Skip to main content

Early Caesareans Pose Risks to Newborns


By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: January 8, 2009


More than one third of mothers who chose to undergo a repeat Caesarean section had their babies earlier than medical guidelines recommend, and the earlier the babies were born, the more likely they were to experience a medical complication like respiratory distress, a large study has found.

Although babies born by Caesarean section after just 37 weeks of pregnancy are considered full-term, the study found they were twice as likely to suffer complications as those born by Caesarean after 39 weeks. Infants born by Caesarean at 38 weeks were 50 percent more likely to have a medical problem than those born at 39 weeks. The complications included respiratory distress, infections, hypoglycemia, being admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, or being hospitalized for five or more days.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was published on Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

It is being released amid concern over the rising numbers of preterm births in the United States and the trend of many women and their physicians to schedule Caesarean deliveries, or C-sections, well in advance of the expected due date. Some 30 percent of deliveries were done by Caesarean section in 2006, up from 20.7 percent in 1996. About 40 percent of the 1.3 million Caesareans performed in the United States each year are repeat procedures, though not all are elective.

“There is an understanding that for a baby born at [full] term, the risks are really very low, and many people may just assume that outcomes at 37 weeks may be the same as at 39 weeks,” said Dr. Alan T.N. Tita, the paper’s lead author and an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “We know that is not true.”

He noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends elective Caesareans not be performed before the 39th week of pregnancy.

Medical problems also occurred more frequently in the small group of babies delivered by Caesarean at 41 weeks and 42 weeks, the study found.

Researchers reviewed a registry containing detailed information about repeat Caesarean births to mothers who had previously had the procedure at 19 medical centers, all part of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Of 24,077 Caesarean deliveries performed at term, 13,258 were elective, meaning there was no medical indication for the surgery, the researchers found. Of those, 6.3 percent were performed at 37 weeks and 29.5 percent at 38 weeks.

Overall, 15.3 percent of babies delivered at 37 weeks suffered a complication of some kind, compared with 11 percent of those born at 38 weeks and only 7.3 percent of those born at 40 weeks. One infant, delivered at 39 weeks, died. Doctors noted that even when babies born by Caesarean are delivered at the same week of pregnancy as babies delivered vaginally, they are at higher risk of respiratory difficulties because the process of labor and delivery primes the fetal lungs for breathing air.

Babies delivered by Caesarean section at 37 weeks were 4.2 times more likely than those delivered at 39 weeks to suffer from respiratory distress syndrome, and 3.3 times more likely to be treated for hypoglycemia, 2.9 times more likely to develop an infection or to be suspected of having an infection, and more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for five or more days or to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Babies delivered by Caesarean section at 38 weeks were 2.1 times more likely than those delivered at 39 weeks to suffer respiratory distress syndrome, 1.8 times more likely to be hospitalized for five or more days, and 1.7 times more likely to have an infection or be suspected of having an infection. Babies delivered by Caesarean at 38 weeks had a 30 percent increased risk of hypoglycemia and a 50 percent increased risk of being admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, compared to those delivered at 39 weeks.

“Faced with the likelihood that there is no other problem, I think it’s prudent to wait until 39 weeks to avoid subjecting these babies to adverse outcomes,” Dr. Tita said. He added that he did not think the results would be different for women undergoing a first elective Caesarean section, versus the repeat Caesareans looked at in this study.

Reactions to the study were mixed. Dr. Michael Greene, director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the article, said the paper quantifies differences in risk that many physicians may not be aware of.

“I would bet if you ask the first 10 obstetricians on the street if they thought it would make a difference to deliver a baby in the second half of the 38th week and the first half of the 39th week, they’d say, ’Nah, it’s not a big difference,’ ” he said. “This study, because of its size and numbers, is able to say, Yeah, it does make a difference.’ ”

At the same time, he said the study only reviewed live births and did not weigh the risk of a potential stillbirth that could occur with a longer pregnancy against the risk of a complication resulting from an earlier Caesarean.

“The apparent simple message from this study is too simplistic,” he said. “There is a tiny, small but real increase in stillbirths late in pregnancy for women who had a prior Caesarean section, as opposed to women with no scar in their uterus” from a previous Caesarean section.

But Dr. Alan Fleischman, medical director of the March of Dimes, said the findings should reinforce the message that “every week counts” in a pregnancy. The women who were more likely to deliver early were white women with private health insurance, and the medical centers were all top-notch hospitals, he noted.

“These are not preterm babies, and these are pregnancies that should have good outcomes,” he said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Soy Products Can Reduce Sperm Counts!

By: Heather Hajek Published: Friday, 25 July 2008 www.healthnews.com C alling all men who want to become fathers! Soy products may reduce a man's sperm count. Based on a recent study, men who consume soy products may have lower sperm counts than those who don't. The study was based on a small group of men who visited the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center from 2000 to 2006. Even though the study found that some of the men who ate soy products on a regular basis had lower sperm counts, the researchers conducting the study are not saying that soy products were the cause of the lower sperm concentrations. The men who had soy products in their diets recorded lower sperm counts than those that didn't, but their counts were still within the normal range. Researchers don't deny that during the study men who consumed soy products had lower sperm counts, but they want people to realize there are other factors other than soy products that may have played a role in th...

Obesity linked to quantity of sleep!

P eople who sleep fewer than six hours a night - or more than nine - are more likely to be obese, according to a new US study that is one of the largest to show a link between irregular sleep and big bellies. The study also linked light sleepers to higher smoking rates, less physical activity and more alcohol use. The research adds weight to a stream of studies that have found obesity and other health problems in those who don't get proper shuteye, said Dr Ron Kramer, a Colorado physician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. "The data is all coming together that short sleepers and long sleepers don't do so well," Kramer said. The study is based on door-to-door surveys of 87,000 US adults from 2004 through 2006 conducted by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Such surveys can't prove cause-effect relationships, so - for example - it's not clear if smoking causes sleeplessn...

Women with long nails speak out against iPhone design.

M ost people either love or hate the iPhone's touch screen, and based on a report on the LA Times , women with long fingernails are among the haters. Why? Well, since the iPhone's touchscreen only responds to electrical charges emitted by your bare fingertips, women with long nails are left out in the cold. A woman interviewed for the article went so far as to suggest Apple was being misogynistic because it did not include a stylus for women and didn't consider womens' fingers and nails when designing the phone. Honestly, though, this same argument has come up against keyboards, touch screen monitors, and anything else that involves the use of your fingers, so should every gadget maker change the design of its products to accommodate users with long nails, or should people with long nails learn to work around this problem like they have in the past? I'd love to hear what Apple has to say about all this, but I doubt they'll ev...