www.bcidaho.com/basics/health_news/article.asp?articleI -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 5/1/2006
Last Visited: 3/19/2007
So, as the number of vaginal births after Caesarean sections (VBACS) declined, it would have seemed that infant and maternal death rates would have fallen, too, said study leader Dr. John Zweifler, chief of the University of California, San Francisco-Fresno Family and Community Medicine Department.
Zweifler and his colleagues examined birth data in California from 1996 through 2002, before and after a 1999 guideline to reduce vaginal births after Caesarean sections was adopted.
...
Women who gave birth to low birth weight babies -- less than 1,500 grams, or 3.3 pounds -- had higher newborn death rates with VBAC than a C-section, Zweifler said.But women giving birth to infants of normal weight -- at or above 3.3 pounds -- had similar newborn and mother mortality rates, regardless of whether it was vaginal birth after a C-section or a repeat C-section, the researchers found.
For instance, for newborns weighing 5.5 pounds to less than 8.8 pounds, "there were 0.3 deaths per 10,000 live births before the guidelines [with attempted VBAC], Zweifler said.
...
Complications weren`t considered, Zweifler said, because the only information the researchers had access to was birth certificate data, which don`t list complications.
More information
To learn more about C-sections and vaginal births after a C-section, visit the Childbirth.org.
SOURCES: Richard Frieder, M.D., obstetrician-gynecologist, Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and clinical instructor, obstetrics and gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles; John Zweifler, M.D., M.P.H., chief, University of California, San Francisco-Fresno Family and Community Medicine Department, and medical consultant, State of California Office of the Patient Advocate, Sacramento; Lawrence M. Leeman, M.D., M.P.H., researcher, department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; May-June 2006 Annals of Family Medicine