Trial of labor or repeated cesarean section. The woman's choice

Women's views of birth after cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Vaginal birth is a safe mode of childbirth for the majority of women after cesarean section (CS). However, data show that women who have undergone a CS are more likely to have an elective CS (ECS) than a vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in many areas of the world.

AIM

This study aimed to review the literature about women's mode of birth preferences and attitudes and the underlying reasons for, and factors associated with, their preferences.

METHODS

This is narrative literature review. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched, limiting the results to non-interventional studies published between 1990 and 2020. Twenty-one articles were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The review found 34 different factors that influence women's preferences. Five factors influenced both VBAC and ECS preference, depending on the study. The most common factors having a dualistic effect on preference were: medical staff recommendation, doctor's opinion, and fear of pain. The most common factors were: desire to experience natural childbirth, faster/easier recovery, support from doctor's, and midwife's opinion. Among the factors influencing the preference for ECS, two were particularly prominent: predictability, controllability and comfortability of CS and the belief that CS is safer for the baby and/or mother.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review showed that there are a variety of factors that influence women's preference for the mode of delivery after CS. Some of these have a dualistic effect according to the study. The key to making an informed decision regarding the mode of delivery is communication with medical professionals.

Decision aid tools to support women's decision making in pregnancy and birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Support for a model of shared medical decision making, where women and their care providers discuss risks and benefits of their different options, reveal their preferences, and jointly make a decision, is a growing expectation in obstetric care. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different decision aid tools compared to regular care for women facing several options in the specific field of obstetric care. We included published studies about interventions designed to aid mothers' decision making and provide information about obstetrical treatment or screening options. Following a search of electronic databases for articles published in English and French from 1994 to 2010, we found ten studies that met the inclusion criteria. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we found that all decision aid tools, except for Decision Trees, facilitated significant increases in knowledge. The Computer-based Information Tool, the Decision Analysis Tools, Individual Counseling and Group Counseling intervention presented significant results in reducing anxiety levels. The Decision Analysis Tools and the Computer-based Information tool were associated with a reduction in levels of decisional conflict. The Decision Analysis Tool was the only tool that presented evidence of an impact on the final choice and final outcome. Decision aid tools can assist health professionals to provide information and counseling about choices during pregnancy and support women in shared decision making. The choice of a specific tool should depend on resources available to support their use as well as the specific decisions being faced by women, their health care setting and providers.

Changing policies on vaginal birth after cesarean: impact on access

BACKGROUND

The issue of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) has become highly visible and contentious. In 1999, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advocated a policy that surgical capability be "immediately available" for women in labor attempting VBAC.

METHODS

Every hospital in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin was contacted by telephone at least once during the period 2003 to 2005. Using a semistructured interview, respondent hospitals were asked whether and when their policies for VBAC had changed and what was the availability of VBAC services before and after the 1999 policy was issued.

RESULTS

Of 314 hospitals contacted, 312 responded to the survey (response rate 99.4%). Babies were delivered at 230 (74%) respondent hospitals. Almost one-third, 68 of 222 (30.6%), of responding delivery hospitals that previously offered VBAC services had stopped doing so; seven hospitals had never allowed VBAC. Of the hospitals that still allowed VBAC, 68 percent had changed their VBAC policies since 1999, with the most frequent changes requiring the in-house presence of surgery (53%) and anesthesia (44%) personnel when women desiring VBAC presented in labor. Compared with hospitals that stopped allowing VBAC, those that currently permit VBAC were larger (156.6 vs 58.1 beds, t = 7.02, p < 0.001), closer to other delivery hospitals (20.9 vs 39.2 miles, t = 4.33, p < 0.001), annually delivered more babies (1009.9 vs 458.3, t = 4.41, p < 0.001), and annually had more cesarean deliveries (226.7 vs 105.7, t = 3.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the years following advocacy of the 1999 policy, the availability of VBAC services significantly decreased, especially among smaller or more isolated hospitals.

Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labor in low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

The national rate of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery decreased by 55% between 1996 and 2002. The objective of this investigation was to determine, in our population in upstate New York, whether this decline in the vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rate was due to temporal changes in the trial of labor rates or in the vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Regional perinatal databases were used to obtain birth certificate data from a total of 135,833 live births in upstate New York from 1998 to 2002. Trial of labor, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates were calculated for the 11,446 women who had had a previous cesarean delivery and a singleton, low-risk pregnancy at > or = 37 weeks of gestation. Additional factors that were analyzed included age, race, education, insurance, body mass index, parity, gestation, area of residence, prenatal care provider, size of hospital, and level of newborn nursery specialization. Tests for trends were conducted by year for each of the variables.

RESULTS

The trial of labor rate declined 39% from 58.7 in 1998 to 35.7 per 100 eligible women in 2002 (P < .01). The decline in trial of labor rates persisted after stratification within almost all groups (P < .01). The overall vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rate decreased 44%, from 42.7 in 1998 to 24.1 per 100 eligible women in 2002 (P < .01). The decline in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates persisted after stratification within almost all groups (P < .01). The rate of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success was unchanged from 1998 to 2002 (P = not significant).

CONCLUSION

We found a major decline in trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates in low-risk women from 1998 to 2002. There was no change in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success in those patients who attempted trial of labor. This suggests that the decline in the vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates that have been observed nationally may be due to a decline in trial of labor attempts and not to a change in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. The steep declines in trial of labor attempts and vaginal birth after cesarean deliveries suggest that there was a rapid change in the perception of optimal treatment practices for these patients by obstetricians.

Comparison of maternal satisfaction following vaginal delivery after caesarean section and caesarean section after previous vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVES

To compare (i) satisfaction levels among women who delivered vaginally after one previous caesarean (VBAC) with women delivered by caesarean after previous vaginal delivery (CSAVD) and (ii) to assess reasons why women may request caesarean delivery on subsequent pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective questionnaire-based study of maternal satisfaction following both modes of delivery during an 8-month period.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty women completed an early postnatal questionnaire, 70 each in VBAC and CSAVD cohorts. The vast majority in both groups were satisfied with their respective mode of delivery, but would opt for vaginal delivery in their next pregnancy (89% in VBAC versus 94% in CSAVD). The VBAC group experienced minimal pain after delivery and had felt better prepared for delivery (74% versus 41% in the CSAVD group). Reasons for dissatisfaction in the VBAC group included the physical stress of labour and inadequacy of analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Maternal satisfaction with vaginal delivery is high. Those who have experienced both modes of delivery would prefer vaginal birth on future pregnancies. These findings are reassuring to women contemplating vaginal delivery.

Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence on maternal and fetal safety of vaginal and cesarean childbirth after a previous cesarean makes patients and practitioners uncertain about pursuing a trial of labor or an elective repeat cesarean delivery. This review systematically evaluated and summarized the evidence related to women's preference for delivery.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registry of Controlled Trials and the MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched from 1980 to August 2002. We reviewed controlled trials, case-control studies, and observational studies that contained original patient data on preference for women with a previous cesarean delivery and that were of "good" or "fair" quality.

RESULTS

Women with a previous vaginal delivery were more likely to select trial of labor than women who did not have one. The most commonly cited reason for selecting trial of labor was ease of recovery and desire to return quickly to caring for other children (reported in 6 of 7 studies). Safety for the mother and/or infant was cited as an important reason for delivery choice in 4 of 11 studies. Important ethnic differences were reported. Nonwhite women were more likely to identify their provider as an important influence (39% vs 19%), and perceived labor as something to be avoided if another option resulted in a healthy baby compared with white women, who perceived labor as a challenge and an experience not to be missed.

CONCLUSIONS

A woman's choice for delivery was often based on family obligations, such as the need for a shorter recovery so that she could care for her infant and children at home, rather than the safety of herself or her infant. It remains unclear if education on vaginal birth after cesarean increases the proportion of women who choose trial of labor. Future studies should evaluate the impact of education and timing of education on patient preference.

A Native American community with a 7% cesarean delivery rate: does case mix, ethnicity, or labor management explain the low rate?

PURPOSE

Cesarean delivery rates vary widely across populations. Studying communities with low rates of cesarean delivery may identify practices that can lower the cesarean rate.

METHODS

A population-based historical cohort study included all pregnant women (N = 1132) from 1992 through 1996 in a predominantly Native American region of northwestern New Mexico known to have a high prevalence of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. The outcomes studied included delivery type (eg, cesarean, operative vaginal, spontaneous vaginal), indication for cesarean delivery, presence of obstetrical risk factors, and use of labor induction or augmentation.

RESULTS

The cesarean delivery rate of the study group (7.3%) was only 35% of the 1996 US rate of 20.7%. Among study participants, the relative risk of a primary cesarean delivery for dystocia was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14, 0.35). Trial of labor after cesarean delivery was attempted by 93% of study participants compared with 42% of women nationwide in 1994. The cesarean delivery rates for women with diabetes in pregnancy (11.5% versus 35.4%) and preeclampsia (14.8% versus 37.4%) were significantly lower than nationwide rates. Case-mix analysis comparison with a standardized population and comparison of standard (ie, term, singleton, vertex) primiparous women demonstrate that the low rate of cesarean delivery was not because of a lower prevalence of risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The community's low rate of cesarean delivery is primarily the result of a decreased use of cesarean delivery for labor dystocia and an almost universal acceptance of trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Cultural attitudes toward childbirth, design of the perinatal system, and genetic factors also may explain the low rate of cesarean delivery.

Vaginal birth after caesarean section in a population with a low overall caesarean section rate

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical outcome of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) in a Dutch population with a low overall caesarean section (CS) rate of 6.5%.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective population based cohort study of 252 patients with a previous caesarean section (CS). Outcome parameters were trial of labour (TOL), success rate and VBAC rate.

RESULTS

The TOL rate in the study cohort was 73%, success rate 77%, VBAC rate 56%. The reason for the previous CS influenced success rate. Complications, morbidity and mortality were not different between elective, emergency CS and TOL group, except for a higher incidence of haemorrhage more than 500 ml in the elective CS compared to the TOL group (29% versus 17%, relative risk (RR) 1.74 (1.15--2.34)).

CONCLUSIONS

In this Dutch study the success rate is comparable to rate in US study reports. Increase of the VBAC rate can mainly be achieved by increasing the number of women attempting TOL.

Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery

OBJECTIVE

To carry out a systematic review of the literature relating to economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the years 1990-1999 was conducted of electronic and non-electronic sources using a tested search strategy. Papers considered to contain useful cost or resource use data were read in full and classified according to their relevance to the review and their methodological quality. Relevant cost and resource use data were converted to pound sterling and inflated to 1998-1999 price levels.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 975 papers, 49 of which met criteria for the review. Thirty-two papers were from the USA where the organisation, structure and costs of health care are significantly different from that of other industrialised countries. The aggregate costs of different modes of delivery reported in these American studies were between four and five times higher than costs reported in other studies. The majority of included studies were of poor quality. Data from the better quality studies demonstrated that caesarean section costs a health service substantially more than other modes of delivery. The range of costs of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery were 629 pound sterling - 1,298 pound sterling compared with1,238 pound sterling - 3,551 pound sterling for a caesarean section. However, papers have so far only considered short term health service costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is required to estimate the cost and resource use attributable to alternative modes of delivery. Future research should investigate the long term health service costs and the costs that arise outside the health service which are likely to vary according to mode of delivery.

Vaginal births after Caesarean (VBAC): a population study

This paper describes delivery outcomes for women from Victoria, Australia, who gave birth in 1995 and whose immediately previous (penultimate) delivery, within a 5-year search period, was a Caesarean section. Because of the large numbers of records involved, dedicated computer software for record linkage was used to identify the previous delivery and link it with the woman's current birth in 1995. Overall, 79% of the records from multiparous women were linked successfully. Approximately 15% were not linked because the previous birth was before the search period or was an abortion that would not have been reported to the Perinatal Data Collection Unit. Reasons for not being able to link the last 6% of the records include the previous pregnancy being overseas or interstate. Women who had a vaginal birth as the penultimate birth or a multiple birth at either event were excluded, resulting in a study population of 4663 linked records. More women (68%) had a repeat Caesarean than went into labour and, of the remaining women who laboured, 56% delivered vaginally. Overall, 18% of the women delivered vaginally. For the women who went into labour, the reported number experiencing a uterine rupture was two per 1000 births. Uterine rupture was not reported in the two-thirds who did not labour but had a repeat Caesarean. A review of the perinatal deaths identified only two deaths, one baby being born by elective Caesarean and one by a vaginal birth after a previous Caesarean (VBAC) where the choice of delivery methods may have contributed to the death. This large study is one of the few in the literature to provide population-based information on vaginal births after a previous Caesarean and related outcomes.

Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

VBAC is considered safe and is often successful in carefully selected populations of women. Women with prior CDs are given the option of elective repeat CD or a trial of labor; neither option is risk free. Less morbidity is encountered in women with successful VBACs versus those with elective repeat CD. Patients who undergo successful trials of labor experience fewer blood transfusions, fewer postpartum infections, and shorter hospital stays and generally have no increased perinatal mortality. The high CD rate begins with the high frequency of the first CD. Therefore, a concerted effort should be made to decrease primary CDs. Paul and Miller remind us of the importance of the decision to proceed with the initial CD in their statement, "once a cesarean, always a scar (p 1907)." Many patients present for prenatal care with one or more prior uterine scars. Careful and thoughtful counseling of patients with a previous CD regarding the risks and benefits of a labor trial based on the current available literature is prudent. Pitkin's editorial in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1991 stated, "Without question, the most remarkable change in obstetric practice over the last decade involves management of the woman with a prior cesarean delivery (p 939)." Controversies regarding the management of women with scarred uteri remain. In his review of the CD controversy, Flamm leaves us with an important thought: "A woman with a prior cesarean is at increased risk regardless of her mode of birth, and eliminating VBAC will not eliminate the risks. Vigilance with respect to primary cesarean delivery is the only way to avoid this dilemma (p 315)."