Neonatal outcome after trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean section

被引:21
|
作者
Fisler, RE
Cohen, A
Ringer, SA
Lieberman, E
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Sch Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Joint Program Neonatol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
来源
BIRTH-ISSUES IN PERINATAL CARE | 2003年 / 30卷 / 02期
关键词
D O I
10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00225.x
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Trial of labor after cesarean section has been an important strategy for lowering the rate of cesarean delivery in the United States, but concerns regarding its safety remain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of newborns delivered by elective repeat cesarean section compared to delivery following a trial of labor after cesarean. Methods: All low-risk mothers with 1 or 2 previous cesareans and no prior vaginal deliveries, who delivered at our institution from December 1994 through July 1995, were identified. Neonatal outcomes were compared between 136 women who delivered by elective repeat cesarean section and 313 women who delivered after a trial of labor. To investigate reasons for differences in outcome between these groups, neonatal outcomes within the trial of labor group were then compared between those mothers who had received epidural analgesia (n = 230) and those who did not (n = 83). Results: Infants delivered after a trial of labor had increased rates of sepsis evaluation (23.3% vs 12.5%, p = 0.008); antibiotic treatment (11.5% vs 4.4%, p = 0.02); intubation to evaluate for the presence of meconium below the cords (11.5% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001); and mild bruising (8.0% vs 1.5%, p = 0.008). Within the trial of labor group, infants of mothers who received epidural analgesia were more likely to have received diagnostic tests and therapeutic interventions including sepsis evaluation (29.6% vs 6.0%, p = 0.001) and antibiotic treatment (13.9% vs 4.8%, p = 0.03) than within the no-epidural analgesia group. Conclusions: Infants born to mothers after a trial of labor are twice as likely to undergo diagnostic tests and therapeutic interventions than infants born after an elective repeat cesarean section, but the increase occurred only in the subgroup of infants whose mothers received epidural analgesia for pain relief during labor. The higher rate of intervention could relate to the well-documented increase in intrapartum fever that occurs with epidural use.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 88
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Elective repeat cesarean delivery compared with spontaneous trial of labor after a prior cesarean delivery: a propensity score analysis
    Gilbert, Sharon A.
    Grobman, William A.
    Landon, Mark B.
    Spong, Catherine Y.
    Rouse, Dwight J.
    Leveno, Kenneth J.
    Varner, Michael W.
    Caritis, Steve N.
    Meis, Paul J.
    Sorokin, Yoram
    Carpenter, Marshall
    O'Sullivan, Mary J.
    Sibai, Baha M.
    Thorp, John M.
    Ramin, Susan M.
    Mercer, Brian M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 206 (04)
  • [12] Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Trial of labor or repeat cesarean section? A decision analysis
    Mankuta, DD
    Leshno, MM
    Menasche, MM
    Brezis, MM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 189 (03) : 714 - 719
  • [13] The safety of trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) versus elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Qiu, Lili
    Zhu, Jingjing
    Lu, Xianyan
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2023, 36 (01):
  • [14] Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis
    Rossi, A. Cristina
    D'Addario, Vincenzo
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 199 (03) : 224 - 231
  • [15] Maternal hospital charges associated with trial of labor versus elective repeat cesarean section
    Traynor, JD
    Peaceman, AM
    BIRTH-ISSUES IN PERINATAL CARE, 1998, 25 (02): : 81 - 84
  • [16] AN EVALUATION OF THE RELATIVE RISKS OF A TRIAL OF LABOR VERSUS ELECTIVE REPEAT CESAREAN-SECTION
    HADLEY, CB
    MENNUTI, MT
    GABBE, SG
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 1986, 3 (02) : 107 - 114
  • [17] NEONATAL RESPIRATORY MORBIDITY AFTER ELECTIVE CESAREAN-SECTION WITHOUT LABOR
    COHEN, M
    CARSON, B
    CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1982, 30 (01): : A141 - A141
  • [18] The impact of extending the second stage of labor on repeat cesarean section and maternal and neonatal outcome
    Lauterbach, Roy
    Justman, Naphtali
    Ginsberg, Yuval
    Siegler, Yoav
    Bachar, Gal
    Vitner, Dana
    Ben-David, Chen
    Zipori, Yaniv
    Beloosesky, Ron
    Weiner, Zeev
    Khatib, Nizar
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2023, 163 (02) : 594 - 600
  • [19] VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN - A COMPARISON OF MATERNAL AND NEONATAL MORBIDITY TO ELECTIVE REPEAT CESAREAN-SECTION
    ERIKSEN, NL
    BUTTINO, L
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 1989, 6 (04) : 375 - 379
  • [20] Maternal and perinatal outcomes in trial of labor after one prior cesarean delivery versus elective repeat cesarean section in gestational diabetes
    Viteri, Oscar
    Blackwell, Sean
    Moussa, Hind
    Sibai, Baha
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (01) : S160 - S160