Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 47–53 | Cite as

Method of Delivery and Neonatal Mortality among Very Low Birth Weight Infants in the United States

  • Pradip K. Muhuri
  • Marian F. MacDorman
  • Fay Menacker

Objective: To examine the association between method of delivery (primary cesarean section vs. vaginal) and neonatal mortality risk (as well as causes of death) among very low-birth weight first-born infants in the United States. More specifically, to examine this association separately for breech/malpresenting and vertex-presenting infants, while adjusting for selected maternal characteristics, and pregnancy, labor and delivery complications. Methods: The study population was derived from the 1995–1998 birth cohort linked birth/infant death data sets. Binary and multinomial logit regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship in four very low-birth weight categories. Results: Among breech/malpresenting neonates, compared to those delivered vaginally, infants delivered by a primary cesarean section had significantly lower adjusted relative risks of death for all very low-birth weight categories and the decrease in relative risk tended to be larger with each increasing birth weight category. However, for vertex-presenting neonates, results are mixed, suggesting decreased relative mortality risks associated with primary cesarean section, which were significant for 500–749 g, not significant for 750–999 g, and barely significant for 1,000–1,249 g. In contrast, for vertex-presenting neonates weighing 1,250–1,499 g, there was a significantly increased adjusted relative risk associated with primary cesarean section. Differences in cause-specific neonatal mortality by method of delivery and presentation status were also discussed. Conclusions: Primary cesarean section appears to be associated with decreased neonatal mortality risks in each very low-birth weight category for breech/malpresenting infants, but results are mixed for vertex-presenting infants. Causal inferences should be avoided because this was an observational study by design.


method of delivery neonatal mortality very low-birth weight. 


  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Cesarean Childbirth. Report of a consensus development conference sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in conjunction with the National Center for Health Care Technology. September 22–24, 1980. NIH Publication No. 82-2067. October, 1981. US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000. National health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Washington: Public Health Service, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bottoms SF, Paul RH, Iams JD, Mercer BM, Thom EA, Roberts et al. Obstetric determinants of neonatal survival: Influence of willingness to perform cesarean delivery on survival of extremely low-birth-weight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:960–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gravenhorst JB, Veen S, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Verweij RA, Ens-Dokkum MH. Breech delivery in very preterm and very low Birth weight infants in the Netherlands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:411–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonas HA, Lumley JM. The effect of mode of delivery on neonatal mortality in very low birth weight infants born in Victoria, Australia: Caesarean section is associated with increased survival in breech-presenting, but not vertex-presenting infants. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997;11:181–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiely J. Mode of delivery and neonatal death in 17,587 infants presenting by the breech. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:898–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonas HA, Khalid N, Schwartz SM. The relationship between cesarean section and neonatal mortality in very-low-birthweight infants born in Washington State, USA. Paediat Perinat Epidemiol 1999;13:170–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olshan AF, Shy KK, Luthy DA, Hickok D, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Cesarean birth and neonatal mortality in very low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol 1984;64:267–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malloy MH, Onstad L, Wright E, NICHD Neonatal Research Network. The effect of cesarean delivery on birth outcome in very low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:498–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitchen W, Ford GW, Doyle LW, Rickards AL, Lissenden JV, Pepperell RJ, Duke JE. Cesarean section or vaginal delivery at 24 to 28 weeks' gestation: Comparison of survival and neonatal and two-year morbidity. J Am College Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:149–57.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cibils LA, Karrison T, Brown L. Factors influencing neonatal outcomes in the very-low-birth-weight fetus (<1,500 grams) with a breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;171:35–42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers SA, Gleicher N. Breech delivery: Why the dilemma? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:6–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Narayan H, Taylor DJ. The role of cesarean section in the delivery of the very preterm infant. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:936–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant A, Penn ZJ, Steer PJ. Elective or selective cesarean delivery of the small baby? A systematic review of the controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:1197–1200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sachs BP, McCarthy BJ, Rubin G, Burton A, Terry J, Tyler CW. Cesarean section: Risk and benefits for mother and fetus. J Am Medical Assoc 1983;250:2157–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malloy MH, Rhoads GG, Schramm W, Land G. Increasing cesarean rates in very low-birth weight infants. J Am Medical Assoc 1989;262:1475–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Center for Health Statistics. 1995–1998 Birth cohort linked birth/infant death data set. CD ROM series 20, published annually since 1995. Hyattsville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathews TJ, Curtin SC, MacDorman MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 1998 period linked birth/infant death data set. National Vital Statistics Reports 48(12), 2000. US Department of Heath and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center Health Statistics, Hyattsville.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and enhancements, Release 8.2, Cary, NC, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. J Am Medical Assoc 1998;280:1690–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carver JD, McDermott RJ, Jacobson HN, Sherin KM et al. Infant mortality statistics do not adequately reflect the impact of short gestation. Pediatrics 1993;92:229–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dobie SA, Baldwin L-M, Roger A, et al. How well do birth certificates describe the pregnancies they report? The Washington State experience with low-risk pregnancies. Maternal Child-Health J 1998;2:145–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reichman NE, Hade EM. Validation of birth certificate data: A study of women in New Jersey's Health Start Program. Ann Epidem 2001;11:186–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roohan PJ, Josberger RE, Acar J, Dabir P, Feder HM, Gagliano PJ. Validation of birth certificate data in New York State. J Commun Health 2003;28:335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piper JM, Mitchel E Jr, Snowden M, Hall C, Adams M, Taylor P. Validation of 1989 Tennessee Birth Certificate using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:758–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: Final data for 2002. National vital statistics reports; vol. 52 no. 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacDorman MF, Martin JA, Mathews TJ, et al. Explaining the 2001–02 infant mortality increase: Data from the linked birth/infant death data set. National vital statistics reports; vol. 53 no. 12. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pradip K. Muhuri
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marian F. MacDorman
    • 2
  • Fay Menacker
    • 2
  1. 1.Office of Applied StudiesSubstance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)RockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health StatisticsCenters for Disease Control and PreventionHyattsvilleUSA
  3. 3.SAMHSA1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1014RockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations