IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0136272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cesarean Section and Subsequent Stillbirth, Is Confounding by Indication Responsible for the Apparent Association? An Updated Cohort Analysis of a Large Perinatal Database

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Wood
  • Sue Ross
  • Reg Sauve

Abstract

Background: Several studies and a recent meta-analysis have suggested that previous Cesarean section may increase the risk of stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy. Given the high rates of Cesarean section in contemporary obstetric practice, this is of considerable public health importance. We sought to evaluate the potential that this association is the result of residual confounding bias. Methods: A large perinatal database (Alberta Perinatal Health Project) was searched to identify a matched set of first and second births from the years 1992–2006. Data on pregnancy outcomes, demographics and potential confounding factors were obtained. Results: The cohort was comprised of 98538 matched first and second births. Multivariate analysis did not reveal an association between previous Cesarean section and stillbirth, OR = 1.38 (0.98, 1.93). Restricting the analysis to a low risk group further attenuated the association, OR = .99 (0.62, 1.52). Analysis of the risk by indication for Cesarean section found that the risk was not increased for previous dystocia, OR = .91 (0.53, 1.55) nor for breech presentation, OR = 1.06 (0.50, 2.28) but only for other indications including non reassuring fetal status and fetal distress, OR = 1.96 (1.29, 2.98). Conclusions: The results of our cohort analysis suggest that previous Cesarean section does not cause an increased risk of stillbirth.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Wood & Sue Ross & Reg Sauve, 2015. "Cesarean Section and Subsequent Stillbirth, Is Confounding by Indication Responsible for the Apparent Association? An Updated Cohort Analysis of a Large Perinatal Database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-8, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0136272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136272
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0136272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0136272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.