Cargando…

Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?

BACKGROUND: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Teixeira, Cristina, Correia, Sofia, Barros, Henrique
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3668278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-214
_version_ 1782271607671095296
author Teixeira, Cristina
Correia, Sofia
Barros, Henrique
author_facet Teixeira, Cristina
Correia, Sofia
Barros, Henrique
author_sort Teixeira, Cristina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour. METHODS: As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. RESULTS: The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present]. CONCLUSIONS: Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3668278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36682782013-06-01 Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference? Teixeira, Cristina Correia, Sofia Barros, Henrique BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour. METHODS: As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. RESULTS: The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present]. CONCLUSIONS: Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications. BioMed Central 2013-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3668278/ /pubmed/23714240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-214 Text en Copyright © 2013 Teixeira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Teixeira, Cristina
Correia, Sofia
Barros, Henrique
Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title_full Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title_fullStr Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title_full_unstemmed Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title_short Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
title_sort risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3668278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-214
work_keys_str_mv AT teixeiracristina riskofcaesareansectionafterinducedlabourdohospitalsmakeadifference
AT correiasofia riskofcaesareansectionafterinducedlabourdohospitalsmakeadifference
AT barroshenrique riskofcaesareansectionafterinducedlabourdohospitalsmakeadifference