24h-payday

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘cesarean’

Epidural Analgesia: To Delay or Not to Delay, That Is the Question

October 23rd, 2014 by avatar

By Henci Goer

Unless you have been “off the grid” on a solitary trek, surely you have read and heard the recent flurry of discussion surrounding the just released study making the claim that the timing of when a woman receives an epidural (“early” or “late” in labor) made no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery.  Your students and clients may have been asking questions and wondering if the information is accurate.  Award winning author and occasional Science & Sensibility contributor Henci Goer reviews the 9 studies that made up the Cochrane systematic review: Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour to determine what they actually said.  Read her review here and share if you agree with all the spin in the media about this new research review. Additionally, head on over to the professional and parent Lamaze International sites to check out the new infographic on epidurals to share with your students and clients.- Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Manager. 

Epidural infographic oneArticles have been popping up all over the internet in recent weeks citing a new Cochrane systematic review- Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour, concluding that epidural analgesia for labor needn’t be delayed because early initiation doesn’t increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery, or, for that matter, instrumental vaginal delivery (Sng 2014). The New York Times ran this piece. Some older studies have found that early initiation appeared to increase likelihood of cesarean (Lieberman 1996; Nageotte 1997; Thorp 1991), which is plausible on theoretical grounds. Labor progress might be more vulnerable to disruption in latent than active phase. Persistent occiput posterior might be more frequent if the woman isn’t moving around, and fetal malposition greatly increases the likelihood of cesarean and instrumental delivery. Which is right? Let’s dig into the review.

The review includes 9 randomized controlled trials of “early” versus “late” initiation of epidural analgesia. Participants in all trials were limited to healthy first-time mothers at term with one head-down baby. Five trials further limited participants to women who began labor spontaneously, three mixed women being induced with women beginning labor spontaneously, and in one, all women were induced. Analgesia protocols varied, but all epidural regimens were of modern, low-dose epidurals. So far, so good.

Examining the individual trials, though, we see a major problem. You would think that the reviewers would have rejected trials that failed to divide participants into distinct groups, one having epidural initiation in early labor and the other in more advanced labor, since the point of the review is to determine whether early or late initiation makes a difference. You would think wrong. Of the nine included trials, six failed to do this.

cc photo bryanrmason http://flickr.com/photos/b-may/397189835

cc photo bryanrmason http://flickr.com/photos/b-may/397189835

The two Chestnut trials (1994a; 1994b) had the same design, differing only in that one was of women who were laboring spontaneously at trial entry and the other included women receiving oxytocin for induction or augmentation. Women were admitted to the trial if they were dilated between 3 and 5 cm. Women in the early group got their epidural immediately while women in the late group could have an epidural only if they were dilated to 5 cm or more. If late-group women were not dilated to 5 cm, they were given systemic opioids and could have a second dose of opioid one hour later. They could have an epidural when they attained 5 cm dilation or regardless of dilation, an hour after the second opioid dose. Let’s see how that worked out.

Among the 149 women in the trial that included women receiving oxytocin (Chestnut 1994b), median dilation in the early group at time of epidural initiation was 3.5 cm, meaning that half the women were dilated more and half less than this amount. The interquartile deviation was 0.5 cm, which means that values were fairly tightly clustered around the median. The authors state, however, that cervical dilation was assessed using 0.5 increments which meant that dilation of 3-4 cm was recorded as 3.5. In other words, women in the early group might have been dilated to as much as 4 cm. The median dilation in the late group was 5.0 cm, again with a 0.5 cm interquartile deviation. Some women in the late group, therefore, were not yet dilated to 5 cm when their epidural began, and, in fact, the authors report that 26 of the 75 women (35%) in the late group were given their epidural after the second dose of opioid but before attaining 5 cm dilation. The small interquartile deviation in the late group tells us that few, if any, women would have been dilated much more than 5 cm. Add in that assessing dilation isn’t exact, so women might have been a bit more or less dilated than they were thought to be, and it becomes clear that the “early” and “late” groups must have overlapped considerably. Furthermore, pretty much all of them were dilated between 3 and 5 cm when they got their epidurals, which means that few of these first-time mothers would have been in active labor, as defined by the new ACOG standards.

Overlap between early and late groups must have been even greater in Chestnut et al.’s (1994a) trial of 334 women laboring spontaneously at trial entry because median dilation in the early group was greater than in the other trial (4 cm, rather than 3.5) while median dilation in the late group was the same (5.0 cm), and interquartile deviation was even tighter in the late group (0.25 cm, rather than 0.5 cm). As before, dilation was measured in 0.5 cm increments, which presumably means that women in the early group dilated to 4-5 cm would have been recorded as “4.5,” thereby qualifying them for the “early” group even though they might have been as much as 5 cm dilated.

Based on my analysis, I would argue that there was no clinically meaningful difference in dilation between early and late groups in either trial.

A second pair of trials, one a mixed trial of spontaneous labor onset and induction and the other all induced, also had the same design in both trials (Wong 2005; Wong 2009). All women were less than 4 cm dilated at first request for pain medication. In the early group, women had an opioid injected intrathecally, i.e. the “spinal” part of a combined spinal-epidural, and an epidural catheter was set. At the second request, an epidural was initiated. In the late group, women were given a systemic opioid. At second request, they were given a second dose of systemic opioid if they hadn’t reached 4 cm dilation and an epidural if they had dilated to 4 cm or more. At third request, they were given an epidural regardless of dilation. Women who had no vaginal exam at second request and were given an epidural were “assumed,” in the authors’ words, to be dilated to at least 4 cm. What were the results?

Wong (2005) included 728 women, some beginning labor spontaneously and some induced. You may already have noticed the flaw in the trials’ design: Wong and colleagues confused the issue by considering intrathecal opioid to be equivalent to epidural anesthetic in the early group, although women didn’t actually receive anesthetic until their second request for pain medication some unknown time later. So far as I know we have no evidence that opiods, spinal or epidural, have any effect on labor progress. As to dilation at the time of epidural initiation, 63% of women in the so-called “early” group were either determined or assumed to be at 4 cm dilation or more while in the late group, some unknown proportion were less than 4 cm dilated either because they got their epidural at third pain medication request regardless of dilation or they were assumed to be at 4 or more cm dilation at second request, but weren’t assessed.

Wong (2009), a study of 806 induced women, was set up the same way but reported data somewhat differently. Early-group women were administered a spinal opioid at a median of 2 cm dilation and an interquartile range of 1.5 to 3 cm, which means that values in the middle 50% of the dataset ranged from 1.5 to 3 cm. We have no information on dilation at the time they received their epidural. The median dilation at which late-group women had their epidural initiated was 4 cm with an interquartile range of 3 to 4 cm, that is, in the middle 50% of the dataset ranged from 3 to 4 cm dilation.

As with the Chestnut trials, dilation at time of epidural initiation in the two Wong trials must have overlapped considerably between groups. And, again, few women in the late epidural group would have been in active labor. The Wong trials, however, muddy the waters even further by considering spinal opioid to be the same thing as epidural anesthetic, and while the authors were careful to use the term “neuraxial analgesia,” the Cochrane reviewers made no such distinction.

This brings us to Parameswara (2012), a trial of 120 women that included both spontaneous onset and induced labors. This trial defined the early group as women less than 2 cm dilated at time of epidural initiation and the late group as women more than 2 cm dilated. That’s all the information they provide on group allocation.

Last of the six, we have Wang (2011), a trial of 60 women in spontaneous labor. All women were given intrathecal anesthetic plus opioid. The early group was started on epidural anesthetic plus opioid 20 minutes later whereas the late group had their epidural initiated when they requested additional pain relief. No information is given on dilation at time of epidural initiation. Not only do we have no idea whether early and late groups differed from one another, women in both groups received neuraxial anesthetic at the same time.

In summary, “garbage in, garbage out.” No conclusions can be drawn about the effect of early versus late epidural administration from these six studies.

The other three studies are a different story. They achieve a reasonable separation between groups. Luxman (1998) studied 60 women with spontaneous labor onset. The early group had a mean, i.e., average, dilation of 2.3 cm with a standard deviation of + or – 0.6 cm while the late group had a mean dilation of 4.5 cm + or – 0.2 cm. Ohel (2006) studied a mixed spontaneous onset and induced group of 449 women. The mean dilation at initiation in the early group was 2.4 cm with a standard deviation of 0.7 cm, and the late group had a mean dilation of 4.6 cm with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm. Wang (2009), the behemoth of the trials, included 12,629 women who began labor spontaneously. The early epidural group had a median dilation of 1.6 cm with an interquartile range of 1.1 to 2.8 and the late group a median of 5.1 cm dilation with an interquartile range of 4.2 to 5.7. Cesarean and instrumental delivery rates were similar between early and late groups in all three trials, so had reviewers included only these three trials, they would still have arrived at the same conclusion: early epidural initiation doesn’t increase likelihood of cesarean and instrumental delivery.

We’re not done, though. Wang (2009) points us to a second, even bigger issue.

The Wang (2009) trial, as did all of the trials, limited participants to healthy first-time mothers with no factors that would predispose them to need a cesarean. The Wang trial further excluded women who didn’t begin labor spontaneously. Nevertheless, the cesarean rate in these ultra-low-risk women was an astonishing 23%. Comparing the trials side-by-side reveals wildly varying cesarean and instrumental vaginal delivery rates in what are essentially homogeneous populations.

© Henci Goer

© Henci Goer

© Henci Goer

© Henci Goer

Comparing the trials uncovers that epidural timing doesn’t matter because any effect will be swamped by the much stronger effect of practice variation.

Analysis of the trials teaches us two lessons: First, systematic reviews can’t always be taken at face value because results depend on the beliefs and biases that the reviewers bring to the table. In this case, they blinded reviewers from seeing that two-thirds of the trials they included weren’t measuring two groups of women, one in early- and one in active-phase labor. Second, practice variation can be an unacknowledged and potent confounding factor for any outcome that depends on care provider judgment.

Conclusion

So what’s our take home? Women need to know that with a judicious care provider who strives for spontaneous vaginal birth whenever possible, early epidural administration won’t increase odds of cesarean or instrumental delivery. With an injudicious one, late initiation won’t decrease them. That being said, there are other reasons to delay an epidural. Maternal fever is associated with epidural duration. Running a fever in a slowly progressing labor could tip the balance toward cesarean delivery as well as have consequences for the baby such as keeping the baby in the nursery for observation, testing for infection, or administering prophylactic IV antibiotics. Then too, a woman just might find she can do very well without one. Epidurals can have adverse effects, some of them serious. Comfort measures, cognitive strategies, and all around good emotionally and physically supportive care don’t. Hospitals, therefore, should make available and encourage use of a wide range of non-pharmacologic alternatives and refrain from routine practices that increase discomfort and hinder women from making use of them. Only then can women truly make a free choice about whether and when to have an epidural.

After reading Henci’s review and the study, what information do you feel is important for women to be aware of regarding epidural use in labor?  What will you say when asked about the study and timing of an epidural?  You may want to reference a previous Science & Sensibility article by Andrea Lythgoe, LCCE, on the use of the peanut ball to promote labor progress when a woman has an epidural. – SM 

References

Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J. M., & Rouse, D. J. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology210(3), 179-193.

Chestnut, D. H., McGrath, J. M., Vincent, R. D., Jr., Penning, D. H., Choi, W. W., Bates, J. N., & McFarlane, C. (1994a). Does early administration of epidural analgesia affect obstetric outcome in nulliparous women who are in spontaneous labor? Anesthesiology, 80(6), 1201-1208. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8010466?dopt=Citation

Chestnut, D. H., Vincent, R. D., Jr., McGrath, J. M., Choi, W. W., & Bates, J. N. (1994b). Does early administration of epidural analgesia affect obstetric outcome in nulliparous women who are receiving intravenous oxytocin? Anesthesiology, 80(6), 1193-1200. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8010465?dopt=Citation

Lieberman, E., Lang, J. M., Cohen, A., D’Agostino, R., Jr., Datta, S., & Frigoletto, F. D., Jr. (1996). Association of epidural analgesia with cesarean delivery in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 88(6), 993-1000. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942841

Luxman, D., Wolman, I., Groutz, A., Cohen, J. R., Lottan, M., Pauzner, D., & David, M. P. (1998). The effect of early epidural block administration on the progression and outcome of labor. Int J Obstet Anesth, 7(3), 161-164. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321209?dopt=Citation

Nageotte, M. P., Larson, D., Rumney, P. J., Sidhu, M., & Hollenbach, K. (1997). Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. N Engl J Med, 337(24), 1715-1719. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9392696?dopt=Citation

Ohel, G., Gonen, R., Vaida, S., Barak, S., & Gaitini, L. (2006). Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor: does it increase the risk of cesarean section? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 194(3), 600-605. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16522386?dopt=Citation

Parameswara, G., Kshama, K., Murthy, H. K., Jalaja, K., Venkat, S. (2012). Early epidural labour analgesia: Does it increase the chances of operative delivery? British Journal of Anaesthesia 108(Suppl 2):ii213–ii214. Note: This is an abstract only so all data from it come from the Cochrane review.

Sng, B. L., Leong, W. L., Zeng, Y., Siddiqui, F. J., Assam, P. N., Lim, Y., . . . Sia, A. T. (2014). Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, CD007238. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007238.pub2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25300169

Thorp, J. A., Eckert, L. O., Ang, M. S., Johnston, D. A., Peaceman, A. M., & Parisi, V. M. (1991). Epidural analgesia and cesarean section for dystocia: risk factors in nulliparas. Am J Perinatol, 8(6), 402-410. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1814306?dopt=Citation

Wang, F., Shen, X., Guo, X., Peng, Y., & Gu, X. (2009). Epidural analgesia in the latent phase of labor and the risk of cesarean delivery: a five-year randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology, 111(4), 871-880. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19741492?dopt=Citation

Wang, L. Z., Chang, X. Y., Hu, X. X., Tang, B. L., & Xia, F. (2011). The effect on maternal temperature of delaying initiation of the epidural component of combined spinal-epidural analgesia for labor: a pilot study. Int J Obstet Anesth, 20(4), 312-317. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840705

Wong, C. A., McCarthy, R. J., Sullivan, J. T., Scavone, B. M., Gerber, S. E., & Yaghmour, E. A. (2009). Early compared with late neuraxial analgesia in nulliparous labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol, 113(5), 1066-1074. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19384122?dopt=Citation

Wong, C. A., Scavone, B. M., Peaceman, A. M., McCarthy, R. J., Sullivan, J. T., Diaz, N. T., . . . Grouper, S. (2005). The risk of cesarean delivery with neuraxial analgesia given early versus late in labor. N Engl J Med, 352(7), 655-665. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716559?dopt=Citation

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.  

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Epidural Analgesia, Guest Posts, informed Consent, Medical Interventions, New Research, Systematic Review , , , , , , ,

The Childbirth Educator’s Role in The Cesarean Epidemic: 10 Steps You Can Take Now!

April 29th, 2014 by avatar

As Cesarean Awareness Month (April 2014) comes to a close, I wanted to share ten things that childbirth educators can do in their childbirth classes to support families to avoid unneeded cesareans, help families to have a cesarean birth that is respectful and family centered and support families who give birth by cesarean, (planned or unplanned) both during the birth, in the postpartum period and when planning future births.

1. Birth plan exercises

Have your birth planning/birth choices activity include preferences for a cesarean birth.  Allow parents the option to select items such as delayed cord clamping, skin to skin in the operating room, delaying newborn weights and measurements, and more.  While these may not be available options in all areas, encouraging discussion amongst families and their health care providers is a good place to start.  Additionally, consider role playing a cesarean section in class and discuss ways to make the procedure family friendly.  Remember to suggest ways that the partner and other support people can best support mother and baby during the surgery. Consider sharing “The natural caesarean: a woman-centred technique” video so families can explore options for a family friendly cesarean birth.

2. Access teaching resources on the Lamaze International website

Lamaze International offers some great teaching resources on cesareans for educators on their website and for families on the Lamaze International parent site.  There are two infographics that cover the topic of cesarean sections; “Avoiding the First Cesarean” and “What’s the Deal with Cesareans.”  You might consider showing the brand new infographic video to your families in class. At only 3 minutes long, it does a great interactive job of highlighting important information. In addition to using these materials in class, encourage families to explore them more thoroughly at home.

3.  Provide current statistics

Access and share statistics about national and provincial or state cesarean rates and VBAC rates, along with local rates for facilities and providers if available.  Help your families to understand the difference between overall cesarean rates and primary cesarean rates and why facilities caring for high risk mothers or babies might have higher rates.  Make sure that you are providing the most current information available, and update your figures when new numbers are released. Encourage discussion in class with families who are considering changing birth location or providers if they feel so inclined.

4. Encourage the use of birth doulas

The addition of trained labor support has been shown to reduce common interventions and cesareans. (Hodnett, 2012)  Take some time during class to share how doulas can help support both the laboring woman and her partner and team.  Provide resources for families to locate doulas (DONA.org and DoulaMatch.net are two such lists that come to mind) and briefly share information on questions to ask a doula during an interview, so the families are prepared.

cam two ribbon5.   Share current best practice information

Be sure that the information in your classes is current, accurate and based on best practices and evidence.  Know the sources of the information you cover.  Make sure it is up to date and verifiable.  Have a short list of favorite online resources to share with families, including Lamaze International’s Giving Birth with Confidence blog- written specifically for parents.  Utilize the references that make up the Six Healthy Birth Practices, there is a citation sheet for all six of the birth practices.

6. Support the midwifery model of care

Share information in your classes about the midwifery model of care, which has been shown to be an appropriate choice for healthy, low risk women.  Let your class families know how to find a midwife by using the search functions on the American College of Nurse-Midwives website and information on finding a midwife on the Citizens for Midwifery website.

7. Have meaningful class reunions

If your childbirth class includes a reunion, create a space for all the families to share their stories, both the vaginal births and the cesarean births.  Honor the work that the families did to birth their babies and celebrate their intention and teamwork.  Highlight their shining moments and let them know that you recognize how hard they worked.  Model excellent listening skills and support all the families as they share their birth stories.

8. Provide support group information

Make sure that all families that leave your class have been given resources for a support group for women who birth by cesarean section.  Access the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) to find the nearest local ICAN chapter website or Facebook group. Or refer the families to the main ICAN Facebook page.  VBACFacts.com also has a large peer to peer support network active on Facebook as well.

9.  Share postpartum resources

Families that birth by cesarean section might find themselves needing additional support from professionals during the postpartum period.  Be sure that they have resources to find lactation consultants, mental health counselors, postpartum doulas, physical therapists and other professionals that might be useful for healing emotionally and physically from a cesarean section.  In the throes of postpartum hormones, exhaustion, sleep deprivation and physical recovery, having to hunt down appropriate professionals can be a daunting task for any new families, never mind a mother recovering from surgery with a newborn.

10.  Offer a cesarean only class

Some families know they will be needing a cesarean for maternal or infant health circumstances and are hesitant about taking the standard childbirth class, feeling like they won’t fit in.  While they may not be needing the coping skills or comfort techniques and pushing positions that you cover in the typical childbirth class, they do need information about the cesarean procedure, pain medication options, recovery, breastfeeding and newborn care/procedures and informed consent and refusal information, among other things.  Having a class designed with their needs in mind can help them to make choices that feel good to them and participate in the community building that is such an important part of childbirth classes.

Don’t underestimate the role of the childbirth educator (you!) to offer evidence based information, appropriate resources, respectful dialogue along with skills and techniques to help women to have the best birth possible, avoid a cesarean that is not needed and recover and heal  while feeling supported with options for future births.  Thank you for all you do to help women to avoid cesareans or if needed, have the best cesarean possible.

References

Hodnett, E. D., S. Gates, et al. (2012). “Continuous support for women during childbirth.” Cochrane database of systematic reviews: CD003766.

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Giving Birth with Confidence, Healthy Birth Practices, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, Practice Guidelines, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) , , , , , , ,

Lamaze International Webinar- Six is the New Four: A Review of the Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery Consensus Report

March 24th, 2014 by avatar

Lamaze International is delighted to be offering a continuing education opportunity for all interested professionals.  ”Six is the New Four: A Review of the Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery Consensus Report” is being facilitated by Richard Waldman, M.D. and Peggy DeZinno, BSN, RN, LCCE from OB-Consult on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 at 4 PM EDT.

A few weeks ago, Science & Sensibility’s Judith Lothian highlighted and reviewed the just released joint ACOG/SMFM report “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” and many agreed it was a game changer.  Many of the recommendations listed in the report appeared to be shifting away from current, but outdated practices and encouraging more evidence based care that promotes patience, expectant management and acknowledges that protocols need to be changed if there is to be a reduction in cesareans, particularly that primary (first) cesarean.
In this upcoming webinar, Dr. Richard Waldman and Peggy DeZinno will discuss the gap between current practice and the opinion paper’s recommendations.  What will it take to get us there?  What needs to change and where are the challenges?
Dr. Waldman is the former president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a keynote speaker at the 2013 Lamaze International Annual Conference that was held in New Orleans, LA.  You can read an interview I did with Dr. Waldman last summer and also read his article, “Birth as the Ultimate Collaboration” that he wrote for Science & Sensibility in advance of his keynote presentation.
Co-presenter Peggy DeZinno, BSN, RN, LCCE provides OB-Gyn-specific risk management services at OB- Consult. She has over 35 years of experience in the healthcare industry, specifically as a coordinator and instructor of women’s health and education programs.
At the end of this webinar, learners will be able to:
  • List two reasons why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine developed a Consensus for the safe prevention of primary Cesarean Delivery.
  • Describe the definition and management of abnormally progressing first-stage labor.
  • Describe the definition and management of abnormal second-stage labor
  • Discuss the role of continuous labor support in decreasing primary Cesarean births.

Participants in the full hour of the webinar will be able to receive 1.0 Lamaze Contact Hour and 1.0 Nursing Contact Hour after completion of a post-webinar evaluation. Lamaze International is an approved provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center Commission on Accreditation.

This webinar and the associated continuing education hour is provide free as a benefit of Lamaze International membership.  Non-Lamaze members are invited to participate for the reasonable fee of $20, which includes the continuing ed contact hour.  Register for the webinar now to reserve your place at this exciting event scheduled for April 8th, 2014 ag 4:00 PM EDT.

ACOG, Childbirth Education, Continuing Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Maternal Quality Improvement, New Research, Webinars , , , , , , ,

Whether Women Have Cesareans Is Mostly Arbitrary

March 21st, 2013 by avatar

 Regular contributor Henci Goer, author of several books including Optimal Care in Childbirth as well as the expert on Lamaze International’s “Ask Henci” site, takes a look at a recent study that examines the wide divergence in cesarean rates amongst U.S. hospitals.  Read Henci’s take and see what she concludes might be behind this rate variability. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

__________________

 

© Patti Ramos Photography

If any doubt remained that the likelihood of cesarean depends mostly on care provider philosophy and practices, a study of variation in cesarean rates in U.S. hospitals has laid it to rest. Investigators plotted cesarean surgery rates during 2009 by their percentile at 593 U.S. hospitals with at least 100 deliveries, comprising 817,318 women in all (Kozhimanni 2013). Rates ranged from 7% to 70%, a 10-fold variation.

Thinking that hospital factors might explain some of the variation, the investigators compared rates according to hospital size, whether the hospital was a teaching hospital, and whether it was rural. None had any effect. Average cesarean rates were similar to the overall average rate regardless of hospital characteristics.

Variation in population characteristics likewise could explain variation in cesarean rates. Accordingly, investigators looked at a more homogeneous low-risk subset of women who were at term (37 weeks or more), carrying one head-down baby, and who had no prior cesareans. This, they reasoned, should reduce the variation in rates. Wrong again. The range widened. Rates among low-risk women ranged from a little over 2% to nearly 37%, a 15-fold variation instead of a 10-fold one.

The investigators stopped with expressing concern over the large variation in cesarean rates, writing: “There is an urgent need to address maternity care quality in general and rising cesarean rates and variation in practice patterns in particular” (p. 531), but their data tell us something more: few hospitals had anything close to reasonable rates.

The mean cesarean rate among women overall was 33%. The World Health Organization holds that cesarean rates should not exceed 15% because research shows that as cesarean rates rise above this threshold, they necessarily are performed in less clear cut situations, and the risks of the surgery begin to outweigh its benefits. Beyond 15%, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality rise in parallel with further increase. Only 2 of the 593 hospitals had cesarean rates of 15% or less. Indeed, only 21 hospitals had rates of 20% or less.

In the low-risk population, the mean cesarean rate was 12%. The recent analysis of 18,084 women planning birth center births gives us a fix on whether this is a reasonable rate for low-risk women (Stapleton 2013). Of the 14,881 women admitted in labor to the 79 participating birth centers, 6% delivered by cesarean, and perinatal outcomes were equivalent to those in similar women planning hospital birth. Only 23 of the 593 hospitals had a cesarean rate of 6% or less in their low-risk cohort.

To be fair, the low-risk hospital dataset wasn’t able to identify women with problems that would increase their likelihood of cesarean but who would have been excluded from birth center care. The birth center data, however, provides a handle on the possible effect on cesarean rate. Six percent of women planning birth at the birth center were risked out because of pre-eclampsia, non-reassuring fetal testing, postdates, or prelabor rupture of membranes and no labor. Let us assume that these problems occurred at the same rate in the low-risk hospital population. Let us further assume that all women with these problems ended up with a cesarean, which is highly unlikely. Those assumptions would boost the birth center baseline cesarean rate of 6% by another 6% or to 12% for the low-risk hospital population. Even making this extreme assumption, 271 hospitals, nearly half, had rates greater than 12%.

What’s the take-home? Practitioners with appropriate cesarean rates are thin on the ground. Women need to seek out care providers whose judgment on when a cesarean is indicated can be trusted. (I should add that they are likely to have better luck with a midwife, but it isn’t a sure thing.) Women free of medical or obstetrical risk factors may wish to plan to birth in a free-standing birth center or at home because while individual practitioners’ rates may vary within institutions, a high hospital rate—true of nearly all of them—creates a cesarean–friendly culture.

How would you use this research study when teaching classes or working with clients or patients?  Do you think that women do enough research and investigation when selecting a provider and a birth facility? Please share your thoughts. – SM

References

Kozhimannil, K. B., Law, M. R., & Virnig, B. A. (2013). Cesarean Delivery Rates Vary Tenfold Among US Hospitals; Reducing Variation May Address Quality And Cost Issues. Health Aff (Millwood), 32(3), 527-535. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23459732

Stapleton, S. R., Osborne, C., & Illuzzi, J. (2013). Outcomes of care in birth centers: demonstration of a durable model. J Midwifery Womens Health, 58(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23363029

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cesarean Birth, Guest Posts, informed Consent, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Push for Your Baby, Research , , , , , ,

Consider the Source: An Interview with Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM, co-author of The National Birth Center Study II

January 31st, 2013 by avatar

http://flic.kr/p/v7Wse

The Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health has just published the results of the National Birth Center Study II. As the name suggests, this is the second time researchers have undertaken a multi-site study of U.S. birth centers to understand the process and outcomes of care in these settings. The first appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and concluded that “birth centers offer a safe and acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for selected pregnant women, particularly those who have previously had children, and that such care leads to relatively few cesarean sections.”

The current study describes birth centers as a “durable model” of care because, again, outcomes were excellent. 

Here are the key findings of the National Birth Center Study II:

  • Of more than 15,000 women eligible for birth center care when labor started, 93% had spontaneous vaginal births, and 6% had cesareans.
  • 16% of women transferred during labor, and approximately 2.5% of mothers or newborns required transfer to the hospital after birth. Emergent transfer before or after birth was required for 1.9% of women in labor or for their newborns. Most women who transferred in labor had vaginal births.
  • There were no maternal deaths. The intrapartum stillbirth rate was 0.47/1000, and the neonatal mortality rate was 0.40/1000 excluding anomalies.

I had an opportunity to interview one of the study authors, Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM. Dr. Osborne is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Nursing, a perinatal epidemiologist, and co-founder of Maternity Centers of America. I asked her what the study findings mean for women and families and what it will take to scale up the birth center model and expand access.

AR: Thanks for participating in this interview. First and foremost, what should expectant parents know about this study?

CO: The take away messages from this study for expectant parents are that birth center care is safe and minimizes the likelihood that their baby will need to be born by cesarean, and that if hospital care becomes necessary, that transfer is very unlikely (1.9%) to be an emergency.

(Rebecca Dekker, PhD, RN, APRN of Evidence Based Birth has prepared an excellent summary that appears at the American Association of Birth Centers web site with more about the study findings and their implications for women and families.)

The study is based on the AABC Uniform Data Set. What are the strengths and limitations of the UDS? 

CO: The UDS data were collected prospectively, which means women were enrolled in the study before the outcome of the pregnancy was known. This is an important strength because it means that the ultimate outcome could not bias the data that were collected during the pregnancy. Also, the UDS is used across dozens of birth centers, so it also enables us to get much more data than would be possible from a single birth center site.

Cara Osborne, SD, MSN, CNM

A primary limitation is that the UDS does not capture information that describes the family’s experience of birth center care, which makes correlating the clinical findings with experiential information impossible. Also, the UDS isn’t used by physicians practicing in hospitals, so we could not compare our findings to typical hospital-based care.

AR: The first National Birth Center Study reported outcomes of births from 1985 to 1987. Even though this study took place two decades later, the results are strikingly similar. If we’ve known for decades that birth centers are safe and effective, and they provide high quality care without costly hospital overhead, why isn’t there one in every community?

CO: You’re right, the results were very similar. For example the c-section rate in birth centers remained stable, going from 4% in the first study to 6% in the current study, while the national c-section rate during the same period has increased dramatically from 18% to 33%. We’ve known all along that greater use of birth centers could curb or reverse this trend, but there are several obstacles that have prevented a broad expansion of the model. They fall into three categories: systems obstacles, business obstacles, and professional obstacles.

Systems obstacles:

  • Hospitals have been predominant place of birth in the U.S. for so long that associated processes such as payment by commercial insurers and state Medicaid, the filing of birth certificates, and administration of state required newborn screening tests have all been developed based on hospital timelines and protocols. Therefore, changing the place of birth requires changes in all the associated systems as well, which can be difficult.

Business obstacles:

  • The skill set that it takes to be a good care provider and the skill set that it takes to start and run an efficient business have very little overlap, and it’s the rare provider that has both.
  • It takes a considerable capital investment to get a birth center up and running, and that’s not something most providers can access.
  • Equitable reimbursement for provider fees to midwives and facility fees to birth centers from commercial insurers and state Medicaid plans has not been available in most areas of the U.S., so the return on investment has been low.

Professional obstacles: 

  • Many physicians have opposed the independent practice of midwives while also refusing to enter in to collaborative practice agreements, which are required for midwives to provide intrapartum care in many states.
  • Birth center regulations in many states require that a physician be the medical director of the center, and recruiting physicians to fill this role can be difficult.
  • Hospitals have seen birth centers as competition and thus have not offered access to referral and transport.

AR: You are part of an effort to change things so that we do one day have a birth center in every community. Can you tell us about that effort, and why you think you will succeed?

CO: My co-founder Shannon Bedore and I formed Maternity Centers of America (MCA) in order to create a vehicle for addressing the barriers described above. As you pointed out, birth centers are a good thing and there should be more, so we built MCA to bring together professionals from a variety of backgrounds including business, real estate, construction, and health policy to look at the big picture of how maternity care works and find new ways to make birth centers a part of the healthcare system. If our efforts are successful, I believe that this broad range of perspectives will be the reason.

Credit: Center for Birth http://centerforbirth.com

As our first step, we established a demonstration site in northwest Arkansas which will allow us to try new management strategies and find ways to leverage technology while staying true to the birth center model of care. From this flagship site, we hope to develop a replicable, scalable model for the development of birth centers around the U.S. This is not a new idea, nor one that only we are working to implement. Our colleagues at New Birth Company in Kansas City and at the Minnesota Birth Center in Minneapolis are also building replicable birth center models. Each of us has a slightly different approach, and all of us need to succeed in order to or build enough scale to have measureable impact on national outcomes.

AR: The American Association of Birth Centers and the American College of Nurse-Midwives are hosting a congressional briefing next month in Washington to share the study results. Why does this study matter to policy makers?

CO: This study is of particular interest to policy makers because of both its content and its timing. Maternity care makes up the largest proportion of the national hospital bill from a single condition, and a large proportion (45%) of that is paid by government programs. A recent report from the consumer advocacy organization Childbirth Connection entitled The Cost of Having a Baby in the United States highlights the striking cost of U.S. maternity care and its inverse relationship with clinical outcomes. The report showed that almost two-thirds (59-66% depending on payer and type of birth) of the total costs of maternity care went to cover facility fees charged by hospitals. Birth centers charge facility fees too, but they are a fraction of the typical hospital fee. In addition, c-sections cost commercial payers $19,000 more than vaginal births, and they cost Medicaid programs $9,500 more than vaginal births. Multiplied by the estimated number of excess cesareans in the United States, this means about $5 billion dollars could be saved each year by improving our ability to safely get babies born vaginally.

The low value of maternity care is coming into sharper focus for policy makers at the moment due to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which adds maternity care to the list of essential health benefits and increases the number of pregnancies that will be covered by the government through the expansion of state Medicaid programs. As policymakers attempt to realign costs and outcomes, they are looking for strategies that address the “triple aim” of healthcare championed by Don Berwick and his colleagues: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care. Birth centers are a viable, evidenced-based option for meeting all three aims, which is rare, particularly in maternity care. 

Are you surprised by the results of this new study?  Will  you share this information with your clients and students?  Do you think this study will have an impact on the choices that women make about their birth location? Do you believe that more birth centers can help solve many of the problems facing birthing women and maternity care today? Share your thoughts in our comment section. I’d like to hear from you.- Sharon Muza, Community Manager.

Cesarean Birth, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,