National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section
Open Access
- 15 March 2004
- Vol. 328 (7441) , 665
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38031.775845.7c
Abstract
Objective To examine the association between decision to delivery interval and maternal and baby outcomes. Design National cross sectional survey. Setting Maternity units in England and Wales. Subjects reviewed 17 780 singleton births (99% of all births) delivered by emergency caesarean section in England and Wales between 1 May 2000 and 31 July 2000. Main outcome measures Association between decision to delivery interval and baby outcomes (Apgar scores of < 7 and < 4 at five minutes and stillbirth) and maternal outcomes (requirement for special care additional to routine care after caesarean section and where care was provided). Results Compared with babies delivered within 15 minutes, there was no difference in maternal or baby outcome for decision to delivery interval between 16 and 75 minutes. After 75 minutes, however, there was a significantly higher odds of a five minute Apgar score of < 7 (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.4), and 50% increase in odds of special care additional to routine care for mothers. Conclusion A decision to delivery interval of 30 minutes is not an absolute threshold for influencing baby outcome. Decision to delivery intervals of more than 75 minutes are associated with poorer maternal and baby outcomes and should be avoided.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of general and epidural anesthesia in elective cesarean section for placenta previa totalis: maternal hemodynamics, blood loss and neonatal outcomeInternational Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 2003
- What is a reasonable time from decision‐to‐delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveriesBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2002
- Prospective 12 month study of 30 minute decision to delivery intervals for "emergency" caesarean sectionBMJ, 2001
- Is childbirth safe in the UK and are there enough obstetricians? Letter to a Chief ExecutiveHospital Medicine, 2000
- Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial.1999
- Effects of general and regional anesthesia on the neonate (a prospective, randomized trial).1999
- Cesarean section for suspected fetal distress. Does the decision-incision time make a difference?1997
- Asphyxial complications in the term newborn with severe umbilical acidemiaAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1992
- [Emergency Cesarean section--basic data].1992
- Longitudinal Data Analysis for Discrete and Continuous OutcomesPublished by JSTOR ,1986