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

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 36(3)

doi:10.1071/AH11059

Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Committee

	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

	Call for Reviewers




	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with AHR

Connect with CP

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