PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2018; 35(04): 345-353
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1607316
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The U.S. Twin Delivery Volume and Association with Cesarean Delivery Rates: A Hospital-Level Analysis

Sarah Rae Easter
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Julian N. Robinson
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Daniela Carusi
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Sarah E. Little
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

22. Mai 2017

14. September 2017

Publikationsdatum:
11. Oktober 2017 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to test whether hospitals experienced in twin delivery have lower rates of cesarean delivery for twins.

Methods We divided obstetric hospitals in the 2011 National Inpatient Sample by quartile of annual twin deliveries and compared twin cesarean delivery rates between hospitals with weighted linear regression. We used Pearson's coefficients to correlate a hospital's twin cesarean delivery rate to its overall cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates.

Results Annual twin delivery volume ranged from 1 to 506 across the 547 analyzed hospitals with a median of 10 and mode of 3. Adjusted rates of cesarean delivery were independent of delivery volume with a rate of 75.5 versus 74.8% in the lowest and highest volume hospitals (p = 0.09 across quartiles). A hospital's cesarean delivery rate for twins moderately correlated with the overall cesarean rate (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) and inversely correlated with VBAC rate (r =  − 0.42, p < 0.01).

Conclusion Most U.S. obstetrical units perform a low volume of twin deliveries with no decrease in cesarean delivery rates at higher volume hospitals. Twin cesarean delivery rates correlate with other obstetric parameters such as singleton cesarean delivery and VBAC rates suggesting twin cesarean delivery rate is more closely related to a hospital's general obstetric practice than its twin delivery volume.

Keywords

twins - cesarean delivery - vaginal birth after cesarean - vaginal birth - hospital's obstetric culture
 

  • References

  • 1 MacKay AP, Berg CJ, King JC, Duran C, Chang J. Pregnancy-related mortality among women with multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (03) 563-568
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Yang Q, Wen SW, Chen Y, Krewski D, Fung Kee Fung K, Walker M. Neonatal death and morbidity in vertex-nonvertex second twins according to mode of delivery and birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (03) 840-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Smith GC, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Mode of delivery and the risk of delivery-related perinatal death among twins at term: a retrospective cohort study of 8073 births. BJOG 2005; 112 (08) 1139-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vogel JP, Holloway E, Cuesta C, Carroli G, Souza JP, Barrett J. Outcomes of non-vertex second twins, following vertex vaginal delivery of first twin: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK. , et al; Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (14) 1295-1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wenckus DJ, Gao W, Kominiarek MA, Wilkins I. The effects of labor and delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes in term twins: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121 (09) 1137-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (05) 1095-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 29-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 D'Alton ME. Delivery of the second twin: revisiting the age-old dilemma. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (2 Pt 1): 221-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Srinivas SK, Epstein AJ, Nicholson S, Herrin J, Asch DA. Improvements in US maternal obstetrical outcomes from 1992 to 2006. Med Care 2010; 48 (05) 487-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Menard MK, Kilpatrick S, Saade G. , et al; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Levels of maternal care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (03) 259-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fox NS, Silverstein M, Bender S, Klauser CK, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A. Active second-stage management in twin pregnancies undergoing planned vaginal delivery in a U.S. population. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (2 Pt 1): 229-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fox NS, Gupta S, Melka S. , et al. Risk factors for cesarean delivery in twin pregnancies attempting vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (01) 106.e1-106.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schmitz T, Carnavalet CdeC, Azria E, Lopez E, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancy according to the planned mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (03) 695-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Clapp MA, Melamed A, Robinson JN, Shah N, Little SE. Obstetrician volume as a potentially modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (04) 697-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Janakiraman V, Lazar J, Joynt KE, Jha AK. Hospital volume, provider volume, and complications after childbirth in U.S. hospitals. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (03) 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Asch DA, Nicholson S, Srinivas S, Herrin J, Epstein AJ. Evaluating obstetrical residency programs using patient outcomes. JAMA 2009; 302 (12) 1277-1283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Armstrong JC, Kozhimannil KB, McDermott P, Saade GR, Srinivas SK. ; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Health Policy Committee. Comparing variation in hospital rates of cesarean delivery among low-risk women using 3 different measures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (02) 153-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32 (03) 527-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Severe Maternal Morbidity in the United States. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/severematernalmorbidity.html . Accessed April 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rosenstein MG, Kuppermann M, Gregorich SE, Cottrell EK, Caughey AB, Cheng YW. Association between vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (05) 1010-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cáceres IA, Arcaya M, Declercq E. , et al. Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004-2006: the case against case-mix artifact. PLoS One 2013; 8 (03) e57817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Handler S, Tager IB, Hubbard A, Caughey AB. Clinicians' practice environment is associated with a higher likelihood of recommending cesarean deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (12) 1220-1227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Conde-Agudelo A, Belizán JM, Lindmark G. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with multiple gestations. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95 (6 Pt 1): 899-904
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kyser KL, Lu X, Santillan DA. , et al. The association between hospital obstetrical volume and maternal postpartum complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (01) 42.e1-42.e17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM. , et al; National Partnership for Maternal Safety; Council on Patient Safety in Women's Health Care. National Partnership for Maternal Safety: consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 155-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM. Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (04) 992-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Redesign Final Report #2014–04, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Easter SR, Lieberman E, Carusi D. Fetal presentation and successful twin vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (01) 116.e1-116.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Grobman WA, Bailit JL, Rice MM. , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Can differences in obstetric outcomes be explained by differences in the care provided? The MFMU Network APEX study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (02) 147.e1-147.e16
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Little SE, Orav EJ, Robinson JN, Caughey AB, Jha AK. The relationship between variations in cesarean delivery and regional health care use in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (06) 735.e1-735.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M. , et al; QUARISMA Trial Research Group. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (18) 1710-1721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar