Does an Immigrant Background Affect the Indication, Incidence or Outcome of Emergency Cesarean Section? Results of the Prospective Data Collection of 111 Births

Abstract

Objectives Does the incidence and/or indication(s) for emergency cesarean section differ if the pregnant woman has an immigrant background (IB)? Does a lack of language proficiency (communication problems) and a low acculturation level result in a longer decision-to-delivery interval (D-D interval)? Are neonates born to women with IB by emergency cesarean section in a poorer condition post delivery?

Patient cohorts and method Standardized interviews were carried out before or immediately after delivery in three Berlin obstetric hospitals. Questions were asked about the sociodemographic background and care aspects as well as about immigration and level of acculturation. Collected data were linked to information obtained from the expectant motherʼs antenatal records and to care data and perinatal data routinely recorded by the hospitals. Data was analyzed using regression models which adjusted for age, parity, and socio-economic status.

Results The total patient population consisted of 7100 women (rate of response: 89.6%); of these women, 111 required emergency cesarean section (50 women without IB, 61 immigrant women). Risk factors such as late first antenatal check-up, gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, fetal macrosomia, smoking, and weight gain were similar in both patient cohorts. The incidence of and indications for emergency cesarean section and the D-D interval were similar for both groups. Limited German language proficiency and low levels of acculturation among immigrant women did not prolong the D-D interval. There were no statistically relevant differences between immigrant and non-immigrant cohorts with regard to adverse neonatal conditions (5-minute Apgar score ≤ 7, umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.00) or with regard to immediate transfer of the neonate to a pediatric clinic following emergency cesarean section.

Conclusion The factor “immigrant background” did not affect the indication or obstetric outcome following emergency cesarean section.

Key words

cesarean section - emergency cesarean section - immigrant women - perinatal outcome

• References/Literatur

• 1 Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH. et al. Postpartum maternal mortality and caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 541-548
• 2 Hyde MJ, Mostyn A, Modi N. et al. The health implications of birth by caesarean section. Biol Rev 2012; 87: 229-243
• 3 Río I, Castelló A, Barona C. et al. Caesarean section rates in immigrant and native women in Spain: the importance of geographical origin and type of hospital for delivery. Eur J Public Health 2010; 20: 524-529
• 4 Zizza A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A. et al. Caesarean section in the world: a new ecological approach. J Prev Med Hyg 2011; 52: 161-173
• 5 IQTIQ. Hrsg. Qualitätsreport 2016. Berlin: Eigenverlag; 2017: 129
• 6 BQS-Institut. Hrsg. Jahresauswertung 2016 Geburtshilfe. Berlin Gesamt. Berlin: Eigenverlag; 2017
• 7 Mölgg A, Jirecek S, Girtler V. et al. Maternal and neonatal outcome for singleton and twin pregnancies in emergency cesarean section vs. urgent cesarean section in a retrospective evaluation from 2003–2012. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014; 4: 881-888
• 8 Heller G, Bauer E, Schill S. et al. Decision-to-delivery time and perinatal complications in emergency cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2017; 114: 589-596 doi:10.3238/arztebl.2017.0589
• 9 Gissler M, Alexander S, Macfarlane A. et al. Stillbirths and infant deaths among migrants in industrialized countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88: 134-148
• 10 Bollini P, Pampallona S, Wanner P. et al. Pregnancy outcome of migrant women and integration policy: a systematic review of the international literature. Soc Sci Med 2009; 68: 452-461
• 11 Razum O, Reeske A, Spallek J. Hrsg. Gesundheit von Schwangeren und Säuglingen mit Migrationshintergrund. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang; 2011
• 12 Merry L, Small R, Blondel B. et al. International migration and caesarean birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 27
• 13 Oberaigner W, Leitner H, Oberaigner K. et al. Migrants and obstetrics in Austria–applying a new questionnaire shows differences in obstetric care and outcome. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2013; 125: 34-40
• 14 David M, Borde T, Brenne S. et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes among immigrant and non-immigrant women in Berlin, Germany. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 297: 313-322
• 15 Schenk L, Bau AM, Borde T. et al. Mindestindikatorensatz zur Erfassung des Migrationsstatus. Empfehlungen für die epidemiologische Praxis. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz 2006; 9: 853-860
• 16 Bongard S, Pogge SF, Arslaner H. et al. Acculturation and cardiovascular reactivity of second-generation Turkish migrants in Germany. J Psychosom Res 2002; 53: 795-803
• 17 Statistisches Bundesamt/Destatis. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund auf Rekordniveau. Online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/MigrationIntegration.html last access: 05.10.2016
• 18 Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA. et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paed Perinatal Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98-113
• 19 McCourt C, Weaver J, Statham H. et al. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 2007; 34: 65-79
• 20 Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP. et al. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (03) CD004660 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3
• 21 Lagrew DC, Bush MC, McKeown AM. et al. Emergent (crash) cesarean delivery: indications and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1638-1643