Dataset Information

Effect of decision to delivery interval on perinatal outcomes during emergency cesarean deliveries in Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National guidelines of most developed countries suggest a target of 30 minutes of the decision to delivery interval for emergency cesarean section. Such guidelines may not be feasible in poorly resourced countries and busy obstetric settings. It is generally accepted that the decision to delivery interval should be kept to the minimum time achievable to prevent adverse outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the average decision to delivery interval and its effect on perinatal outcomes in emergency cesarean section.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted from May to July 2020 at Bahir Dar City Public Hospitals. A total of 182 participants were enrolled, and data were collected using a structured and pre-tested questionnaire. A systematic sampling technique was applied to select the study subjects. Data were cleaned and entered into Epi-Data version 4.6 and exported to SPSS version 25 software for analysis. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of outcome variables, and variables with a p-value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The average decision to delivery interval was 43.73 ±10.55 minutes. Anesthesia time [AOR = 2.1, 95%CI = (1.3–8.4)], and category of emergency cesarean section [AOR = 3, 95% CI = (2.1–11.5)] were predictors of decision to delivery interval. The prolonged decision to delivery interval had a statistically significant association with composite adverse perinatal outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = (1.2–6.5).

Conclusion

The average decision to delivery interval was longer than the recommended time. It should always be considered an important factor contributing to perinatal outcomes. Therefore, to prevent neonatal morbidity and mortality, a time-dependent action is needed.

SUBMITTER: Kitaw T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575252 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Category-1 emergency caesarean section delivery is the commonly performed surgical procedure in pregnant women associated with significant mortality and morbidity both in the mother and fetus. The decision to delivery time interval is recommended to be less than 30?min by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This study was designed to evaluate the decision to delivery time interval and its effect on feto-maternal outcomes and the associated factors during category-1 emergency caesarean section deliveries. METHOD:A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2018 at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital obstetrics Operation Theater and postnatal ward. A total of 163 clients who were undergone category-1 emergency caesarean section were included in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corporate). Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression with a 95% confidence interval was used to determine the association of decision to delivery time interval with predictor variables and feto-maternal outcomes. RESULTS:Only 19.6% of women had a decision to delivery time interval below 30?min. The average decision to delivery time interval was 42?±?21.4?min, the average time from the decision of category-1 emergency caesarean section arrival to the operation theater was 21.58?±?19.76?min and from theater to delivery of anesthesia was 11.5?±?3.6?min. Factors that were associated with prolonged decision to delivery time interval were: time taken to collect surgical materials (AOR?=?13.76, CI?=?1.12-168.7), time taken from decision and arrival to the operation theater (AOR?=?0.75, CI?=?0.17-3.25) and time taken from arrival at the operation theater to the immediate start of skin incision (AOR?=?0.43, CI?=?0.28-0.65). CONCLUSION:Delivery was not achieved within the recommended time interval in the majority of category-1 emergency caesarean sections. The average decision to delivery time interval was longer than the recommended time but it did not affect feto-maternal outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCesarean delivery rates are increasing globally with almost half of them occurring due to a previous Cesarean delivery. A trial of labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) is considered a safe procedure, but most eligible women instead undergo Cesarean before 39 weeks of gestation. Lack of education about TOLAC is often associated with increased repeat Cesarean. To reveal the safety and feasibility of TOLAC, we conducted this observational, prospective study with women's independent decisions. We aimed to clarify the relationship between their chosen mode of delivery and the reason for their previous Cesarean. Additionally, we have tried to identify maternal and obstetric factors associated with failed TOLAC to improve its success rate.MethodsThis was a prospective, observational study of 1086 pregnant women with at least one previous Cesarean delivery. Of these, 735 women met our TOLAC criteria (Table 1), and then, could choose TOLAC or repeat Cesarean after receiving detailed explanations regarding the risks and benefits of both procedures. The primary outcomes were the number of successful TOLAC procedures and 5-min Apgar scores < 7 for the trial of labor after Cesarean group and elective Cesarean group. We collected the maternal and neonatal data including the reasons of previous Cesarean.ResultsIn total, 64.1% of women chose TOLAC. The success rate was 91.3%. The uterine rupture rate was 0.6%. There were no significant differences in the rate of Apgar scores at 5 min < 7 between both groups. Histories of experience of labor in previous Cesarean delivery were observed in 30 and 50% of women who chose TOLAC and repeat Cesarean, respectively (p < 0.05). Factors related to failed TOLAC included ≥40 weeks of gestation (odds: 5.47, 95% CI: 2.55-11.70) and prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) (odds: 4.47, 95% CI: 2.07-9.63).ConclusionsTOLAC is a favorable delivery option for both mothers and neonates when women meet criteria and choose after receiving detailed explanations. Women who experience PROM or ≥ 40 weeks of gestation, their modes of delivery should be reconsulted.

Project description:BackgroundThe cesarean delivery (CD) rate has been increasing globally. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been used as a key method for the reduction of the CD rate. Little is known, however, about the association between the second-stage duration of TOLAC and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. This study evaluated the association between perinatal outcomes and the duration of second-stage labor in women undergoing TOLAC.MethodsA 10-year retrospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, between January 2010 and January 2020. Women undergoing TOLAC who reached the second stage of labor were included in this study. Duration of the second stage of labor was examined as a categorical variable (group I: <0.5 h, group II: 0.5-2 h and group III: ≥2 h) and as a continuous variable to evaluate the association with adverse perinatal outcomes by using multivariable regression models and a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsOf the 1,174 women who met the inclusion criteria, the median (interquartile range) length of the second stage was 0.5 h (0.3-0.9 h). Among them, 1,143 (97.4%) delivered vaginally and 31 underwent an unplanned CD. As the second-stage duration increased, operative vaginal delivery (OVD), CD, and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) rates increased. Women in group III had higher risks of OVD (aOR = 11.34; 95% CI [5.06-25.41]), CD (aOR = 4.22; 95% CI [1.32-13.43]), and PPH (aOR = 2.43; 95% CI [1.31-4.50]) compared with group I. Correspondingly, blood loss and the oxytocin used to treat PPH increased significantly, while the postpartum hemoglobin reduced significantly in group III compared with group I. The incidence of uterine rupture, uterine atony, cervical laceration, red blood cell transfusion, and intensive care unit admission were similar in all three groups. Neonatal outcomes were not affected by the second-stage duration.ConclusionsWomen undergoing TOLAC with second-stage duration of ≥2 h have higher odds of OVD, unplanned intrapartum CD, and PPH.

Project description:ObjectiveTrial of labor after cesarean delivery has been mostly studied in the setting of one prior cesarean delivery; controversy remains regarding the risks and benefits of trial of labor for women with two prior cesarean deliveries. This study aimed to examine utilization, success rate, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor in this population.MethodsUsing linked hospital discharge and birth certificate data, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of mothers with nonanomalous, term, singleton live births in California between 2010-2012 and had two prior cesarean deliveries and no clear contraindications for trial of labor. We measured whether they attempted labor and, if so, whether they delivered vaginally. Association of patient and hospital characteristics with the likelihood of attempting labor and successful vaginal birth was examined using multivariable regressions. We compared composite severe maternal morbidities and composite severe newborn complications in those who underwent trial of labor as opposed to planned cesarean delivery using a propensity score-matching approach.ResultsAmong 42,771 women who met sample eligibility criteria, 1,228 (2.9%) attempted labor, of whom 484 (39.4%) delivered vaginally. There was no significant difference in the risk of composite severe maternal morbidities, but there was a modest increase in the risk of composite severe newborn complications among women who attempted labor compared with those who did not (2.0% vs 1.4%, P=.04). After accounting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics, propensity score-matched analysis showed no significant association between trial of labor and the risk of composite severe maternal morbidities (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.91), but trial of labor was associated with a higher risk for the composite of severe newborn complications (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.04-3.04).ConclusionAmong women with two prior cesarean deliveries, trial of labor was rarely attempted and was successful in 39.4% of attempts. Trial of labor in this population was associated with a modest increase in severe neonatal morbidity.