Dem Wahnsinn Einhalt gebieten? – Die aktuelle US-amerikanische Leitlinie zur Senkung der
               Kaiserschnittrate

Christiane Schwarz

doi:10.1055/s-0034-1373858

Hebamme, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Hebamme 2014; 27(2): 84-90
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1373858

Aktuell

Sectiorate

Hippokrates Verlag in MVS Medizinverlage Stuttgart GmbH & Co. KG Stuttgart

Dem Wahnsinn Einhalt gebieten? – Die aktuelle US-amerikanische Leitlinie zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate

Christiane Schwarz

Hebamme, MSc Public Health (MPH), Hannover

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Die neue Leitlinie der US-amerikanischen Geburtshelfer zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate hat das Potenzial, die geburtshilfliche Welt zu verändern. Man kann es kaum glauben: als im März 2014 die US-amerikanischen Geburtshelfer ihr Konsensuspapier zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate veröffentlichten, war es das erste Mal seit vielen Jahren, dass von diesem Gremium selbstkritische Überlegungen zur medikalisierten Geburtshilfe der vergangenen 20 Jahre laut wurden. Wir machen zu viele Kaiserschnitte und wir retten damit weder Mütter noch Kinder [[1]], so der Tenor.

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 ACOG. Obstetric care consensus no 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2014; 123(3): 693-711
2 Purandare CN. Current obstetric practices: Are we on the right track?. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics 2013; 123(2): 91-92
3 Chalmers B. WHO appropriate technology for birth revisited. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1992; 99(9): 709-710
4 Villar J et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2007; 335(7628): 1025
5 Liu S et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal 2007; 176(4): 455-460
6 Silver RM. Implications of the first cesarean: perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Seminars in perinatology 2012; 36(5): 315-323
7 Silver RM et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and gynecology 2006; 107(6): 1226-1232
8 Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 1972; 48(6): 842-858
9 Zhang J et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and gynecology 2010; 116(6): 1281-1287
10 Piper JM, Bolling DR, Newton ER. The second stage of labor: factors influencing duration. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1991; 165 (4 Pt 1): 976-979
11 Le Ray C et al. When to stop pushing: effects of duration of second-stage expulsion efforts on maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 201(4): 361.e1-7
12 Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. How long is too long: Does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes? . Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2004; 191(3): 933-938
13 Rouse DJ et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 201(4): 357.e1-7
14 Cheng YW et al. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 196(6): 585.e1-6
15 Towner DR, Ciotti MC. Operative vaginal delivery: a cause of birth injury or is it? . Clinical obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 50(3): 563-581
16 Werner EF et al. Mode of delivery in nulliparous women and neonatal intracranial injury. Obstetrics and gynecology 2011; 118(6): 1239-1246
17 Cheng YW et al. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am. J. of epidemiology 2010; 171(6): 656-663
18 Shaffer BL et al. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. The journal of maternal-fetal 2011; 24(1): 65-72
19 McQuivey RW, Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A. „Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section“. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 2013; 171(2): e3-4
20 ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 114(1): 192-202
21 Elimian A, Figueroa R, Tejani N. Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being: a comparison of scalp stimulation with scalp blood pH sampling. Obstetrics and gynecology 1997; 89(3): 373-376
22 Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. The scalp stimulation test: a clinical alternative to fetal scalp blood sampling. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1984; 148(3): 274-277
23 MacGregor SN et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of intrapartum amnioinfusion. Fetal acid-base status and cesarean delivery. The Journal of reproductive medicine 1991; 36(1): 69-73
24 Strong TH. Amnioinfusion. The Journal of reproductive medicine 1995; 40(2): 108-114
25 Stock SJ et al. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2012; 344: e2838
26 Cheng YW et al. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2012; 207(6): 502.e1-8
27 Darney BG et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and gynecology 2013; 122(4): 761-769
28 Gülmezoglu AM et al. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 6, p.CD004945 2012
29 ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2006; 108(1): 235-237
30 Rouse DJ et al. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996; 276(18): 1480-1486
31 Rouse DJ, Owen J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography–A Faustian bargain?. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1999; 181(2): 332-338
32 ACOG. ACOG Committee opinion no. 548: weight gain during pregnancy. Obstetrics and gynecology 2013; 121(1): 210-212
33 Stotland NE, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Gestational weight gain, macrosomia, and risk of cesarean birth in nondiabetic nulliparas. Obstetrics and gynecology 2004; 104(4): 671-677
34 Barrett JF R et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. The New England journal of medicine 2013; 369(14): 1295-1305
35 ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. No. 82 June 2007. Management of herpes in pregnancy. Obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 109(6): 1489-1498
36 Hodnett ED et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 7, p.CD003766 2013
37 Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth: 2007; 34(1): 53-64