Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2650-1095
Planned Primary Cesarean Delivery versus Attempted Labor in Low-Risk Pregnancies: Associations with Adverse Outcomes
Funding None.

Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to compare adverse outcomes among low-risk pregnancies with labor versus planned cesarean delivery (PL-CD).
Study Design
A population-based, retrospective cohort study used U.S. vital statistic data from 2016 to 2021 in low-risk individuals delivered at 37 to 41 weeks with nonanomalous, singletons. Labor status was categorized as no labor (PL-CD) or labor. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal adverse outcome (CNAO); secondary outcomes were a composite maternal adverse outcome (CMAO) and infant death. Additional analysis was performed to re-categorize labor status into three groups: no labor (PL-CD), labored with vaginal delivery (VD) and labored with intrapartum cesarean (IN-CD). Multivariable Poisson regression models were utilized to estimate adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
Among 22,685,620 live births during the study period, 13,686,776 (60.3%) were included: 6.0% had PL-CD, and 94.0% labored. The rates of CNAO and CMAO were 7.97 and 3.17 per 1,000 live births, respectively. Compared with PL-CD, the risk of CNAO (aRR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.57–0.59), infant death (aRR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.57–0.62) and CMAO were lower (aRR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.60–0.64) among those that labored overall. Compared with PL-CD by route of delivery, the risk of CNAO (aRR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.46–0.48) and CAMO (aRR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.44–0.47) was lower among VD, but higher (CANO, aRR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.21–1.26; CAMO, aRR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.69–1.81) if delivered by IN-CD.
Conclusion
Among low-risk pregnancies, those who labored had a lower risk of composite adverse outcomes compared with those with planned cesarean, particularly if delivered vaginally.
Publication History
Received: 28 May 2025
Accepted: 06 July 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
07 July 2025
Article published online:
24 July 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Kilpatrick SJ, Menard MK, Zahn CM, Callaghan WM. American Association of Birth Centers, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's. Obstetric care consensus #9: levels of maternal care: (replaces obstetric care consensus number 2, February 2015). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (06) B19-B30
- 2 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2022. NCHS Data Brief 2023; (477) 1-8
- 3 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
- 4 Rana T, Satwah S, Bellussi F, Berghella V. Obstetrical provider preferences for cesarean delivery on maternal request in uncomplicated pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023; 5 (05) 100839
- 5 Youssefzadeh AC, Mandelbaum RS, Donovan KM. et al. Temporal trends of cesarean delivery on maternal request in the United States, 2016-2019. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 279: 77-83
- 6 ACOG Committee Opinion No. ACOG committee opinion No. 761: cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (01) e73-e77
- 7 Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Informed consent and shared decision making in obstetrics and gynecology: ACOG committee opinion, number 819. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137 (02) e34-e41
- 8 Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (03) 477-482
- 9 Dahlquist K, Stuart A, Källén K. Planned cesarean section vs planned vaginal delivery among women without formal medical indication for planned cesarean section: a retrospective cohort study of maternal short-term complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022; 101 (09) 1026-1032
- 10 Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176 (04) 455-460
- 11 Kaimal A, Norton ME. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #55: counseling women at increased risk of maternal morbidity and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (04) B16-B23
- 12 Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P. et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005; 330 (7497) 960-962
- 13 Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (01) 16-22
- 14 Main EK, Cape V, Abreo A. et al. Reduction of severe maternal morbidity from hemorrhage using a state perinatal quality collaborative. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (03) 298.e1-298.e11
- 15 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335 (7624) 806-808
- 16 Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I. Maternal and infant outcome after caesarean section without recorded medical indication: findings from a Swedish case-control study. BJOG 2013; 120 (04) 479-486 , discussion 486
- 17 Lavecchia M, Sabbah M, Abenhaim HA. Effect of planned mode of delivery in women with advanced maternal age. Matern Child Health J 2016; 20 (11) 2318-2327
- 18 Adewale V, Varotsis D, Iyer N. et al. Planned cesarean delivery vs planned vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023; 5 (12) 101186
- 19 Guo Y, Murphy MSQ, Erwin E. et al. Birth outcomes following cesarean delivery on maternal request: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2021; 193 (18) E634-E644
- 20 Barrett JFR, Hannah ME, Hutton EK. et al; Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (14) 1295-1305
- 21 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356 (9239) 1375-1383
- 22 Hu Y, Huang K, Sun Y. et al. Placenta response of inflammation and oxidative stress in low-risk term childbirth: the implication of delivery mode. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17 (01) 407
- 23 Yektaei-Karin E, Moshfegh A, Lundahl J, Berggren V, Hansson LO, Marchini G. The stress of birth enhances in vitro spontaneous and IL-8-induced neutrophil chemotaxis in the human newborn. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007; 18 (08) 643-651
- 24 Koken G, Cosar E, Sahin FK, Tolga Arioz D, Duman Z, Aral I. Attitudes towards mode of delivery and cesarean on demand in Turkey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 99 (03) 233-235
- 25 Sahlin M, Andolf E, Edman G, Wiklund I. Mode of delivery among Swedish midwives and obstetricians and their attitudes towards caesarean section. Sex Reprod Healthc 2017; 11: 112-116
- 26 Liu X, Landon MB, Cheng W, Chen Y. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in China: what are the risks and benefits?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (06) 817.e1-817.e9