The 30 minutes decision-to-delivery interval for ‘urgent’ caesarean sections: An elusive target

Defining the decision-to-delivery interval at caesarean section: narrative literature review and proposal for standardisation

The decision-to-delivery interval is a widely used term at non-elective caesarean section. While the definition may appear self-evident, there is no universally agreed consensus about when this period begins and ends. We reviewed the literature for original research utilising the terms 'decision-to-delivery', 'decision-to-incision' or 'incision-to-delivery' and examined definitions used for decision, delivery, incision, as well as any additional time intervals that were assessed. Our analysis demonstrated an inconsistent non-standardised approach to defining these intervals, which might have clinical practice and medicolegal ramifications. We propose that the decision-to-delivery interval should be defined as follows: the interval between the time at which the senior obstetrician makes the decision that a caesarean section is required and the time at which the fetus (or first fetus in the case of multiples) is delivered. The decision time should ideally be recorded contemporaneously in the medical notes or partogram.

Decision-to-delivery intervals and perinatal outcomes following emergency cesarean delivery in a Nigerian tertiary hospital

OBJECTIVE

To determine the decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) for emergency cesarean deliveries (CDs) at a tertiary center in Nigeria, to evaluate causes of delay, and to assess the effects of delays on perinatal outcomes.

METHODS

Between September and November 2010, a prospective, observational study was undertaken at University College Hospital, Ibadan. Events that occurred after a decision to perform an emergency CD were recorded. Associations between outcomes and the DDI were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 235 emergency CDs included, 5 (2.1%) occurred within 30 minutes and 86 (36.6%) within 75 minutes. The mean DDI was 119.2±95.0 minutes. Among CDs with a DDI of more than 75 minutes, logistic factors were the reason for delay in 65 (43.6 %) cases. No significant associations were recorded between DDI and the 5-minute Apgar score, admission to the special-care baby unit, or perinatal mortality (P>0.05 for all). In multivariate analysis, neonates delivered after 75 minutes were significantly less likely to die during the perinatal period than were those delivered within this period (odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.66; P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Institutional delays in CDs need to be addressed. However, the DDI could be less important for perinatal outcome than are some other factors, such as the severity of the indication.

Decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesareans in the Aurore perinatal network

OBJECTIVES

To determine the interval between decision and delivery (DDI) for urgent and very urgent caesarean deliveries within a perinatal network, to compare the results according to maternity ward level and organisation, and to assess the impact of DDI on neonatal outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational study in the 31 maternity units of the Aurore perinatal network (17 Level I, 12 Level II, and two Level III). The obstetric team defined the degree of urgency for the caesareans, measured the DDI, and reported neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

The study includes 666 unplanned caesarean sections. The median DDI for emergency caesareans (n=365) was 48 min for Level I units, 40 min for Level II, and 22 min for Level III (P<0.05). For the very urgent caesareans (n=82), the median DDI was respectively 35, 24, and 13 min (P<0.05) and the percentage with a DDI<or=30 min were 45%, 62%, and 100% (P<0.05). The proportion of DDI<or=30 min was 0% in maternity units where obstetricians and anaesthetists were not always onsite, 67% when only the anaesthetist was always present (P<0.05) and 88% for units where both were always present. The neonate's condition did not differ significantly according to DDI.

CONCLUSIONS

DDI varies very substantially according to the level and organisation of the maternity units in the Aurore network. It was not significantly correlated with neonatal outcome in our population.

Anaesthesia for urgent (grade 1) caesarean section

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We describe the different possible anaesthetic techniques for an emergency caesarean section. To choose the right method of anaesthesia may have major implications for mother, child and all involved personnel. The major controversy is whether one have other or better alternatives or both than general anaesthesia, with a rapid sequence induction technique, when the foetus is compromised.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently published studies indicate that a top-up of a well functioning labour epidural is as fast as general anaesthesia, and that the top-up can be performed during preparation and transport. Spinal anaesthesia, when performed by skilled anaesthetists, is as fast or almost as fast as general anaesthesia with a very low failure rate. Combined spinal/epidural may have advantages, especially in high-risk cardiac patients, but is too time-consuming. General anaesthesia still seems to be the method of choice for most anaesthetists in extremely urgent settings. The major disadvantage with general anaesthesia is the risk of failure and the dramatic consequences of a 'cannot intubate, cannot ventilate' situation. Awareness is another concern, and the incidence varies from 0.26 to 1% in recent literature.

SUMMARY

Regional anaesthesia techniques such as a single-shot spinal or a top-up of a well functioning labour epidural analgesia are good alternatives to general anaesthesia in an emergency caesarean setting.

Retrospective cohort study of diagnosis-delivery interval with umbilical cord prolapse: the effect of team training

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the introduction of multi-professional simulation training was associated with improvements in the management of cord prolapse, in particular, the diagnosis-delivery interval (DDI).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large tertiary maternity unit within a University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

SAMPLE

All cases of cord prolapse with informative case record: 34 pre-training, 28 post-training.

METHODS

Review of hospital notes and software system entries; comparison of quality of management for umbilical cord prolapse pre-training (1993-99) and post-training (2001-07).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnosis-delivery interval; proportion of caesarean section (CS) in whom actions were taken to reduce cord compression; type of anaesthesia for CS births; rate of low (<7) 5-minute Apgar scores; rate of admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (if birthweight >2500 g).

RESULTS

After training, there was a statistically significant reduction in median DDI from 25 to 14.5 minutes (P < 0.001). Post-training, there was also a statistically significant increase in the proportion of CS where recommended actions had been performed (from 34.78 to 82.35%, P = 0.003). There was a nonsignificant increase in the use of spinal anaesthesia for CS, from 8.70 to 17.65%, and a nonsignificant reduction in the rate of low Apgar scores from 6.45 to 0% and in the rate of admission to NICU from 38.46 to 22.22%.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of annual training, in accordance with national recommendations, was associated with improved management of cord prolapse. Future studies could assess whether this improved management translates into better outcomes for babies and their mothers.