Original Articles
 

By Prof. Myungchul Jung , Dr. Miseon Kim
Corresponding Author Prof. Myungchul Jung
Dept. of OB/GYN, Inje University of Medicine, - Korea, South
Submitting Author Prof. Myungchul Jung
Other Authors Dr. Miseon Kim
Dept. of OB/GYN, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, - Korea, South

OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY

Cesarean delivery, Decision-to-incision interval, 30-minute rule

Jung M, Kim M. Does the Decision-to-incision Time Affect Neonatal Outcomes in the Emergency Cesarean Section?. WebmedCentral OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY 2016;7(12):WMC005235

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
No
Submitted on: 09 Dec 2016 11:06:25 AM GMT
Published on: 12 Dec 2016 10:26:12 AM GMT

Abstract


OBJECTIVES

We examined whether the decision-to-incision (D-I) interval of 30 min in women undergoing emergency C-section is meaningful for actual clinical outcomes of neonates. We also examined the correlation between D-I interval and neonate health status.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study of 212 mothers who underwent emergency C-section was performed from March 01, 2008 to February 28, 2013. The mothers were divided into two groups: Group I (n = 135) had neonates with gestational age < 37 weeks, and Group II (n = 77) had neonates with gestational age ≥37 weeks. Each group was further divided into two subgroups: those with D-I interval ≤30 min and those with D-I interval >30 min. Neonatal prognostic factors, including Apgar scores, were compared between the subgroups.

RESULTS

In Group I, no significant differences in 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores, umbilical arterial pH and NICU admission rate were observed between cases with D-I interval ≤30 min and >30 min. In Group II, there was no significant difference in 1-min and 5-min Apgar score.

CONCLUSION:-

Neonatal prognosis was not significantly associated with D-I interval.

Keywords: Cesarean delivery, Decision-to-incision interval, 30-minute rule

Introduction


 Emergency delivery by Cesarean section (C-section) accounts for 2% to 5% of total deliveries worldwide, and is recommended when protection of the fetus or mother is needed [1]. The purpose of emergency C-section is to minimize harm to the fetus and maintain health of the mother. Therefore, it is important that the C-section is done as quickly as possible.

 Several medical societies proposed guidelines to achieve rapid emergency C-section. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AGOC), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Canadian National Consensus Conference recommend that emergency C-section be performed within 30 min of the decision for this procedure. The German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommends less than 20 min [1-4].

 These criteria are based on the minimum time needed to prepare for emergency surgery at a facility, not on the condition or outcome of the neonate. In this study, we examined whether the decision-to-incision (D-I) interval of 30 min is meaningful for actual clinical outcome. We also examined the correlation between the D-I interval and the health status of neonates.

Materials and methods


This is a retrospective study of 212 mothers who underwent emergency C-section at Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, from March 01, 2008 to February 28, 2013. There were 252 neonates, including twins.

Maternal information (age, parity, gestational age, and anesthetic method for surgery) were collected. Indications for emergency C-section (non-reassuring fetal heart rate, placental abruption, placenta previa, pregnancy-induced hypertension [PIH], and uterine rupture) were also recorded. The Apgar score and umbilical arterial pH of the neonates were collected.

All mothers were divided into two groups. Group I (n = 135) had neonates with a gestational age < 37 weeks, and Group II (n = 77) had neonates with a gestational age ≥37 weeks. Group I was further divided into 2 sub-groups: those with D-I interval ≤30 min and those with D-I interval >30 min. In each of these sub-groups, each neonate’s Apgar score at 1 min and 5 min, umbilical arterial pH, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were recorded. Group II was also divided into 2 sub-groups: those with D-I interval ≤30 min and those with D-I interval >30 min. The Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min were collected for each of these sub-groups.

Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney and Chi square tests, as appropriate, and a p value below 0.05 was considered significant. 

Results


 The mean D-I interval of all 212 mothers was 48 min. The D-I interval was ≤30 min in 69 mothers (32.5%), and >30 min in 143 (67.5%) mothers. There were 174 neonates in Group I (gestational age < 37 weeks); the D-I interval was ≤30 min in 53 (30.5%) of these neonates, and >30 min in 121 (69.5%) neonates. There were 78 neonates in Group II (gestational age ≥37 weeks); the D-I interval was ≤30 min in 26 (33.3%) of these neonates, and >30 min in 52 (66.7%) neonates.    

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 212 mothers, including age, gestational age, twinning, and anesthetic methods. All of these mothers received surgery with an indication for emergency C-section due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate, umbilical cord prolapse, placental abruption, placenta previa, PIH, or uterine rupture.

Table 2 and Figure 1 summarize the neonate data for Group I (gestational age < 37 weeks). The mean Apgar score was 6.28 ± 1.32 (D-I interval ≤ 30 min) and 6.18 ± 1.55 (D-I interval > 30 min). The mean umbilical arterial blood pH was 7.29 ± 0.04 (D-I interval ≤ 30 min) and 7.23 ± 0.66 (D-I interval > 30 min); this pH was less than 7.20 in 3 (5.7%) of neonates whose DI intervals were below 30 min, and in 7 (5.8%) neonates whose DI intervals were above 30 min. These 2 groups had no significant differences in any of these parameters, nor in admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Table 3 and Figure 2 summarize the neonate data for Group II (gestational age ≥37 weeks). Comparison of neonates with D-I intervals >30 min and ≤30 min indicated no significant differences in the 1 min Apgar score (8.34 ± 1.04 vs. 8.21 ± 1.19) or the 5 min Apgar score (9.34 ± 0.67 vs. 9.42 ± 0.77). None of these neonates were admitted to the NICU.

Discussion


Delivery by emergency C-section is a procedure that requires the collaboration of professionals in obstetrics, anesthesiology, pediatrics, and nursing. Delays in surgery can negatively impact the health of the neonate and mother. Thus, several studies have suggested 30 min as the maximum time for the D-I interval. In US hospitals, about two-thirds of emergency C-sections have D-I intervals less than 30 min. More specifically, 62% of cases with non-reassuring fetal heart rate and 98% of cases with obstetric anomalies (umbilical cord prolapse, placental abruption, placenta previa, and uterine rupture) had D-I intervals less than 30 min. However, some recent studies showed that limiting the D-I interval to 30 min provides no benefit to mothers or neonates [5, 6, 13].

There is only limited research on the D-I interval. In the 1950s, Halsey et al. reported the average D-I interval for emergency C-section was 43 min [7]. In the 1960s, Choate and Lund reported the mean D-I interval for 177 emergency C-sections was 12 min, and recommended that delivery should occur within 15 min; however, in one-third of their deliveries, the D-I interval exceeded 15 min and 14% of deliveries required more than 30 min [8]. In the 1990s, Schauberger et al. examined emergency C-sections in 75 patients, and reported that 63% of patients had D-I intervals below 30 min, but that the D-I interval was unrelated to neonatal morbidity [9]. A recent US study reported that the D-I interval averaged 30.5 min in 84 preterm neonates [10]. Maintaining a D-I interval of 30 min or less may be challenging for most hospitals. The wide range of D-I intervals in these previous studies is also an important issue, and may be due to different hospital settings. However, it necessary to determine if a maximum D-I interval of 30 min is medically appropriate, and to compare the results of various studies to establish guidelines.

The most frequent indication for emergency C-section in this study was a non-reassuring fetal heart rate. The D-I interval was less than 30 min in 32.5% of these cases; but the D-I interval had no significant effect on the status of these neonates in both groups. On the other hand, other studies reported statistically significant results over D-I interval. For example, neonates with short D-I intervals had lower Apgar scores, and MacKenzie and Cooke reported that a longer D-I interval was associated with higher the umbilical arterial pH [9, 11, 12]. There are two possible reasons for this. In most cases, an early surgical decision was made, or the condition of the fetus might not have been serious. Some authors suggested that other factors, such as maternal postural changes, intravenous injection, and administration of oxygen and terbutaline during transfer to the operating room may allow fetal uterine resuscitation. However, it is generally believed that taking immediate action is needed to prevent further damage to the neonate.

Spinal anesthesia is a time-consuming procedure. Quinn and Kilpatrick reported that the mean D-I interval of their study subjects was 25 min, but the D-I interval was less than 20 min for general anesthesia [14]. In our study, spinal anesthesia was performed in 24.5% of patients whose D-I intervals exceeded 30 min, and 17.4% of patients whose D-I intervals were less than 30 min. However, the D-I interval had no significant effect on neonatal outcome. Moreover, we found that shortening of the time required for surgery did not significantly affect the neonatal prognosis. Therefore, a new guideline should be established that is based on more comprehensive clinical findings. The currently recommended D-I interval may be acceptable in some hospitals. But, it is important to quickly determine the need for surgery and perform the procedure as quickly as possible, and this requires the collaboration of various professionals to reduce the time needed for preparation.

References


1) Canadian medical association. Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. CMAJ 1986;134:1348-1352.

2) American college of obstetricians and gynecologist. Standards of obstetric-gynecologic services. 7th ed. Washington, DC: ACOG; 1989. p.39.

3) John C Hauth, Gerald B Merenstein, Sharon L Dooley, Michael T Mennuti, William Oh. Guidelines for perinatal care, 4th ed. Washington, DC: AGOC; 1997

4) Royal college of obstetricians and gynecologists, Royal college of midwives. Towards safer childbirth: minimum standards for the organization of labour wards: report of a joint working party. London: ROCG press; 1999. p.17-18.

5) Steven L. Bloom, M.D., Kenneth J. Leveno, M.D. Decision-to-incision times and maternal and infant outcomes. AGOC 2006;108:6-11.

6) Fayez K. Nasrallah, M.D., Hassan M, Harirah, M.D. The 30-minute decision-to-incision interval for emergency cesarean delivery: fact or fiction? Am J Perinatol 2004;21:63-68.

7) Halsey H, Douglas R. Fetal distress and fetal death in labor. Surg Clin North Am 1957;37:421-434.

8) Choate JW, Lund CJ. Emergency cesarean section: an analysis of maternal and fetal results in 177 operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968;100:703-715.

9) Schauberger CW, Rooney BL, Beguin EA, Schaper AM, Spindler J. Evaluating the thirty minute interval in emergency cesarean sections. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:151-155.

10) Chauhan SP, Mobley JA, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Devoe LD, Martin JN Jr. Cesarean delivery for suspected fetal distress among preterm parturients. J Reprod Med 2000;45:395-402.

11) Roemer VM, Heger Romermann G. What factors modify the condition of the newborn infant in emergency cesarean section? Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 1992;196:141-151.

12) MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I. What is a reasonable time from decision-to-delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveries. BJOG 2002;109:49-504.

13) Chauhan SP, Roach H, Naef RW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Martin JN Jr. Cesarean section for suspected fetal distress. Does the decision-incision time make a difference? J Reprod Med 1997;42:347-352.

14) Quinn AJ, Kilpatrick A. Emergency cesarean section during labour: response times and type of anaesthesia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994;54:25-29.

Source(s) of Funding


This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing Interests


The researcher claims no conflicts of interest.

Reviews
2 reviews posted so far

Does the Decision-to-incision Time Affect Neonatal Outcomes in the Emergency Cesarean Section?
Posted by Prof. Muhammad Aslam on 25 Dec 2016 10:00:45 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

Comments
0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.

 

Author Comments
0 comments posted so far

 

What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
Where
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)