Key result
Elective caesarean section was associated with a lower likelihood of blood transfusion compared to vaginal birth among low-risk women.
Why the study?
Does elective caesarean section reduce the rate of blood transfusion compared to vaginal birth in low-risk women?
Cohort (n=35,477)
No
Does elective caesarean section reduce the rate of blood transfusion compared to vaginal birth in low-risk women?
Low-risk women undergoing elective caesarean section have a significantly lower risk of blood transfusion compared to those having a vaginal birth, questioning the routine need for preoperative group and save.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports reconsidering routine group-and-save for low-risk elective CS; leaves open need for prospective data before changing practice.
Women undergoing elective caesarean section (CS) routinely have a group and save ordered as part of their preoperative assessment, whereas women with expected vaginal birth do not. Our aim was therefore to determine the rate of blood transfusion at elective CS compared with vaginal birth in a large Australian maternity hospital. A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected de-identified data of 35 477 women, over 4 years, who delivered at the Mater Mothers' Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. After excluding women with established risk factors for transfusion, the likelihood of blood transfusion following elective CS was significantly lower compared to vaginal birth (aOR 0.47 (0.29, 0.77)).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stock et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Low-risk delivery (n=35,477). Elective caesarean section vs. Vaginal birth was evaluated on Blood transfusion (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.77). Elective caesarean section was associated with a lower likelihood of blood transfusion compared to vaginal birth among low-risk women.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: