4.6 Article

Caesarean delivery and risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study in an English population

Journal

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01249.x

Keywords

caesarean section; cohort study; pregnancy; stillbirth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Two recent studies indicate an increased risk of stillbirth in the pregnancy that follows a pregnancy delivered by caesarean section. In this study, we report an analysis designed to test the hypothesis that delivery by caesarean section is a risk factor for explained or unexplained stillbirth in any subsequent pregnancy. We also report on the proportion of stillbirths in our study population, which may have been attributable to previous delivery by caesarean section. Design Retrospective cohort study. Population Linked statistical data set of 81 784 singleton deliveries registered in Oxfordshire and West Berkshire between 1968 and 1989. Methods The crude and adjusted hazard ratios for stillbirth in deliveries following a previous delivery by caesarean section, compared with no previous caesarean, were estimated using Cox regression. Main outcome measure Stillbirth. Results The unadjusted hazard ratios for all, explained, and unexplained stillbirths were 1.54 (95% CI 1.04-2.29); 2.13 (1.22-3.72); and 1.19 (0.68-2.09), respectively. After adjustment for maternal age, parity, social class, previous adverse outcome of pregnancy, body mass indexand smoking the hazard ratios were 1.58 (0.95-2.63), 2.08 (1.00-4.31) and 1.24 (0.60-2.56). Conclusions Pregnancies in women following a pregnancy delivered by caesarean section are at an increased risk of stillbirth. In our study, the risk appears to be mainly concentrated in the subgroup of explained stillbirths. However, there are sufficient inconsistencies in the developing literature about stillbirth risk that further research is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available