Sickening - Rising Premature Birth Rate Linked to C-Sections
A joint effort of the March of Dimes, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed data on the rising premature birth rate, and found that 92 percent of the increase in singleton premature birth is due to c-sections. Birth data from 1996 to 2004 showed an increase of almost 60,000 singleton preterm births per year. Late preterm babies, born between 34 and 36 weeks, accounted for the majority of this increase. The study is published in the June issue of Clinics in Perinatology.
At this point, the thing we don’t know is how many of these c-sections were medically necessary. The climbing c-section rate in the US has been met with concern that too many doctors are allowing women to schedule c-sections merely for convenience. The problem arises when these c-sections are allowed to occur before 39 weeks. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, NO ONE should be induced to deliver their baby before 39 weeks unless there is a medical necessity.
Unfortunately, there is poor awareness among obstetricians and the general public about the risks of delivering a late preterm (sometimes called “near term”) baby. Recent studies have shown that babies born during this critical period of development, between 34 and 36 weeks gestation, have reduced fat stores, immature lungs and livers, and a brain volume that is just 60% of a baby born at term. As many as three-quarters of babies born at 34 weeks end up in the neonatal intensive care unit to receive specialized care. In addition, babies born between 34 and 36 weeks are 6 times more likely to die in the first week, and 3 times more likely to die in the first year than their term peers.
There is also little awareness among women about some of the risks of delivering by c-section, including increased risk of complications in subsequent births, and the possibility that it could cause you to be denied coverage by private health insurance companies.
So, the good and the bad news (depending on how you look at it) here is that many of these preterm births may have been totally preventable. If this turns out to be the case, proper education among OBs and moms-to-be could significantly reduce the rate of late preterm birth, resulting in significant health benefits and reduced healthcare costs for these babies. Of course, there are many reasons why it can be better for a preterm baby to be delivered by c-section, but delivering a baby prematurely just to get a specific c-section date is where the potential problem lies.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!






July 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I was pretty disturbed to see your take on this study. I also am a physician who just finished my OB/GYN residency and I happened to do a similar research study to the one that you are describing. We looked at the outcomes from having a c-section vs. vaginal delivery on preterm infants showing that there were some benefits to vaginal delivery (as we expected to find) I was bothered by the title including the word “Sickening”. One of the arguable points of the article which you are speaking of is that it’s hard to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg. By this I mean that we are now more sensitive to detect disease, such as Pre-eclampsia for which the only treatment is delivery, often times necessitating speedy delivery via c-secion. Yes, the c-section rate has gone up, however, the maternal mortality rate has also fallen. Maternal morbidity, well, that’s a toss up. I also am a mother of a Preterm baby, however, I was delivered via c-section at 26 weeks for severe pre-eclampsia. Without delivery via urgent c-section or in the “old days”, I may have died. I am perpetually amazed that c-sections “sicken” people as they are usually indicated for fetal and/or maternal wellbeing. Elective c-sections, sure, that’s up for discussion. All Ob/Gyns know that delivery prior to term (and even at term) has risks and I wager that the increase in elective c-sections is not being performed in the preterm setting. In my mind, the final outcome of a healthy mom and baby is the most important thing. Please watch how you present your data.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I think you grossly misunderstood my point here. I don’t find c-sections sickening. I’ve had one - for fetal distress at 31 weeks. I’ve also had a late preterm baby who was an SVD.
As I said:
“there are many reasons why it can be better for a preterm baby to be delivered by c-section, but delivering a baby prematurely just to get a specific c-section date is where the potential problem lies.”
The thing I find sickening is how little recognition many people give to the problems faced by late preterm babies when considering doing elective c-sections. We were taught NO inductions or sections before 39 weeks unless medically necessary. The well-being of the mom-baby pair must be the first concern at all times.
There has been concern in recent years about the increasing popularity of elective c-sections (meaning NOT medically necessary). Over this same time, there has also been an increase LATE preterm births delivered by c-section. More research is needed, but if babies are coming into this world early, with an increased risk of complications and death, for no better reason than someone’s schedule, it IS sickening.
I’ve seen enough friends offered inductions or sections before 38 weeks to work around their OB’s vacation schedule to know that planned early deliveries do happen without a medical need.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I am a physical therapist who works in the NICU setting. I have two children, both SVD, and a great OB who said he would induce me only if I went 2 weeks past my due date (or any health problems, of course). I was happy to have both of them the week before their due dates, but I would have waited as long as they wanted. Because both of them were over 9 pounds (all of us healthy, no DM) and I am 5′2″ and 120 pounds, I was quite happy they didn’t stay in any longer!
Having read the article and responses, I found the message quite clear in the original article that elective c-sections are the problem. Whether elective for the preference/convenience of doctor or mom, I find it hard to believe that anyone would take a chance of a poor outcome to save a few weeks. What are 3 or 4 weeks compared to the quality of your whole baby’s life? What exactly is the rush, moms? You’ve been pregnant for 8 months already, just ride it out. Being 8-9 months pregnant is not that comfortable, but driving to the NICU 3 times per day and all of the risks to your baby make parents absolutely sick with worry and stress. Not one has said, “Well, at least I’m not pregnant anymore!”
While sympathizing with moms who must deliver without dads around or some other circumstances, the vast majority of women/doctors are not choosing for that reason. My stepbrother was in Iraq for 2 days when his child was born, missed the delivery by only 4 days! No one even offered to take the baby out so dad could meet her, thank goodness, because they may have opted to do that. Then mom would have been stuck visiting her in the NICU while dad went off to Iraq anyway. He did meet her when she was 4 months old, smiling and reaching out for her daddy, whom she had “gotten to know” by large photos, videos and webcams on the computer since her birth.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Amy-
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You make some very good points. Hope to see you around here again!
-Kristie