Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(02): 120-124
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739493
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Potentially Preventable Primary Cesarean Sections in Future Placenta Accreta Spectrum

Kathy C. Matthews 
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian—Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
,
Andrew S. Quinn
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian—Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
,
Stephen T. Chasen
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian—Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Prior cesarean delivery is a well-known risk factor for placenta accreta spectrum disorders. While primary cesarean section is unavoidable in some patients, in others it may not be clearly indicated. The aim of the study is to determine the proportion of patients with placenta accreta spectrum who had a potentially preventable primary cesarean section and to identify factors associated with preventable placenta accreta spectrum.

Study Design This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of women with pathology-confirmed placenta accreta spectrum from 2007 to 2019. Primary cesarean sections were categorized as potentially preventable or unpreventable based on practice consistent with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” recommendations. Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for comparison with p <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results Seventy-two patients had pathology-confirmed placenta accreta spectrum over the course of the study period, 15 (20.8%) of whom required a cesarean hysterectomy at the time of primary cesarean section. Fifty-seven patients had placenta accreta spectrum in a pregnancy following their primary cesarean section. Of these, 29 (50.9%) were considered potentially preventable. Most were performed without clear medical indication (37.9%) or for fetal malpresentation without attempted external cephalic version (37.9%). The remainder were due to arrest of labor not meeting criteria (17.2%) and abnormal or indeterminate fetal heart patterns with documented recovery (6.9%). Of the 11 patients without clear medical indication for primary cesarean section, eight (72.7%) were patient-choice cesarean sections and three (27.3%) were for suspected fetal macrosomia with estimated fetal weights not meeting criteria for cesarean delivery. There was no difference in the incidence of potentially preventable primary cesarean sections before and after the ACOG-SMFM “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” publication (48.8 vs. 57.1%, p = 0.59). Privately insured patients were more likely to have a potentially preventable primary cesarean section than those with Medicaid (62.5 vs. 23.5%, p = 0.008) and were more likely to have a primary cesarean section without clear medical indication (81.8 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.004).

Conclusion Many patients with placenta accreta spectrum had a potentially preventable primary cesarean section. Most were performed without clear medical indication or for malpresentation without attempted external cephalic version, suggesting that at least a subset of placenta accreta spectrum cases may be preventable. This was particularly true for privately insured patients. These findings call for continued investigation of potentially preventable primary cesarean sections with initiatives to address concerns at the patient, provider, and hospital level.

Key Points

  • Many patients with placenta accreta spectrum have potentially preventable primary cesarean sections.

  • Privately insured patients are more likely to have potentially preventable primary cesarean sections.

  • Our findings suggest that at least a subset of placenta accreta spectrum cases may be preventable.

Keywords

cesarean hysterectomy - percreta - placenta accreta spectrum - primary cesarean section

Note

The findings were presented at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's 40th Annual Pregnancy Meeting in Grapevine, Texas, February 3rd to 8th, 2020.




Publication History

Received: 03 October 2020

Accepted: 06 October 2021

Article published online:
16 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Belfort MA. Publications Committee, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (05) 430-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mogos MF, Salemi JL, Ashley M, Whiteman VE, Salihu HM. Recent trends in placenta accreta in the United States and its impact on maternal-fetal morbidity and healthcare-associated costs, 1998-2011. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (07) 1077-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cahill AG, Beigi R, Heine RP, Silver RM, Wax JR. Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Placenta accreta spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (06) B2-B16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Silver RM, Branch DW. Placenta accreta spectrum. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (16) 1529-1536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Usta IM, Hobeika EM, Musa AA, Gabriel GE, Nassar AH. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (3 Pt 2): 1045-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Esh-Broder E, Ariel I, Abas-Bashir N, Bdolah Y, Celnikier DH. Placenta accreta is associated with IVF pregnancies: a retrospective chart review. BJOG 2011; 118 (09) 1084-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 7: placenta accreta spectrum. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (06) e259-e275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Rice MM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Morbidly adherent placenta treatments and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (03) 683-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (05) 1458-1461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hung TH, Shau WY, Hsieh CC, Chiu TH, Hsu JJ, Hsieh TT. Risk factors for placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93 (04) 545-550
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (06) 1226-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gynecologists ACoOa. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG practice bulletin no. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (02) e110-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM, Uddin SF. Maternal morbidity for vaginal and cesarean deliveries, according to previous cesarean history: new data from the birth certificate, 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (04) 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Menacker F, Curtin SC. Trends in cesarean birth and vaginal birth after previous cesarean, 1991-1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001; 49 (13) 1-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (04) 806-812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (09) 1-68
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018; 67 (08) 1-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cheng ER, Declercq ER, Belanoff C, Iverson RE, McCloskey L. Racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Birth 2015; 42 (03) 249-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Declercq E, Menacker F, Macdorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002. Am J Public Health 2006; 96 (05) 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
  • 22 Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176 (04) 455-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ. et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (03) 669-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (03) 262.e1-262.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Smith GC, Pell JP. Outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (16) 1718-1720 , author reply 1718–1720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar