. Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1796–7.
    1. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (WHO/RHR/15.02).
    1. Ministry of Health and Population [Egypt], El-Zanaty Associates [Egypt], ICF International. The 2014 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (2014 EDHS). Main Findings. Cairo, Egypt 2015.
    1. Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China's 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG. 2015;122(2):160–4. 10.1111/1471-0528.12971
    1. Abdel-Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Hassanin AI, Ibraheem AA. Analysis of cesarean delivery at Assiut University Hospital using the Ten Group Classification System. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;123(2):119–23. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.05.011
    1. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Montilla P, Scolaro E, Seuc A, Mazzoni A, et al. Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:78 10.1186/1471-2393-13-78
    1. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey AB. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG. 2006;113(11):1253–8.
    1. Torloni MR, Daher S, Betran AP, Widmer M, Souza JP, Montilla P, et al. Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women's magazines: a 20 year review. BMJ. 2011;342:d276 10.1136/bmj.d276
    1. Raisanen S, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Heinonen S. Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth by caesarean section—a cross sectional study during 2000–2010 in Finland. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2014;14(1).
    1. Macfarlane A, Blondel B, Mohangoo A, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, Campbell J, Channon AA, Cheung NF, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129–45. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3
    1. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(6):CD005528 10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub2
    1. Hartmann KE, Andrews JC, Jerome RN, Lewis RM, Likis FE, Nikki McKoy J, et al. Strategies To Reduce Cesarean Birth in Low-Risk Women Comparative Effectiveness Review. Rockville, MD, United States: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric Care Consensus. Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery. 2014.
    1. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates: a commentary. BJOG. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, 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. Stevens GA, Finucane MM, De-Regil LM, Paciorek CJ, Flaxman SR, Branca F, et al. Global, regional, and national trends in haemoglobin concentration and prevalence of total and severe anaemia in children and pregnant and non-pregnant women for 1995–2011: a systematic analysis of population-representative data. The Lancet Global health. 2013;1(1):e16–25. 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70001-9
    1. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2009.
    1. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566
    1. Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu 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(6):e97769 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769
    1. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera