Dem Wahnsinn Einhalt gebieten? – Die aktuelle US-amerikanische Leitlinie zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Die neue Leitlinie der US-amerikanischen Geburtshelfer zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate hat das Potenzial, die geburtshilfliche Welt zu verändern. Man kann es kaum glauben: als im März 2014 die US-amerikanischen Geburtshelfer ihr Konsensuspapier zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittrate veröffentlichten, war es das erste Mal seit vielen Jahren, dass von diesem Gremium selbstkritische Überlegungen zur medikalisierten Geburtshilfe der vergangenen 20 Jahre laut wurden. Wir machen zu viele Kaiserschnitte und wir retten damit weder Mütter noch Kinder [[1]], so der Tenor.

• Literatur

• 1 ACOG. Obstetric care consensus no 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2014; 123(3): 693-711
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 2 Purandare CN. Current obstetric practices: Are we on the right track?. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics 2013; 123(2): 91-92
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 3 Chalmers B. WHO appropriate technology for birth revisited. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1992; 99(9): 709-710
  Google Scholar
• 4 Villar J et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2007; 335(7628): 1025
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 5 Liu S et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal 2007; 176(4): 455-460
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 6 Silver RM. Implications of the first cesarean: perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Seminars in perinatology 2012; 36(5): 315-323
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 7 Silver RM et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and gynecology 2006; 107(6): 1226-1232
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 8 Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 1972; 48(6): 842-858
  Google Scholar
• 9 Zhang J et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and gynecology 2010; 116(6): 1281-1287
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Piper JM, Bolling DR, Newton ER. The second stage of labor: factors influencing duration. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1991; 165 (4 Pt 1): 976-979
  Google Scholar
• 11 Le Ray C et al. When to stop pushing: effects of duration of second-stage expulsion efforts on maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 201(4): 361.e1-7
  Google Scholar
• 12 Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. How long is too long: Does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes? . Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2004; 191(3): 933-938
  Google Scholar
• 13 Rouse DJ et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 201(4): 357.e1-7
  Google Scholar
• 14 Cheng YW et al. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 196(6): 585.e1-6
  Google Scholar
• 15 Towner DR, Ciotti MC. Operative vaginal delivery: a cause of birth injury or is it? . Clinical obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 50(3): 563-581
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 16 Werner EF et al. Mode of delivery in nulliparous women and neonatal intracranial injury. Obstetrics and gynecology 2011; 118(6): 1239-1246
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 17 Cheng YW et al. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am. J. of epidemiology 2010; 171(6): 656-663
  Google Scholar
• 18 Shaffer BL et al. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. The journal of maternal-fetal 2011; 24(1): 65-72
  Google Scholar
• 19 McQuivey RW, Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A. „Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section“. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 2013; 171(2): e3-4
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 20 ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstetrics and gynecology 2009; 114(1): 192-202
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 21 Elimian A, Figueroa R, Tejani N. Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being: a comparison of scalp stimulation with scalp blood pH sampling. Obstetrics and gynecology 1997; 89(3): 373-376
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 22 Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. The scalp stimulation test: a clinical alternative to fetal scalp blood sampling. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1984; 148(3): 274-277
  Google Scholar
• 23 MacGregor SN et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of intrapartum amnioinfusion. Fetal acid-base status and cesarean delivery. The Journal of reproductive medicine 1991; 36(1): 69-73
  Google Scholar
• 24 Strong TH. Amnioinfusion. The Journal of reproductive medicine 1995; 40(2): 108-114
  Google Scholar
• 25 Stock SJ et al. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2012; 344: e2838
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 26 Cheng YW et al. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 2012; 207(6): 502.e1-8
  Google Scholar
• 27 Darney BG et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and gynecology 2013; 122(4): 761-769
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 28 Gülmezoglu AM et al. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 6, p.CD004945 2012
  Google Scholar
• 29 ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2006; 108(1): 235-237
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 30 Rouse DJ et al. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996; 276(18): 1480-1486
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 31 Rouse DJ, Owen J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography–A Faustian bargain?. Am. J. of obstetrics and gynecology 1999; 181(2): 332-338
  Google Scholar
• 32 ACOG. ACOG Committee opinion no. 548: weight gain during pregnancy. Obstetrics and gynecology 2013; 121(1): 210-212
  Google Scholar
• 33 Stotland NE, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Gestational weight gain, macrosomia, and risk of cesarean birth in nondiabetic nulliparas. Obstetrics and gynecology 2004; 104(4): 671-677
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 34 Barrett JF R et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. The New England journal of medicine 2013; 369(14): 1295-1305
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 35 ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. No. 82 June 2007. Management of herpes in pregnancy. Obstetrics and gynecology 2007; 109(6): 1489-1498
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 36 Hodnett ED et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 7, p.CD003766 2013
  Google Scholar
• 37 Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth: 2007; 34(1): 53-64
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar