Mortality rate of a c section

[anonny55]

C section - 1 in 4200
Vaginal birth - 1 in 25000

Mums who had an elective c section, did this not freak you right out? It's the only thing putting me off. It seems high!

Also, did your baby need time in the nicu as there's also higher rate of babys needing neonatal care from c section births.

It's similar with saying how safe home births are. Most of the ones that had issues were identified by the well trained midwives and transfered to hospital before the birth so becomes a hospital statistic.

Not so. The last major study, The Place of Birth study from 2011 still included home births which transferred to hospital in the home birth stats. That's how they were able to show that some home births ended in CS - they weren't doing them at home.

I suspect that they need to analyse CS stats in the same sort of way - discriminate between elective and emergency for a start.

But what’s the risk for planned sections?

if you’re including emergency sections then the ratio is obviously going to look worse because of how many of those are due to emergency and life threatening situations

So extremely low vs even lower? It’s a 0.02% chance. It’s very very low. This didnt freak me out at all. The only thing that would have made me hesitate is the danger to subsequent pregnancies (the more c sections you have the more danger to the next pregnancy) but it was not relevant to me because I wasn’t planning more children.

@anonny55 does the consultant not want you to opt for a C section? What was the context of them offering you that information, and did they explain anything about the context of those numbers?

I’d say that it us shocking that a supposed person of science gave you those bald (and clearly Incorrect) stats.

Not in the slightest, the thought of trying to vaginally birth a breech baby would have freaked me out far more, and caused far more stress to my baby I imagine. I refused the offer of manual turning for that reason plus it wasn’t great odds on it working.

The c sec was clearly not stressful on my boy as he was having a sleep and a wee as they pulled him out.

100% would do again, breech baby or not as it was actually a very calm, controlled experience and the recovery was fine.

You need to remember that a lot of CS are done because something has already gone wrong during the birth.
So it’s no surprise that stars for deaths are higher.

As you’re having an elective CS, the stats are about 4x lower than fir CS in general

She actually pushed an elective c section a lot. First baby, measuring 5lb5 at 32 weeks. She said if growth continues like this they would recommend to be induced at 38w or c section at 39w as he's estimated to be atleast 10lb. No health conditions but BMI of 35.
No known reason for baby being so big , I've had plenty of GTT which are all negative so assuming I'm just growing a big baby. He has been over the 90th centile since 16 weeks. I personally will be accepting an induction or a c section and am not willing to just leave it until I go into labour myself regardless of the estimated weight maybe being incorrect. I suffer with anxiety and I don't personally think it's a good idea for me to ignore health professionals advice. I told her I didn't want to book either yet and I'll let her know my decision at 36weeks as I'd still like to do some more research Into both options before making any decisions. So far I think elective c section would be the better option for me, the only thing throwing me off was the mortality rate seeming high. Thanks to all for confirming I obviously was in a little bit of a panic reading through the statistics she gave me. There's a whole bunch of different things and 1 in next to them. I asked about how many inductions at 38 weeks fail and lead to emcs and she gave me the piece of paper to take away and read through and said I can query with her at 36 weeks when I've had more time to think

I had a c sec and I’m glad I didn’t know that! Some c secs are emergency though. Must be lots of factors at play here.

The majority of the C-section mortality rates will be babies with problems, so pre term, SGA, etc. what you actually need to compare is low risk term vaginal births (inc instrumentals as there’s always a risk in turns into an instrumental) against low risk, term elective c sections. And compare morbidity rates as well s mortality.

This is just scaremongering and not helpful.

That wasn't my intention. And sorry to anyone this may of scared, although I'm certain before your c section you have to sign to say you've read and understand the risk and maternal death is on there.

No because counted in these deaths would include for instance a mum who had been in a car accident and died yet baby was delivered by c section

Well exactly this.

It's not high because it was a c-section, it's that the babies are at higher risk and therefore needed c-sections.

So it's you that have pulled out two figures from the (probably very detailed and a lot more informative) text which your consultant gave you?
Somebody (lots of somebodies) has put a great deal of work into researching and compiling the information you were given, and you think you can summarise it in two lines?!
Please read all of the information the consultant gave you and talk it through with them before you make your decision.
It's a far more complex subject than you are trying to make out, and as PP have said, an elective CS can be an excellent choice if it is right for you and your baby.

I don't think the OP needs to be told off for asking questions about c section risks. Having just checked, the figures in the OP are those that are given on the main NHS pages about c sections. There's no more detail there about the breakdown of types of c section and pre existing risks/issues.

If I had been told I was having a large baby I’d be more concerned about a vaginal birth and possible shoulder dystocia. And induction increases the risk of a shoulder dystocia. I assume the doctor explained that including the increased risk of mortality? Being pregnant and giving birth is not risk free. Though thankfully serious issues are rare.

It was either c section at 31 weeks or we both die.

Those figures don’t account for emergency c sections do they?

emergency c section

elective c section

vaginal birth

these are the figures you need to compare

No it didn’t freak me out at all. I suspect the fact that a lot of c-sections are done in the case of emergency certainly sways those stats somewhat, both for the mortality rate and for the care for baby afterwards, as would the reason for the c-section in the first place in many cases. Both my c-sections were/are planned, and I’m no more nervous about my second in 9 weeks than I was about my first three years ago.

It didn’t freak me out, it was the only way my baby could be delivered safely.

DC was a planned section for medical reasons, they had to go straight to NICU for a blood transfusion.

lots of babies are born by section due to their medical needs - this will make the figures of babies born by section needing NICU higher.

Well first baby I had a nightmare birth, lost lots of blood and had emergency theatre so could have been the 1 in 25,000.

2nd baby elective caesarean- all went according to plan. I said as soon as I was pregnant I want an ES and they kept asking me all the way til the end of I was sure and I was 💯%!!

those figures are part of the up to date RCOG advice for discussion during the consent process for planned c-section and cover maternal death up to 6 weeks post-natal. They do however come with numerous caveats, including: 'Precise numerical estimates of risks cannot be given and will vary for individual women' and 'the risks include both relative effects (risks of an outcome in one group compared with another) and absolute effects (risks of a specific outcome happening in a group). For example, in uncommon outcomes such as maternal death or neonatal mortality, large relative effects can represent a small absolute increase in risk, because of the low baseline rate of this risk'.

They also come with a whole bunch of other comparisons which should be discussed in conjunction (including the risks of perineal trauma with each mode, the risks of hysterectomy, the risks of uterine rupture in future pregnancies, the risk of needing assistance/c-section when planning a vaginal delivery, etc etc). For some of the discussion points they do attempt to differentiate between planned vs emergency sections. They do specify that in these figures 'Studies including pregnant women with breech presentations, multiple pregnancies, preterm births, babies who are small-for gestational-age, placenta praevia, and maternal infections were excluded'.

their advice is to discuss 'the risks that this woman considers are relevant to her, taking into account her individual circumstances, risk factors and plans for future pregnancies (specify details)' and that there should be discussion of 'the risks of alternative modes of childbirth (including planned vaginal birth: unassisted or assisted, emergency caesarean birth)'.

Because sections more often occur in extremely high risk pregnancies.

If you look at stats for planned sections for low risk pregnancies they won't look like this

@paulyispoorly IIRC 'coincidental' deaths like the example you site are generally factored into mortality rates (the last MBRRACE report definitely refers to this).

Then statistics you are quoting aren't especially meaningful for many of the reasons stated above.