CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Australian Health Review   
Australian Health Review
http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/
  Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
 
blank image Search
 
blank image blank image
blank image
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
For Advertisers
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Instructions to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review Article
Annual Referee Index
Call for Reviewers
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with AHR
blank image
facebook   TwitterIcon

red arrow Connect with CP
blank image
facebook twitter youtube

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 36(3)

Safe timing for an urgent Caesarean section: what is the evidence to guide policy?

Caroline S. E. Homer A B and Christine Catling-Paull A

A Centre for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: christine.catling-paull@uts.edu.au
B Corresponding author. Email: caroline.homer@uts.edu.au

Australian Health Review 36(3) 277-281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH11059
Submitted: 16 June 2011  Accepted: 12 October 2011   Published: 6 July 2012


 
PDF (101 KB) $25
 Export Citation
 Print
  
Abstract

Objective. To determine, from the evidence, what is the optimum decision to delivery (DDI) intervals in emergency Caesarean sections (CS). The aim of the study was to help guide policy in maternity services and identify issues relating to DDI and safe practice in maternity care.

Method. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Assessment of the quality of eligible papers was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) rating.

Results. There is no strong evidence that a DDI of 30 min or less is associated with improved outcomes for babies or mothers. Some evidence suggests that a DDI of greater than 30 min but less than 75 min confers benefit, but these findings were confounded by the indications for the emergency CS.

Conclusion. Urgent CS should occur as soon as possible, but there is insufficient evidence to support a definite time frame, such as 30 min. A consistency of approach and nomenclature in describing the urgency of CS is necessary, which would enable criteria for further audit regarding DDI. Staff training should be addressed to improve transfer systems for CS. Antenatal risk assessment and congruence with role delineation and service delivery capacity is important.

What is known about the topic? The 30-min rule has been cited and used globally as best practice, despite the low level of supporting evidence.

What does this paper add? There is no strong evidence that DDIs of less than 30 min are associated with improved neonatal or maternal outcomes. A DDI of greater than 30 min but less than 75 min confers some benefit, but this is tempered by the urgency of the CS.

What are the implications for practitioners? Urgent CS should occur as soon as possible, but there is insufficient evidence to support a definite time frame, such as 30 min. A consistency of approach and nomenclature in describing the urgency of CS is necessary, which would enable criteria for further audit regarding DDI. Staff training should be addressed regarding efficient systems during transfer for CS. Careful antenatal risk assessment and congruence with role delineation and service delivery capacity is important in making recommendations for place of birth for women.



References

[1]  Centre for Epidemiology and Research. NSW mothers and babies 2007. Sydney: NSW Health; 2010.

[2]  American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for perinatal care. 5th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL:, and Washington, DC; 2002.

[3]  American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for perinatal care. 6th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL and Washington, DC; 2007.

[4]  Garling P. Special commission of inquiry in acute care in NSW. Sydney: NSW Government; 2008. Available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/Corporate/ll_corporate.nsf/pages/attorney_generals_department_acsinquiry [verified 25 May 2011].

[5]  National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Caesarean section. London: NICE; 2004.

[6]  Division of Health Sciences. Critical Appraisal Tools – CASP. In: International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, editor. University of South Australia; 2005. Available at http://w3.unisa.edu.au/cahe/resources/cat/default.asp [verified April 2011].

[7]  Kwek K, Yeap ML, Tan KH, Tee JCS, Yeo GSH. Crash caesarean section – decision-to-delivery interval. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 914–5.
| PubMed |

[8]  National Health and Medical Research Council. Levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/evidence_statement_form.pdf [verified 25 May 2011].

[9]  Tuffnell DJ, Wilkinson K, Beresford N. Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section – are current standards achievable? Observational case series. BMJ 2001; 322: 1330–3.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[10]  Bloom SL, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Gilbert S, Hauth JC, Landon MB, et al Decision-to-incision times and maternal and infant outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 6–11.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[11]  Chauleur C, Collet F, Furtos C, Nourrissat A, Seffert P, Chauvin F. Identification of factors influencing the decision-to-delivery interval in emergency caesarean sections. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2009; 68: 248–54.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[12]  Holcroft CJ, Graham EM, Aina-Mumuney A, Rai KK, Henderson JL, Penning DH. Cord gas analysis, decision-to-delivery interval, and the 30-minute rule for emergency cesareans. J Perinatol 2005; 25: 229–35.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[13]  Huissoud C, Dupont C, Canoui-Poitrine F, Touzet S, Dubernard G, Rudigoz RC. Decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesareans in the Aurore perinatal network. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 149: 159–64.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[14]  Kolås T, Hofoss D, Øian P. Predictions for the decision-to-delivery interval for emergency cesarean sections in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 561–6.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[15]  le Riche H, Hall D. Non-elective Caesarean section: how long do we take to deliver? J Trop Pediatr 2005; 51: 78–81.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[16]  Nasrallah FK, Harirah HM, Vadhera R, Jain V, Franklin LT, Hankins GD. The 30-minute decision-to-incision interval for emergency cesarean delivery: fact or fiction? Am J Perinatol 2004; 21: 63–8.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[17]  Sayegh I, Dupuis O, Clement HJ, Rudigoz RC. Evaluating the decision-to-delivery interval in emergency caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 116: 28–33.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[18]  Chauhan SP, Roach H, Naef RW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Martin JN. Cesarean section for suspected fetal distress. Does the decision-incision time make a difference? J Reprod Med 1997; 42: 347–52.
| CAS | PubMed |

[19]  Hillemanns P, Hepp H, Rebhan H, Knitza R. Emergency Caesarean section – organisation and D-D time. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1996; 56: 423–30.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[20]  Huissoud C, Sayegh I, Clement HJ, Rudigoz RC. Time from decision to incision for cesarean deliveries at a community hospital. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 169.
| PubMed |

[21]  Kayani SI, Walkinshaw SA, Preston C, Kayani SI, Walkinshaw SA, Preston C. Pregnancy outcome in severe placental abruption. BJOG 2003; 110: 679–83.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[22]  MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I. What is a reasonable time from decision-to-delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveries. BJOG 2002; 109: 498–504.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[23]  Thomas J, Paranjothy S, James D. National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 328: 665–8.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[24]  Lurie S, Sulema V, Kohen-Sacher B, Sadan O, Glezerman M. The decision to delivery interval in emergency and non-urgent cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 113: 182–5.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[25]  Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S, Hunter M, Benn C, Wilson D, et al Planned place of birth in New Zealand: does it affect mode of birth and intervention rates among low-risk women? Birth 2011; 38: 111–9.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[26]  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. Birthplace in England Research Programme. Oxford; 2010. Available at http://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplace [verified 7 September 2010].

[27]  Nielsen PE, Goldman MB, Mann S, Shapiro DE, Marcus RG, Pratt SD, et al Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 48–55.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[28]  Helmy WH, Jolaoso AS, Ifaturoti OO, Ifaturoti SA, Jones MH. The decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesarean section: is 30 minutes a realistic target. BJOG 2002; 109: 505–8.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |


   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 


    
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2014