“Doing something” about the cesarean delivery rate

      There is a general consensus that the cesarean delivery rate in the United States is too high, and that practice patterns of obstetricians are largely to blame for this situation. In reality, the US cesarean delivery rate is the result of 3 forces largely beyond the control of the practicing clinician: patient expectations and misconceptions regarding the safety of labor, the medical-legal system, and limitations in technology. Efforts to “do something” about the cesarean delivery rate by promulgating practice directives that are marginally evidence-based or influenced by social pressures are both ineffective and potentially harmful. We examine both the recent American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)/Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Care Consensus Statement “Safe Prevention of Primary Cesarean Delivery” document and the various iterations of the ACOG guidelines for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in this context. Adherence to arbitrary time limits for active phase or second-stage arrest without incorporating other clinical factors into the decision-making process is unwise. In a similar manner, ever-changing practice standards for vaginal birth after cesarean driven by factors other than changing data are unlikely to be effective in lowering the cesarean delivery rate. Whether too high or too low, the current US cesarean delivery rate is the expected result of the unique demographic, geographic, and social forces driving it and is unlikely to change significantly given the limitations of current technology to otherwise satisfy the demands of these forces.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Flamm B, Berwick D, Kabcenell A. Reducing cesarean rates safely: lessons from a “breakthrough series” collaborative Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

        • Caughey A.B.
        Evidence-based labor and delivery management: can we safety reduce the cesarean rate?.
        Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017; 44: 523-533
        • Queenan J.
        • Clark S.L.
        • Paul R.H.
        • Freeman R.K.
        Today’s cesarean section rate: can we reduce it?.
        Contemp OBGYN. 1988; 32: 154-155
      2. Thielking M. Sky high C-section rates in the US don’t translate to better birth outcomes. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

      3. Nagel R. Cesarean rate is too high. Available at: Accessed March 29, 2018.

      4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cesarean delivery rate by state. Available at: Accessed Feb. 15, 2018.

        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine Obstetric Care Consensus
        Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 693-710
        • Hankins G.D.V.
        • Clark S.M.
        • Munn M.B.
        Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy and intrauterine fetal demise.
        Semin Perinatol. 2006; 30: 276-287
        • Clark S.L.
        • Christmas J.T.
        • Frye D.R.
        • Meyers J.A.
        • Perlin J.B.
        Maternal mortality in the United States: predictability and the impact of protocols on fatal postcesarean pulmonary embolism and hypertension-related intracranial hemorrhage.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 32.e1-32.e9
      5. Khan Academy. Microeconomics: supply, demand and market equilibrium. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

      6. Pettinger T. Cracking Economics. Available at: Accessed May 15, 2018.

        • Downes K.L.
        • Shenassa E.D.
        • Grantz K.L.
        Neonatal outcomes associated with placental abruption.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 186: 1319-1328
        • Behbehani S.
        • Patenaude V.
        • Abenhaim H.A.
        Maternal risk factors and outcomes of umbilical cord prolapse.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016; 38: 23-28
      7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Shoulder dystocia. Practice bulletin no. 178. 2017;129:e123-33.

        • Clark S.L.
        • Hamilton E.H.
        • Garite T.J.
        • Timmins A.
        • Warrick P.A.
        • Smith A.
        The limits of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring in the prevention of neonatal acidemia.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216: 163.e1-163.e6
        • Cauldwel M.
        • Steer P.
        • Bewley S.
        Guilt, blame and litigation: can an overenthusiastic “safety culture” cause harm?.
        BJOG. 2016; 124: 71
      8. Fast NJ. How to stop the blame game. Harvard Business Review. May 13, 2010. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

      9. Matray M. The current state of tort reform; Physicians Practice. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

        • Mello M.M.
        • Kachalia A.
        • Studdert D.M.
        Medical liability–prospects for tort reform.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 1806-1808
        • Cunningham F.G.
        • Leveno K.J.
        • Bloom S.L.
        • et al.
        Williams obstetrics.
        24th ed. McGraw Hill, New York (NY)2014
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Fetal macrosomia. Practice bulletin no. 173.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128 (e195-209)
        • Thorp J.M.
        • Laughon S.K.
        Clinical aspects of normal and abnormal labor.
        in: Creasy R.K. Resnik R. Iams J.D. Maternal fetal medicine. 7th ed. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia (PA)2014
        • Krapohl A.J.
        • Myers G.G.
        • Caldeyro-Barcia R.
        Uterine contractions in spontaneous labor: a quantitative study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970; 106: 378-387
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Practice bulletin no. 163.
        Obstet Gyneco. 2016; 127 (e123-37)
        • Tolcher M.C.
        • Holbert M.R.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • et al.
        Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 1059-1068
        • Cahill A.G.
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • Stout M.J.
        • Lopez J.D.
        • Macones G.A.
        A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 523.e1-523.e12
        • Jacobs S.E.
        • Berg M.
        • Hunt R.
        • Tarnow-Mordi W.O.
        • Inder T.E.
        • Davis P.G.
        Cooling for newborns with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 1CD003311
      10. American Academy of Pediatrics. Clinical report: hypothermia and neonatal encephalopathy. Available at: Accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

        • Spong C.Y.
        • Berghella V.
        • Wenstrom K.D.
        • Mercer B.M.
        • Saade G.R.
        Preventing the first cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 5: 1181-1192
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Practice bulletin no. 184.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130 (e217-33)
        • Zhang J.
        • Landy H.J.
        • Branch W.
        • et al.
        Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1281-1287
        • Friedman E.A.
        • Sachtleben M.R.
        Dysfunctional labor, VII: A comprehensive program for diagnosis, evaluation and management.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1965; 25: 844-847
        • Rouse D.J.
        • Owen J.
        • Hauth J.C.
        Active phase labor arrest: oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93: 323-328
        • Rouse D.J.
        • Owen J.
        • Savage K.G.
        • Hauth J.C.
        Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2 hour minimum.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 550-554
        • Gimovsky A.C.
        • Berghella V.
        Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 361.e1-361.e6
        • Wilson-Leedy J.G.
        • DiSilvestro A.J.
        • Repke J.T.
        • Pauli J.M.
        Reduction in the cesarean delivery rate after obstetric care consensus guidelines.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: 145-152
        • Rosenbloom J.I.
        • Stout M.J.
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • et al.
        New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 689.e1-689.e8
        • Thuillier C.
        • Roy S.
        • Peyronet V.
        • Thibaud Q.
        • Nlandu A.
        • Rozenberg P.
        Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean section.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 341.e1-341.e97
        • Leveno K.J.
        • Nelson D.B.
        • McIntire D.D.
        Second stage labor: how long is too long?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 484-489
        • Cohen W.R.
        • Friedman E.A.
        Perils of the new labor management guidelines.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 420-427
        • Dietz H.P.
        • Campbell S.
        Toward normal birth–but at what cost?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: 439-444
        • Grantz K.L.
        • Sundaram R.
        • Ma L.
        • et al.
        Reassessing the duration of the second stage of labor in relation to maternal and neonatal morbidity.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: 345-353
        • Clark S.L.
        • Belfort M.A.
        • Hankins G.D.V.
        • et al.
        Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196: 526-527
        • Clark S.L.
        • Nageotte M.P.
        • Garite T.J.
        • et al.
        Management of category II fetal heart rate patterns: toward standardization of care.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 89-97
        • Hamilton E.F.
        • Warrick P.A.
        • Collins K.C.
        • Smith S.
        • Garite T.J.
        Assessing first stage labor progression and its relationship to complications.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 358.e1-358.e8
        • Clark S.L.
        • Meyers J.A.
        • Frye D.R.
        • Garthwaite T.
        • Lee A.J.
        • Perlin J.B.
        Recognition and response to electronic fetal heart rate patterns–impact on newborn outcomes and primary cesarean delivery rate in women undergoing induction of labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 494.e1-494.e6