Recommendations for the organisation and provision of perinatal care worldwide were published after a meeting of mostly European and American experts 30 years ago (Lancet 1985;2(8452):436–7). Among these recommendations, one—‘Countries with some of the lowest perinatal mortality rates in the world have caesarean section (CS) rates of <10%. There is no justification for any region to have a rate higher than 10–15%’—continues to generate discussions even today. Despite little empirical evidence, this rate became regarded as the ideal CS rate for a population. Guidelines on monitoring the availability of obstetric services published nearly 25 years later refer to an acceptable CS rate in the population of 5–15% (WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF, Mailman School of Public Health AMDD. Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care: A Handbook. Geneva: WHO, 2009). The reality is different. Among 137 countries with national CS rates in 2008, 33 (mostly in Africa and Asia) had rates <5% and 54 had rates <10% (Gibbons et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:331.e1–19). In contrast, 69 countries had CS rates of >15%, with China and Brazil accounting for almost half of the total caesarean births in this category. Even among countries within the European region, CS rates vary widely (Macfarlane et al. BJOG 2016;123:559–568). Certainly CS can prevent maternal death in major-degree placenta praevia, certain malpresentations and major cephalopelvic disproportion with threatened uterine rupture. There may be additional indications, e.g. eclampsia, where early delivery is beneficial for the mother. With improvements in neonatal care and survival, fetal indications for CS have increased. Widespread introduction of electronic fetal monitoring without adequate assessment led to increasing diagnoses of fetal distress, fear of litigation and complaints about perinatal brain damage, and to acceleration in CS rates. In addition, breech presentation, worries about pelvic floor damage, personal choice and private care resulted in further increases in CS rates. ‘Once a Caesar, always a Caesar’ continues to be true in places where trial of vaginal birth after lower-segment CS is considered too risky. How well does a national CS rate reflect the quality of maternal and perinatal care in the country? A minimum number of CS is necessary for maternal survival. Therefore, very low national CS rates indicate poor overall access to life-saving facility-based maternal health interventions. In contrast, high rates may suggest inappropriate overuse of resources that does not directly contribute to reductions in maternal and perinatal mortality. Moreover, a national rate does not capture inequities in access to and use of CS within the country, nor does it help to identify where the problems lie. It is time to move on to using and publishing better information from facilities that perform CS: carefully defined information on why and when CS is performed and outcomes should be collected regularly. Analyses of data using a standardised classification system (Torloni et al. PLoS One 2011;6:e14566) with periodic review of the information will help to identify problems, and to develop and implement targeted solutions. Bringing about change in perceptions and practices is possible with strong leadership, consensus and commitment from all staff involved in maternity care, pregnant women, their families and communities. The author has no interests to disclose.
Read full abstract