PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(12): 1231-1235
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732449
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Investigating Decreased Rates of Nulliparous Cesarean Deliveries during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Colleen M. Sinnott
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Taylor S. Freret
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Mark A. Clapp
2   Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Emily Reiff
3   Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Sarah E. Little
3   Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Preventing the first cesarean delivery (CD) is important as CD rates continue to rise. During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, quality improvement metrics at our hospital identified lower rates of CD. We sought to investigate this change and identify factors that may have contributed to the decrease.

Study Design We compared nulliparous singleton deliveries at a large academic hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic (April through July 2020 during a statewide “stay-at-home” order) to those in the same months 1 year prior to the pandemic (April through July 2019). The primary outcome, mode of delivery, was obtained from the electronic medical record system, along with indication for CD.

Results The cohort included 1,913 deliveries: 892 in 2019 and 1,021 in 2020. Patient characteristics (age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, and insurance type) did not differ between the groups. Median gestational age at delivery was the same in both groups. The CD rate decreased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prior (28.9 vs. 33.6%; p = 0.03). There was a significant increase in the rate of labor induction (45.7 vs. 40.6%; p = 0.02), but no difference in the proportion of inductions that were elective (19.5 vs. 20.7%; p = 0.66). The rate of CD in labor was unchanged (15.9 vs. 16.3%; p = 0.82); however, more women attempted a trial of labor (87.0 vs. 82.6%; p = 0.01). Thus, the proportion of CD without a trial of labor decreased (25.1 vs. 33.0%; p = 0.04).

Conclusion There was a statistically significant decrease in CD during the COVID-19 pandemic at our hospital, driven by a decrease in CD without a trial of labor. The increased rate of attempted trial of labor suggests the presence of patient-level factors that warrant further investigation as potential targets for decreasing CD rates. Additionally, in a diverse and medically complex population, increased rates of labor induction were not associated with increased rates of CD.

Key Points

  • Primary CD rate fell during COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Decrease was driven by more women attempting labor.

  • Higher rate of induction without rise in CD rate was found.

Keywords

COVID-19 - cesarean delivery prevention - singleton deliveries

Note

Findings of this study were previously presented at the 41st Annual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, virtually, from January 25 to 30, 2021.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 26. April 2021

Angenommen: 17. Juni 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. Juli 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cesarean delivery rate by state. Accessed April 18, 2021 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/cesareans.htm
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Forde B, DeFranco EA. Association of prior cesarean delivery with early term delivery and neonatal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (06) 1367-1376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 DeJoy SA, Bohl MG, Mahoney K, Blake C. Estimating the financial impact of reducing primary cesareans. J Midwifery Womens Health 2020; 65 (01) 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Creanga AA, Bateman BT, Butwick AJ. et al. Morbidity associated with cesarean delivery in the United States: is placenta accreta an increasingly important contributor?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (03) 384.e1-384.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zipori Y, Grunwald O, Ginsberg Y, Beloosesky R, Weiner Z. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (02) 191.e1-191.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Toumi M, Lesieur E, Haumonte J-B, Blanc J, D'ercole C, Bretelle F. Primary cesarean delivery rate: potential impact of a checklist. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2018; 47 (09) 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cox KJ, King TL. Preventing primary cesarean births: midwifery care. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 58 (02) 282-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar