Health  Vol.9 No.8 , August 2017
A Check List to Reduce Misuse of Primary Cesarean Sections in Women with a Single Fetus in Cephalic Position
Abstract: Background: Avoiding primary C-section is the safest and most effective way of decreasing C-section rates. We analyzed circumstances and decisions made among pregnant women without history of C-section and cephalic single fetus (group B), who ended up having a Cesarean birth, to identify opportunities that may optimize the decisions about delivery. Methodology: We evaluated the clinical histories of pregnant women from group B who completed their pregnancies in the Hospital Universitario de Santander (Bucaramanga, Colombia) during 2013. We evaluated the decision moments from admission until birth, including the registry of the reasons for having a C-section, compliance of all the criteria to support the decision and its appropriateness, and how adequate were the procedures done during the induction or augmentation of labor. Results: We evaluated 1320 histories; 666 (55.7%) ended by C-Section. In 59.8% of the histories, we identified at least one decision that could have been addressed differently to optimize the delivery type and, potentially, avoid ending in a Cesarean birth. The most frequent opportunities arise due to a lack of clarity in the record of the reason for performing the C-section (70.1%), and inadequate use of labor induction in the patients that had to end their gestation (38.5%). Conclusion: In the Hospital Universitario de Santander during 2013, despite observing a meaningful subregistry of the indication to perform a C-section, we found that in one out of every two patients there are opportunities of improvement in the registry and attention to reduce the high incidence of C-sections in the institution. This analysis allowed us to create a checklist to fill out before making the final decision of performing a Cesarean birth.
Cite this paper: Pradilla, C. , Pereira, D. and Díaz-Martínez, L. (2017) A Check List to Reduce Misuse of Primary Cesarean Sections in Women with a Single Fetus in Cephalic Position. Health, 9, 1251-1263. doi: 10.4236/health.2017.98090.

[1]   Boyle, A., Reddy, U.M., Landy, H.J., Huang, C.-C., Driggers, R.W. and Laughon, S.K. (2013) Primary Cesarean Delivery in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 122, 33-40.

[2]   Betrán, A.P., Ye, J., Moller, A.-B., Zhang, J., Gulmezoglu, A.M. and Torloni, M.R. (2016) The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148343.

[3]   Rubio-Romero, J.A., Fonseca-Pérez, J.E., Molina, S., Sánchez, A., et al. (2014) Colombian Obstetrics and Gynecology Federation and Colombian Perinatology Federation Consensus. Rationalization of C-Section Usage in Colombia, 2014. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología, 65, 139-151. (In Spanish)

[4]   Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A., Lumbiganon, P., Lappaiboon, M., Carroli, G., Fawole, B., et al. (2010) Caesarean Section without Medical Indications Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Adverse Short-Term Maerna Outcomes: The 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Medicine, 8, 71.

[5]   Villar, J., Valladares, E., Wojdyla, D., Zavaleta, N., Carroli, G., Velazco, A., et al. (2006) Caesarean Delivery Rates and Pregnancy Outcomes: The 2005 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America. Lancet, 367, 1819-1829.

[6]   Betran, A.P., Torloni, M.R., Zhang, J.J. and Gülmezoglu, A.M. (2016) WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 123, 667-670.

[7]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116, 450-463.

[8]   Spong, C.Y., Berghella, V., Wenstrom, K.D., Mercer, B.M. and Saade, G.R. (2012) Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery: Summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120, 1181-1193.

[9]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) Practice Bulletin No. 134: Fetal Growth Restriction. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121, 1122-1133.

[10]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2002) Practice Bulletin No. 33: Diagnosis and Management of Preeclampsia and Eclampsia. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 99, 159-167.

[11]   Eixcharh, E. and Figueras, F. (2014) Oligohydramniosin Single Gestation. Clinical Guide. Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona. (In Spanish)

[12]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Practice Bulletin No. 116: Management of Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Tracings. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116, 1232-1240.

[13]   Rossi, C., Mullin, P. and Prefumo, F. (2013) Prevention, Management, and Outcomes of Macrosomia: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-Analysis. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 68, 702-709.

[14]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey, A.B., Cahill, A.G., Guise, J.M. and Rouse, D.J. (2014) Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 210, 179-193.

[15]   Liu, S., Liston, R.M., Joseph, K.S., Heaman, M., Sauve, R. and Kramer, M.S. (2007) Maternal Mortality and Severe Morbidity Associated with Low-Risk Planned Cesarean Delivery versus Planned Vaginal Delivery at Term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ, 176, 455-460.

[16]   Gregory, K.D., Jackson, S., Korst, L. and Fridman, M. (2012) Cesarean versus Vaginal Delivery: Whose Risks? Whose Benefits? American Journal of Perinatology, 29, 7-18.

[17]   Miller, E.S., Hahn, K. and Grobman, W., for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Health Policy Committee (2013) Consequences of a Primary Elective Cesarean Delivery across the Reproductive Life. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121, 789-797.

[18]   Stock, S.J., Ferguson, E., Duffy, A., Ford, I., Chalmers, J. and Norman, J.E. (2012) Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labour Compared with Expectant Management: Population Based Study. BMJ, 344, e2838.

[19]   World Health Organization (2011) WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. WHO, Geneva.

[20]   Zhang, J., Landy, H.J., Branch, W., Burkman, R., Haberman, S., Gregory, K.D., et al. (2010) Contemporary Patterns of Spontaneous Labor with Normal Neonatal Outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116, 1281-1287.

[21]   Sameshima, H., Ikenoue, T., Ikeda, T., Kamitomo, M. and Ibara, S. (2004) Unselected Low-Risk Pregnancies and the Effect of Continuous Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring on Umbilical Blood Gases and Cerebral Palsy. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 190, 118-123.

[22]   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Nomenclature, Interpretation, and General Management Principles. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114, 192-202.

[23]   Elimian, A., Figueroa, R. and Tejani, N. (1997) Intrapartum Assessment of Fetal Well-Being: A Comparison of Scalp Stimulation with Scalp Blood pH Sampling. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 89, 373-376.

[24]   Barber, E.L., Lundsberg, L.S., Belanger, K., Pettker, C.M., Funai, E.F. and Illuzzi, J.L. (2011) Indications Contributing to the Increasing Cesarean Delivery Rate. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 118, 29-38.

[25]   Robson, M.S. (2001) Classification of Caesarean Sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review, 12, 23-39.

[26]   Zuleta, J.J., Quintero, F. and Quiceno, A. (2013) Application of the Robson Model to Characterize the Relation of C-Sections in a Third Level Care Institution in Medellin, Colombia. A Cross-Sectional Study. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología, 64, 90-99. [In Spanish]

[27]   Ferreira, E.C., Pacagnella, R.C., Costa, M.L. and Cecatti, J.G. (2015) The Robson ten-Group Classification System for Appraising Deliveries at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Brazil. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 219, 236-239.

[28]   Aguilar, R., Manrique, G., Aisa, L.M., Martínez, L., González, V. and Aceituno, L. (2016) Use of Robson’s Classification in a Regional Hospital in Spain to Reduce the Rate of Cesarean Sections. Revista Chilena de Obstetricia y Ginecologia, 81, 99-104. [In Spanish]

[29]   Triunfo, S., Ferrazzani, S., Lanzone, A. and Scambia, G. (2015) Identification of Obstetric Targets for Reducing Cesarean Section Rate Using the Robson Ten Group Classification in a Tertiary Level Hospital. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 189, 91-95.

[30]   Kelly, S., Sprague, A., Fell, D.B., Murphy, P., Aelicks, N., Guo, Y., et al. (2013) Examining Caesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Robson Classification System. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 35, 206-214.

[31]   Figueras, F. and Gratacós, E. (2014) Update on the Diagnosis and Classification of Fetal Growth Restriction and Proposal of a Stage-Based Management Protocol. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 36, 86-98.

[32]   Coppage, K.H. and Polzin, W.J. (2002) Severe Preeclampsia and Delivery Outcomes: Is Immediate Cesarean Delivery Beneficial? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 186, 921-923.

[33]   Alanis, M.C., Robinson, C.J., Hulsey, T.C., Ebeling, M. and Johnson, D.D. (2008) Early-Onset Severe Preeclampsia: Induction of Labor vs Elective Cesarean Delivery and Neonatal Outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 199, e1-e6.

[34]   Yang, Y.T., Mello, M.M., Subramanian, S.V. and Studdert, D.M. (2009) Relationship between Malpractice Litigation Pressure and Rates of Cesarean Section and Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section. Medical Care, 47, 234-242.

[35]   Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, R.M. and Jones, L. (2011) Epidural versus Nonepidural or No Analgesia in Labour. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 19, No. CD000331.

[36]   Hodnett, E.D., Gates, S., Hofmeyr, G.J. and Sakala, C. (2013) Continuous Support for Women during Childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 16, No. CD003766.