Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE

Volume 11, Number 9, 2016 Clinical Research


ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2015.0165

The Interrelationship Between Repeat Cesarean Section,


Smoking Status, and Breastfeeding Duration

Jordyn T. Wallenborn and Saba W. Masho

Abstract

Background: The rate of breastfeeding duration is staggeringly low with only one-quarter of infants in the
United States being exclusively breastfed at 6 months. Maternal smoking and mode of delivery have been
identified as independent risk factors for shorter breastfeeding duration. This study aims to evaluate the effect of
repeat cesarean delivery on breastfeeding duration, taking into account smoking status.
Materials and Methods: Data from the U.S. population-based Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
survey, 2004–2011, were analyzed. Women who delivered a live singleton baby, had a previous birth through
cesarean delivery, and provided mode of delivery and breastfeeding information were included in the analysis.
Multinomial logistic regression models provided crude and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence
intervals (CIs). All models were stratified by smoking status.
Results: Among smokers, women who had repeat cesarean section had a 2-fold higher odds of never breastfeeding
(AOR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.38–4.29) and a 4-fold higher odds of breastfeeding 8 weeks or less (AOR = 4.11, 95%
CI = 2.08–8.11) compared with women who gave birth vaginally after cesarean section. Among nonsmokers, the
odds of never breastfeeding and breastfeeding 8 weeks or less were 2.4 times (AOR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.84–3.03)
and 1.4 times (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.15–1.80) higher in women who had repeat cesarean section compared with
women who had vaginal birth after cesarean section, respectively.
Conclusions: Among women who smoke during pregnancy, the results suggest that repeat cesarean delivery
negatively affects breastfeeding duration. Interventions are needed for mothers who smoke during pregnancy
and undergo repeat cesarean delivery.

Introduction vaginal delivery, research has also demonstrated that vagi-


nal delivery has a shorter mean time to breastfeeding initi-
ation compared with cesarean delivery.8,9 However, it is
T he United States has one of the lowest breastfeeding
rates in the world.1 In 2014, only 19% of mothers ex-
clusively breastfed their infants for at least 6 months. The
unknown whether the differential effect of breastfeeding
outcomes between cesarean delivery and vaginal delivery
American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers continues after a primary cesarean delivery. It is possible
exclusively breastfeed for 6 months, followed by 6 months of that women who choose vaginal birth after cesarean
continued breastfeeding with the introduction of solid food.2 (VBAC) may have healthy behaviors and healthier choices.
Failure to breastfeed may result in a host of deleterious out- We hypothesize that women who decide to have VBAC may
comes for both mother and child.3–7 have higher level of intention and self-efficacy to breastfeed
One major risk factor associated with the low breastfeed- and engage in positive health behaviors.
ing rate is cesarean section (cesarean delivery).8–10 In fact, a In addition to cesarean delivery, smoking during pregnancy
recent systematic review by Prior et al. reported lower rates has consistently demonstrated a significant association with
of breastfeeding among women with cesarean delivery.9 breastfeeding practices.12–14 In a longitudinal cohort study,
Additionally, women who had a vaginal delivery reported women who smoked during pregnancy were more likely to not
higher breastfeeding rates after discharge at 7 days, 3 months, breastfeed at 6 months compared with nonsmokers, even after
and 6 months compared with women who had an elective or adjusting for maternal age, education, and breastfeeding in-
emergency cesarean delivery.11 tention.10 Another longitudinal study using Kaplan–Meier
In addition to cesarean delivery demonstrating a dif- survival analysis related shorter duration of breastfeeding to
ferential effect on breastfeeding duration compared with a women who smoked during pregnancy.12 This study reported a

Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, Virginia.

1
2 WALLENBORN AND MASHO

Table 1. Distribution of Maternal Characteristics by Mode of Delivery


Repeat C-section
Total weighted% VBAC weighted% weighted%
Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Chi-square
Potential confounders (n = 34,532) (n = 3,365) (n = 31,167) p-value
Age (years) 0.4747
£19 2.0 1.4 2.0
20–24 16.1 15.7 16.2
25–29 27.1 28.4 27.0
30–34 31.3 31.2 31.3
‡35 23.5 23.3 23.5
Education (years) 0.0003
Did not finish high school (<12 years) 16.4 20.3 16.0
High school diploma (12 years) 26.9 24.1 27.2
College or higher (>12 years) 56.7 55.6 56.8
Race/ethnicity 0.0002
White, non-Hispanic 59.8 56.8 60.2
Black, non-Hispanic 14.9 13.2 15.1
Other, non-Hispanic 6.6 7.7 6.4
Hispanic 18.7 22.3 18.3
Not married 29.6 28.4 29.8 0.3219
Income 0.3255
<$20,000 32.4 32.4 32.5
$20,000–$34,999 17.0 18.0 16.9
$35,000–$49,000 10.4 11.5 10.3
‡$50,000 40.1 38.1 40.3
Rural 27.7 22.1 28.3 0.0008
Insurance 0.0002
Private 45.4 43.7 45.6
Medicaid 34.0 34.7 34.0
None 3.3 5.4 3.0
Other 2.0 2.7 1.9
Multiplea 15.3 13.5 15.5
Adequacy of prenatal care utilization <0.0001
Inadequate 11.6 16.2 11.1
Intermediate 12.4 16.7 11.9
Adequate 45.2 41.5 45.7
Adequate plus 30.8 25.6 31.3
Breastfeeding duration <0.0001
Never breastfed 25.0 15.7 26.0
Breastfed £8 weeks 22.1 16.1 22.8
Breastfed >8 weeks 52.9 68.3 51.2
Healthcare worker did not talk about breastfeeding 20.1 20.3 20.0 0.8377
WIC recipient 42.8 42.6 42.9 0.8798
Smoked during pregnancy 13.1 13.9 13.1 0.534
Prepregnancy multivitamin use 0.0043
None 54.6 50.4 55.1
1–3 Days/week 9.0 10.8 8.8
4–6 Days/week 6.4 6.9 6.3
Every day 29.9 31.9 29.7
Prepregnancy BMI <0.0001
Underweight 2.6 3.7 2.5
Normal 40.4 50.9 39.3
Overweight 27.0 26.4 27.0
Obese 29.9 18.9 31.2
Pregnancy intention 0.0128
Unwanted 12.7 12.8 12.7
Mistimed 44.7 41.0 45.1
Intended 42.6 46.2 42.2
(continued)
REPEAT CESAREAN DELIVERY, SMOKING, AND BREASTFEEDING 3

Table 1. (Continued)
Repeat C-section
Total weighted% VBAC weighted% weighted%
Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Chi-square
Potential confounders (n = 34,532) (n = 3,365) (n = 31,167) p-value
Preterm birth (weeks) 0.7075
Term (37+) 91.0 91.3 91.0
Preterm (34–36) 6.9 6.6 7.0
Very preterm (28–33) 1.7 1.7 1.7
Extremely preterm (£27) 0.3 0.4 0.3
Birth weight 0.9439
Normal birth weight 94.2 94.2 94.2
Low birth weight 4.9 4.9 4.9
Very low birth weight 0.9 1.0 0.9
Intimate partner violence before or during pregnancy 8.6 8.4 8.6 0.8602
Hospitalized during pregnancy 13.1 10.3 13.4 0.0094
Length of hospital stay After birth <0.0001
No hospital stay 0.4 2.6 0.2
1–2 Nights 27.0 51.5 24.6
3–4 Nights 61.9 38.9 64.1
5+ Nights 10.7 7.0 11.0
All analyses were performed on weighted data.
a
Multiple indicates two or more of the following insurances: private, Medicaid, or other.
BMI, body mass index; VBAC, vaginal birth after cesarean.

median breastfeeding duration of 28 weeks for nonsmokers before and during pregnancy and the early months after birth.
and 11 weeks for smokers. The PRAMS sample includes women identified through state
Although there is limited physiological evidence sur- birth certificate records as recently having a live birth. Women
rounding the effect of smoking on breastfeeding,15 psycho- selected are typically interviewed 2–6 months after delivery and
social factors may play a role. Mothers who smoke may are contacted by mail or phone. Each participating state samples
believe smoking while breastfeeding is harmful to the baby,16 between 1,300 and 3,400 women per year with a minimum
which may be an explanation for the differential effect ob- overall response rate of 65%. To ensure a representative sample,
served between smokers and nonsmokers. In addition to the higher risk groups (i.e., mothers of low birth weight infants) are
effect of smoking on breastfeeding, there may be a differential sampled at a higher rate.22 A detailed description of PRAMS is
effect between smoking status and the decision to have VBAC. published elsewhere.23
For example, a retrospective analysis of singleton pregnancies The dataset included 319,689 women who had a live sin-
found that smokers had an increased risk of operative deliv- gleton birth. Women were excluded from analysis if they did
ery.17 Furthermore, it is possible that nonsmokers may have not have a previous live birth, whose infant was not alive,
higher self-efficacy to seek and have VBAC due to the nu- who gave birth to more than one child, who did not report
merous benefits associated with VBAC.18 duration of breastfeeding, and did not have a prior cesarean
Considering the strong independent correlation between delivery or the mode of delivery was missing. This yielded a
mode of delivery, smoking status, and breastfeeding duration, total of 34,532 women who had a prior cesarean delivery and
understanding the interrelationship between breastfeeding delivered a live singleton baby.
duration and repeat cesarean delivery among smokers and The exposure variable, mode of delivery, was determined
nonsmokers is essential. To date, extant literature is focused on using the survey item, ‘‘How was your new baby delivered,
breastfeeding initiation or infant to breast contact and primary vaginally or by cesarean delivery?’’ Based on this question,
cesarean delivery8,19–21; however, little is known about the the variable was coded as repeat cesarean delivery and
association between repeat cesarean delivery and breastfeed- VBAC. The outcome variable, breastfeeding duration, was
ing duration. Furthermore, the interaction between VBAC and determined using the survey question, ‘‘How many weeks or
smoking is poorly investigated. Therefore, this study aims to months did you breastfeed or pump milk to feed your baby?’’
evaluate the relationship of repeat cesarean delivery and The data were then categorized as never breastfed, breastfed
breastfeeding duration, taking into account the effect of less than 1 to 8 weeks, or breastfed more than 8 weeks.
smoking status. Breastfed less than 1 to 8 weeks does not include never
breastfed. The 8-week cutoff was determined by the mini-
mum time elapsed between birth and interview. Smoking
Materials and Methods
during the last 3 months of pregnancy was based on the
Data from Phase 5 (2004–2008) and Phase 6 (2009–2011) survey item, ‘‘In the last 3 months of your pregnancy, how
of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System many cigarettes did you smoke on an average day?’’ Smok-
(PRAMS) were analyzed. PRAMS is a U.S. population-based ing was then categorized as smoker and nonsmoker.
survey funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- Based on previous literature, potential confounders
tion (CDC) that identifies maternal experiences and behaviors were examined.24–26 Covariates included maternal age (<20;
4 WALLENBORN AND MASHO

Table 2. Factors Associated with Breastfeeding Duration


Odds ratio (95% CI)
Never breastfed vs. Breastfed £ 8 weeks vs.
Factors breastfed > 8 weeks breastfed > 8 weeks
Age (years)
£19 1.72 (1.19–2.50) 1.36 (0.92–2.02)
20–24 1.00 1.00
25–29 0.48 (0.42–0.55) 0.63 (0.54–0.72)
30–34 0.35 (0.31–0.40) 0.40 (0.35–0.46)
‡35 0.29 (0.25–0.34) 0.38 (0.33–0.44)
Education (years)
Did not finish high school (<12 years) 2.58 (2.28–2.91) 1.50 (1.31–1.71)
High school diploma (12 years) 2.80 (2.54–3.09) 1.83 (1.65–2.02)
College or higher (>12 years) 1.0 1.0
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 1.0 1.0
Black, non-Hispanic 1.90 (1.70–2.12) 1.49 (1.32–1.69)
Other, non-Hispanic 0.38 (0.31–0.45) 0.66 (0.57–0.78)
Hispanic 0.44 (0.38–0.51) 0.88 (0.77–0.99)
Not married (vs. married) 3.07 (2.79–3.37) 1.90 (1.72–2.10)
Income
<$20,000 3.02 (2.72–3.37) 1.94 (1.74–2.17)
$20,000–$34,999 1.93 (1.69–2.19) 1.59 (1.40–1.81)
$35,000–$49,000 1.38 (1.18–1.60) 1.20 (1.03–1.39)
‡$50,000 1.0 1.0
Rural (vs. urban) 1.48 (1.28–1.71) 1.24 (1.08–1.44)
Insurance
Private 1.00 1.00
Medicaid 2.64 (2.39–2.91) 1.79 (1.62–1.98)
None 0.49 (0.36–0.66) 0.77 (0.57–1.03)
Other 0.92 (0.63–1.34) 0.83 (0.56–1.25)
Multiplea 1.22 (1.07–1.38) 1.26 (1.11–1.42)
Adequacy of prenatal care utilization
Inadequate 1.87 (1.62–2.16) 1.10 (0.94–1.30)
Intermediate 1.01 (0.88–1.17) 0.94 (0.82–1.09)
Adequate 1.00 1.00
Adequate plus 1.33 (1.20–1.47) 1.21 (1.09–1.34)
Healthcare worker did not talk about breastfeeding (vs. yes) 0.81 (0.73–0.89) 0.65 (0.58–0.73)
WIC recipient (vs. not) 2.19 (2.00–2.38) 1.70 (1.55–1.86)
Smoked during pregnancy (vs. no smoking) 4.98 (4.27–5.80) 2.89 (2.45–3.41)
Prepregnancy multivitamin use
None 2.43 (2.20–2.68) 1.79 (1.62–1.98)
1–3 Days/week 1.33 (1.12–1.57) 1.27 (1.08–1.50)
4–6 Days/week 0.68 (0.55–0.85) 0.80 (0.66–0.97)
Everyday 1.0 1.0
Prepregnancy BMI
Underweight 1.44 (1.10–1.89) 0.99 (0.73–1.34)
Normal 1.0 1.0
Overweight 1.40 (1.26–1.57) 1.20 (1.08–1.35)
Obese 2.76 (2.42–3.14) 1.83 (1.64–2.04)
Pregnancy intention
Unwanted 1.23 (1.14–1.34) 1.71 (1.48–1.97)
Mistimed 1.32 (1.20–1.44) 1.35 (1.23–1.49)
Intended 1.0 1.0
Repeat C-section (vs. VBAC) 2.21 (1.88–2.60) 1.89 (1.62–2.21)
Preterm birth (weeks)
Term (37+) 1.0 1.0
Preterm (34–36) 1.26 (1.08–1.47) 1.31 (1.12–1.53)
Very preterm (28–33) 0.96 (0.78–1.18) 1.32 (1.10–1.58)
Extremely preterm (£27) 0.70 (0.50–0.99) 0.83 (0.60–1.14)
(continued)
REPEAT CESAREAN DELIVERY, SMOKING, AND BREASTFEEDING 5

Table 2. (Continued)
Odds ratio (95% CI)
Never breastfed vs. Breastfed £ 8 weeks vs.
Factors breastfed > 8 weeks breastfed > 8 weeks
Birth weight
Normal birth weight 1.0 1.0
Low birth weight 1.49 (1.35–1.65) 1.41 (1.27–1.57)
Very low birth weight 1.02 (0.80–1.31) 1.26 (1.01–1.57)
Intimate partner violence before or during pregnancy (vs. none) 1.52 (1.26–1.83) 1.76 (1.46–2.13)
Hospitalized during pregnancy (vs. not) 1.43 (1.24–1.66) 1.50 (1.29–1.75)
Length of hospital stay after birth
No hospital stay 1.0 1.0
1–2 Nights 1.86 (1.03–3.34) 3.33 (1.65–6.71)
3–4 Nights 1.53 (0.86–2.75) 3.26 (1.62–6.55)
5+ Nights 1.91 (1.06–3.47) 3.53 (1.74–7.16)
Bold estimates significant.
a
Multiple indicates two or more of the following insurances: private, Medicaid, or other.
CI, confidence interval.

20–24; 25–29; 30–34; 35+ years), maternal race (non- received institutional review board approval from Virginia
Hispanic black; non-Hispanic white; Hispanic; non-Hispanic Commonwealth University and the CDC.
other), maternal education (<12 years; 12 years/H.S. diploma;
>12 years), marital status (married; other), income (less than
Results
$20,000; $20,000–$34,999; $35,000–$49,999; $50,000+),
rural/urban status (rural; urban), insurance (private; Medic- Majority of the study population were married (70.4%),
aid; none; other; multiple), adequacy of prenatal care (inad- 25–34 years old (58.4%), non-Hispanic white (59.8%),
equate; intermediate; adequate; adequate plus), healthcare completed a college degree (56.7%), and reported a house-
worker discussing breastfeeding (yes; no), WIC recipient hold income of less than $50K (59.9%). Over half (53.0%) of
(yes; no), multivitamin use (did not take multivitamins; one to the women breastfed for greater than 8 weeks, over a fifth
three times per week; four to six times per week; every day), (22.1%) breastfed for 8 weeks or less, and a quarter (25.0%)
prepregnancy body–mass index (underweight [<18.5]; nor- never breastfed (Table 1). Women who never breastfed were
mal [18.5–24.9], overweight [25–29.9], obese [>30]), preg- highest among women less than 20 years old (46.4%), non-
nancy intention (unwanted; mistimed; intended), preterm Hispanic black (37.4%), Medicaid recipients (35.0%), and
birth (term [37+ weeks]; preterm [34–36 weeks]; very pre- women who smoked during pregnancy (50.3%). In contrast,
term [28–33 weeks]; extremely preterm [<28 weeks]), birth rates of breastfeeding for 8 weeks or less were highest among
weight (normal; low birth weight; very low birth weight), women who were obese before pregnancy (26.7%) and had a
hospitalization during pregnancy (yes; no), abuse during high school diploma (25.2%). Last, women who were older
pregnancy or abuse 12 months before pregnancy (yes; no), than 34 years (62.2%), had a college degree (61.1%), were
and length of hospital stay after birth (no hospital stay; 1–2 non-Hispanic other (68.0%), and had no hospital stay after
nights; 3–4 nights; 5+ nights). birth (70.6%) had the highest rates of breastfeeding more than
Descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the dis- 8 weeks. Factors associated with breastfeeding duration can
tribution of the study population. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% be found in Table 2.
confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using survey lo- The unadjusted analysis showed a statistically significant
gistic analysis to examine associations. All analyses were association between mode of delivery and breastfeeding
performed using survey weights; therefore, the results are duration by smoking status. Compared with women who gave
weighted. The effect of confounders was assessed using the birth by VBAC, women who smoked during the last 3 months
10% change in estimate methodology.27 Confounders that of pregnancy and gave birth by repeat cesarean delivery were
showed at least a 10% change in the crude estimate were more likely to never breastfeed (crude odds ratio [COR] =
retained in the parsimonious adjusted model. Based on pre- 2.03; 95% CI = 1.23–3.34) and breastfeed 8 weeks or less
vious literature, smoking status was shown to produce a (2.99; 95% CI = 1.64–5.48). Among women who did not
differential effect on breastfeeding outcomes.12–14 In fact, a smoke during the last 3 months of pregnancy, women who
recent study by Vurbic et al. reported an interaction between gave birth by repeat cesarean delivery were more likely to
smoking and breastfeeding outcomes ( p < 0.001).28 How- never breastfeed (COR = 2.37; 95% CI = 1.89–2.98) and
ever, no statistically significant interaction between smoking breastfeed 8 weeks or less (COR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.24–1.87)
and breastfeeding was observed in the current study ( p = compared with women who gave birth by VBAC (Table 3).
0.20). Based on findings from previous research12–14 and the After adjusting for mode of delivery, length of hospital
studies’ a priori hypothesis aimed to assess the interrela- stay after birth, marital status, and prenatal care adequacy, the
tionship between VBAC, smoking, and breastfeeding, all estimate among women who smoked during pregnancy ac-
analyses were stratified by smoking status. Data were ana- centuated. Among women who smoked during the last 3
lyzed using SAS version 9.4 statistical software. This study months of pregnancy, women who had a repeat cesarean
6 WALLENBORN AND MASHO

Table 3. Association Between Mode of Delivery and Breastfeeding Duration Stratified by Smoking
Parsimonious modela
Unadjusted COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Never breastfed vs. Breastfed £ 8 weeksb vs. Never breastfed vs. Breastfed £ 8 weeksb vs.
Mode of delivery breastfed > 8 weeks breastfed > 8 weeks breastfed > 8 weeks breastfed > 8 weeks
Smoked during last 3 months of pregnancy
Repeat C-section 2.03 (1.23–3.34) 2.99 (1.64–5.48) 2.43 (1.38–4.29) 4.11 (2.08–8.11)
VBAC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Did not smoke during last 3 months of pregnancy
Repeat C-section 2.37 (1.89–2.98) 1.52 (1.24–1.87) 2.36 (1.84–3.03) 1.44 (1.15–1.80)
VBAC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bold signifies significance.
The crude analysis used 24,229 observations and the parsimonious final model used 22,499 observations.
a
Parsimonious controlling for mode of delivery, marital status, prenatal care adequacy, and length of hospital stay after delivery.
b
Breastfed £8 weeks does not include never breastfed.
AOR, adjusted odds ratio; COR, crude odds ratio.

delivery were 2.4 times as likely to never breastfeed (adjusted Results from the current study could be partially explained
odds ratio [AOR] = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.38–4.29) and 4.1 times by an overall lower motivation to breastfeed among women
as likely to breastfeed 8 weeks or less (AOR = 4.11; 95% who smoke during pregnancy. A meta-analysis exploring
CI = 2.08–8.11) compared with women who gave birth by smoking during pregnancy and breastfeeding reported that
VBAC (Table 3). In contrast, women who did not smoke women who smoked were less motivated to breastfeed and
during the last 3 months of pregnancy and had a repeat ce- less likely to initiate breastfeeding.15 A plausible physio-
sarean delivery were 2.4 times as likely to never breastfeed logical explanation hypothesized for the lack of breastfeed-
(AOR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.84–3.03) and 1.4 times as likely to ing among smokers is the differential milk production
breastfeed 8 weeks or less compared with women who gave between smokers and nonsmokers. For instance, a study by
birth by VBAC. Vio et al. reported a negative relationship between milk
production and smoking.29 The same study further stated that
nicotine could cause a malfunction in milk production by
Discussion
blocking prolactin.29 Fears surrounding smoking during
The current study identified smoking during the last 3 breastfeeding may also impact breastfeeding behaviors.
months of pregnancy to be an important effect modifier in the Specifically, mothers who smoke while breastfeeding could
relationship between repeat cesarean delivery and breast- view this as potentially harmful to the baby,30,31 causing
feeding duration. Women who gave birth by repeat cesarean mothers to prematurely wean their child. Furthermore, wo-
delivery and reported smoking during the last 3 months of men who smoke and have problems breastfeeding may be
pregnancy had a higher likelihood of never breastfeeding and unwilling to seek assistance from health professionals for fear
breastfeeding 8 weeks or less, whereas women who reported of being stigmatized.17
not smoking during the last 3 months of pregnancy showed a The current study found (1) the odds of never breastfeed-
weaker association with never breastfeeding and breast- ing and breastfeeding 8 weeks or less were higher among
feeding 8 weeks or less. women who had repeat cesarean delivery and smoked during
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate pregnancy and (2) a significant association between repeat
the association between breastfeeding duration and mode of cesarean delivery and breastfeeding duration. These differ-
delivery preceded by a prior cesarean delivery. The findings ences in breastfeeding duration by mode of delivery may also
in this study demonstrated a differing relationship between be explained by physiological pathways. Women who give
mode of delivery and breastfeeding duration by smoking birth by cesarean delivery are more likely to have maternal
status. Although no prior research (to the authors’ knowl- illness, which could result in reduced breastfeeding success.9
edge) was available to compare with the current study, pre- Additionally, delayed onset of lactation, disruption of
vious literature had examined the independent effect of mode mother–infant interaction, and problems with infant suckling
of delivery and smoking on breastfeeding. For instance, a may negatively affect breastfeeding practices.9
study using the 2005 PRAMS Missouri data found that wo- Findings from the study can be generalized to mothers
men were more likely to never breastfeed if they reported residing in participating PRAMS states in the United States
being a heavy smoker, light smoker, or quit smoking during who had a live birth preceded by a prior cesarean delivery.
pregnancy compared with nonsmokers.13 Similarly, a sys- Results from the current study contribute to existing literature
tematic review and meta-analysis by Prior et al. reported on mode of delivery, smoking status, and subsequent ef-
lower rates of early breastfeeding among women who had a fects on breastfeeding practices. Specifically, the findings of
cesarean delivery (pooled OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.64; this study demonstrated differing breastfeeding practices
p < 0.00001).9 Findings from the current study support these by smoking status during the last 3 months of pregnancy.
conclusions, but uncovered the differential effect of repeat Despite the strengths, this study has a number of limitations.
cesarean delivery by smoking status. Differential recall bias could underestimate or overestimate
REPEAT CESAREAN DELIVERY, SMOKING, AND BREASTFEEDING 7

the association for never breastfeeding and breastfeeding Mulready-Ward, MPH; North Carolina—Kathleen Jones-
8 weeks or less; however, due to the short interval be- Vessey, MS; North Dakota—Sandra Anseth; Ohio—
tween birth and completing the survey, recall bias would be Connie Geidenberger, PhD; Oklahoma—Alicia Lincoln,
reduced. Social desirability bias may influence mothers to MSW, MSPH; Oregon—Kenneth Rosenberg, MD, MPH;
underreport smoking during the last 3 months of pregnancy, Pennsylvania—Tony Norwood; Rhode Island—Sam Viner-
which could bias the estimate toward the null. Additionally, Brown, PhD; South Carolina—Mike Smith, MSPH; Texas—
potential factors such as spousal attitude toward breastfeed- Rochelle Kingsley, MPH; Tennessee—David Law, PhD;
ing, intention to breastfeed, trial of labor after cesarean de- Utah—Lynsey Gammon, MPH; Vermont—Peggy Brozicevic;
livery (failed VBAC), and illnesses that would preclude Virginia—Marilyn Wenner; Washington—Linda Lohdefinck;
women from breastfeeding were not available in the dataset West Virginia—Melissa Baker, MA; Wisconsin—Katherine
and may have affected the effect size. Because we did not Kvale, PhD; and Wyoming—Amy Spieker, MPH, and the CDC
have information on trial of labor (failed VBAC), women PRAMS Team, Applied Sciences Branch, Division of Re-
who failed VBAC were classified as repeat cesarean delivery, productive Health.
which could lead to misclassification and underestimate the
effect size. Due to a high percentage of missing observations, Disclosure Statement
urban/rural status and hospitalization during pregnancy could
No competing financial interests exist.
not be included in the final model despite evidence of con-
founding. Moreover, because of the small number of women
References
who smoke during the last 3 months of pregnancy, the 95%
CIs are wide and future studies with a larger sample size are 1. United Nations Children Fund. Overview of breastfeeding
warranted. Last, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, patterns. Updated 2009. Available at www.childinfo.org/
causal relationships cannot be determined. breastfeeding_overview.html (accessed May 26, 2015).
2. Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of
Conclusions human milk. Pediatrics 2012;129:e827–e841.
3. Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, et al. Breastfeeding and maternal
This study demonstrated an interrelationship between and infant health outcomes in developed countries. Evid
mode of delivery, smoking status during pregnancy, and Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007:1–186.
breastfeeding duration among women with a prior cesarean 4. Chien PF, Howie PW. Breast milk and the risk of oppor-
delivery. Specifically, giving birth by repeat cesarean deliv- tunistic infection in infancy in industrialized and non-
ery among those who smoke during pregnancy is associated industrialized settings. In: Advances in Nutritional Research.
with shorter breastfeeding duration. While the results per- Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001.
sisted for those who had a repeat cesarean delivery, but did pp. 69–104.
not smoke, the strength of association diminished. Because 1 5. Owen CG, Martin RM, Whincup PH, et al. Does breast-
in 10 women report smoking during the last 3 months of feeding influence risk of type 2 diabetes in later life? A
pregnancy,32 healthcare professionals who give postpartum quantitative analysis of published evidence. Am J Clin Nutr
care should be familiar with the implications of repeat ce- 2006;84:1043–1054.
sarean delivery and smoking during pregnancy on breast- 6. Stuebe A. The risks of not breastfeeding for mothers and
feeding practices. The authors recommend efforts to increase infants. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:222–231.
VBAC rates and provide counseling services to smoking 7. Pechlivani F, Vivilaki V. Breastfeeding and breast cancer.
mothers in medical institutions across the United States to Health Sci J 2012;6:610–617.
8. Rowe-Murray HJ, Fisher JR. Baby friendly hospital prac-
help increase breastfeeding success. Further research is
tices: Cesarean section is a persistent barrier to early ini-
warranted on the effect of trial of labor after cesarean delivery
tiation of breastfeeding. Birth 2002;29:124–131.
and breastfeeding outcomes. 9. Prior E, Santhakumaran S, Gale C, et al. Breastfeeding after
cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Acknowledgments of world literature. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:1113–1135.
The authors would like to acknowledge the PRAMS Work- 10. Donath S, Amir L; the ALSPAC Study Team. The rela-
ing Group: Alabama—Izza Afgan, MPH; Alaska—Kathy tionship between maternal smoking and breastfeeding du-
Perham-Hester, MS, MPH; Arkansas—MaryMcGehee, PhD; ration after adjustment for maternal infant feeding intention.
Colorado—Alyson Shupe, PhD; Connecticut—Jennifer Morin, Acta Paediatr 2004;93:1514–1518.
MPH; Delaware—George Yocher, MS; Florida—Avalon 11. Zanardo V, Svegliado G, Cavallin F, et al. Elective cesarean
delivery: Does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding?
Adams-Thames, MPH, CHES; Georgia—Chinelo Ogbuanu,
Birth 2010;37:275–279.
MD, MPH, PhD; Hawaii—Emily Roberson, MPH, PhD;
12. Giglia R, Binns CW, Alfonso H. Maternal cigarette smoking
Illinois—Theresa Sandidge, MA; Iowa—Sarah Mauch, MPH; and breastfeeding duration. Acta Paediatr 2006;95:1370–1374.
Louisiana—Amy Zapata, MPH; Maine—Tom Patenaude, 13. Weiser TM, Lin M, Garikapaty V, et al. Association of
MPH; Maryland—Diana Cheng, MD; Massachusetts—Emily maternal smoking status with breastfeeding practices:
Lu, MPH; Michigan—Cristin Larder, MS; Minnesota—Judy Missouri, 2005. Pediatrics 2009;124:1603–1610.
Punyko, PhD, MPH; Mississippi—Brenda Hughes, MPPA; 14. Liu J, Rosenberg KD, Sandoval AP. Breastfeeding duration
Missouri—Venkata Garikapaty, MSc, MS, PhD, MPH; and perinatal cigarette smoking in a population-based co-
Montana—JoAnn Dotson; Nebraska—Brenda Coufal; New hort. Am J Public Health 2006;96:309–314.
Hampshire—David J. Laflamme, PhD, MPH; New Jersey— 15. Amir LH. Maternal smoking and reduced duration of
Lakota Kruse, MD; New Mexico—Eirian Coronado, MPH; breastfeeding: A review of possible mechanisms. Early Hum
New York—Anne Radigan-Garcia; New York City—Candace Dev 2001;64:45–67.
8 WALLENBORN AND MASHO

16. Haug K, Irgens L, Baste V, et al. Secular trends in breast- 25. Scott JA, Binns CW, Oddy WH, et al. Predictors of
feeding and parental smoking. Acta Paediatr 1998;87:1023– breastfeeding duration: Evidence from a cohort study. Pe-
1027. diatrics 2006;117:e646–e655.
17. Lurie S, Ribenzaft S, Boaz M, et al. The effect of cigarette 26. Oddy WH, Li J, Landsborough L, et al. The association of
smoking during pregnancy on mode of delivery in un- maternal overweight and obesity with breastfeeding dura-
complicated term singleton pregnancies. J Matern Fetal tion. J Pediatr 2006;149:185–191.
Neonatal Med 2014;27:812–815. 27. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiol-
18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ogy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2008.
ACOG practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after pre- 28. Vurbic D, Higgins ST, McDonough SR, et al. Maternal
vious cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(2 Pt 1): body mass index moderates the influence of smoking ces-
450–463. sation on breast feeding. Nicotine Tob Res 2014;16:527–535.
19. Edmond KM, Zandoh C, Quigley MA, et al. Delayed 29. Vio F, Salazar G, Infante C. Smoking during pregnancy and
breastfeeding initiation increases risk of neonatal mortality. lactation and its effects on breast-milk volume. Am J Clin
Pediatrics 2006;117:e380–e386. Nutr 1991;54:1011–1016.
20. Moore ER, Anderson GC. Randomized controlled trial of 30. Kauffman RE, Banner W, Berlin C, et al. The transfer of
very early Mother-Infant Skin-to-Skin contact and breast- drugs and other chemicals into human milk. Pediatrics
feeding status. J Midwifery Womens Health 2007;52:116– 1994;93:137–150.
125. 31. Somogyi A, Beck H. Nurturing and breast-feeding: Ex-
21. Regan J, Thompson A, DeFranco E. The influence of mode posure to chemicals in breast milk. Environ Health Per-
of delivery on breastfeeding initiation in women with a spect 1993;101 Suppl 2:45–52.
prior cesarean delivery: A population-based study. Breast- 32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use
feeding Med 2013;8:181–186. and pregnancy. Updated 2014. Available at www.cdc.gov/
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preg- reproductivehealth/tobaccousepregnancy/. (accessed May
nancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS). Up- 1, 2015).
dated 2013. Available at www.cdc.gov/prams/Methodology
.htm. (accessed March 28, 2014). Address correspondence to:
23. Tong VT, Jones JR, Dietz PM, et al. Trends in Smoking Jordyn T. Wallenborn, MPH
Before, During, and After Pregnancy: Pregnancy Risk As- Division of Epidemiology
sessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), United States, 31 Department of Family Medicine and Population Health
Sites, 2000–2005. Department of Health and Human Ser- School of Medicine
vices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wa- Virginia Commonwealth University
shington, DC, 2009. 830 East Main Street, Suite 821
24. Masho SW, Cha S, Morris MR. Prepregnancy obesity and P.O. Box 980212
breastfeeding noninitiation in the united states: An exami- Richmond, VA 23298-0212
nation of racial and ethnic differences. Breastfeeding Med
2015;10:253–262. E-mail: wallenbornjt@vcu.edu

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen