Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth

The Safety of Low-Dose Aspirin on the Mode of Delivery: Secondary Analysis of the Effect of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether prenatal low-dose aspirin (LDA) therapy affects risk of cesarean versus vaginal delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a secondary analysis of the randomized clinical effects of aspirin in gestation and reproduction (EAGeR) trial. Women received 81-mg daily aspirin or placebo from preconception to 36 weeks of gestation. Mode of delivery and obstetric complications were abstracted from records. Log-binomial regression models estimated relative risk (RR) of cesarean versus vaginal delivery. Data were analyzed among the total preconception cohort, as well as restricted to women who had a live birth.

RESULTS

Among 1,228 women, 597 had a live birth. In the intent-to-treat analysis, preconception-initiated LDA was not associated with risk of cesarean (RR = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07) compared with placebo. Findings were similar in just women with a live birth and when accounting prior cesarean delivery and parity.

CONCLUSION

Preconception-initiated daily LDA was not associated with mode of delivery among women with one to two prior losses.

KEY POINTS

· Aspirin was not associated with risk of cesarean section.. · Aspirin was not associated with mode of delivery.. · No increased risk of bleeding with use of aspirin..

The Associations of Caesarean Delivery With Risk of Wheezing Diseases and Changes of T Cells in Children

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the associations of caesarean delivery (CD) with risk of wheezing diseases and changes of immune cells in children.

Design

The cross-sectional study was conducted between May, 2020 and April, 2021.

Setting and participants

The study was conducted in Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai, China. A total of 2079 children with a mean age of 36.97 ± 40.27 months and their guardians were included in the present study via face-to-face inquiry and physical examination by clinicians.

Methods

Logistic regression was applied to estimate odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between CD and first episode of wheezing (FEW) or asthma. Models were adjusted for premature or full-term delivery, exclusive breastfeeding (at least 4 months) or not.

Results

Among the 2079 children, 987 children (47.47%) were born by CD and 1092 (52.53%) by vaginal delivery (VD). Children delivered by caesarean had significantly lower gestational age (P<0.01) compared with those who delivered vaginally. Our results also showed that CD was related to increased risk of FEW by the age of 3(adjusted OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.06, 2.12) and increased tendency to develop asthma by the age of 4 (adjusted OR 3.16, 95%CI 1.25, 9.01). The subgroup analysis revealed that the negative effects of CD on asthma were more obvious in children without exclusive breastfeeding (adjusted OR 4.93, 95%CI 1.53, 21.96) or without postnatal smoking exposure (adjusted OR 3.58, 95%CI 1.20, 13.13). Furthermore, compared with children born through VD, a significant change of the T cells (increased proportion of CD4+ T cells and decreased number and proportion of CD8+ T cells) were observed before the age of one in the CD group. However, the changes were insignificant in children over 1 year old.

Conclusions

This study showed age-dependent associations of CD with asthma and FEW in offspring. Moreover, CD appeared to have an effect on the cellular immunity in infants, the disorder of which may contribute to the development of asthma in children.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes for women giving birth after previous cesarean

INTRODUCTION

Rising rates of caesarean section (CS) is an issue of particular concern. Recently, there has been research supporting Vaginal Births After Caesarean (VBAC), which is controversial. In Greece, over half of births in the country are by CS, placing Greece among countries with the highest CS rates. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and the factors associated with VBACs and to compare the maternal/neonatal outcomes with a 'non-caesarean' control group.

METHODS

The data were evaluated and retrospectively gathered on archived singleton births, from medical records of a midwifery-led team, between May 2006 and May 2013. The target group of the study included mothers with a previous CS, who had a second birth. The sample consisted of 71 VBAC women and 583 who had normal spontaneous vaginal delivery (NSVD) as the 'non-caesarean' control group.

RESULTS

The duration of labour was longer for the VBACs compared with first-time mothers who gave birth naturally (for duration 481-720 min, 27% vs 10.3%, respectively), episiotomy was more common for VBAC (20.7% vs 7.9%), and epidural analgesia was more often for VBAC (68.4% vs 10%). The percentage of 1-min Apgar score in the range 0-7 in the VBAC group was 5%, and there was no significant difference in women who had NSVD (3.6%). The Apgar score in the 5th minute was always above 8 for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe maternal and neonatal complications are infrequent, and therefore the necessity arises for further continuous studies to ascertain the safety of VBAC.

Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Women with a prior caesarean delivery have an increased risk of uterine rupture and for women subsequently requiring induction of labour it is unclear which method is preferable to avoid adverse outcomes. This is an update of a review that was published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms associated with different methods used to induce labour in women who have had a previous caesarean birth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any method of third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction, with placebo/no treatment or other methods in women with prior caesarean section requiring labour induction in a subsequent pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (data from 707 women and babies) are included in this updated review. Meta-analysis was not possible because studies compared different methods of labour induction. All included studies had at least one design limitation (i.e. lack of blinding, sample attrition, other bias, or reporting bias). One study stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. Vaginal PGE2 versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 42 women): no clear differences for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.03, evidence graded low), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low), serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low). Also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The GRADE outcomes vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes were not reported. Vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 38 women): this trial stopped early because one woman who received misoprostol had a uterine rupture (RR 3.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 84.66) and one had uterine dehiscence. No other outcomes (including GRADE outcomes) were reported. Foley catheter versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, subgroup of 53 women): no clear difference between groups for vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.44, evidence graded low), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.09, evidence graded low), and caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.92, evidence graded low). There were also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Double-balloon catheter versus vaginal PGE2 (one trial, subgroup of 26 women): no clear difference in caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32, evidence graded very low). Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death were not reported. Oral mifepristone versus Foley catheter (one trial, 107 women): no primary/GRADE outcomes were reported. Fewer women induced with mifepristone required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76). There were slightly fewer cases of uterine rupture among women who received mifepristone, however this was not a clear difference between groups (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus Foley catheter (one trial, 80 women): fewer women induced with IMN achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.21, evidence graded low). There was no difference between groups in the number of women who had a caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59, evidence graded very low). More women induced with IMN required oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.32). There were no clear differences in the other reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. 80 mL versus 30 mL Foley catheter (one trial, 154 women): no clear difference between groups for the primary outcomes: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20, evidence graded moderate) and caesarean section (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24, evidence graded moderate). However, more women induced using a 30 mL Foley catheter required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). There were no clear differences between groups for other secondary outcomes reported. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Vaginal PGE2 pessary versus vaginal PGE2 tablet (one trial, 200 women): no difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.60, evidence graded very low), or any of the reported secondary outcomes. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence on methods of induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean section is inadequate, and studies are underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes. Several studies reported few of our prespecified outcomes and reporting of infant outcomes was especially scarce. The GRADE level for quality of evidence was moderate to very low, due to imprecision and study design limitations.High-quality, adequately-powered RCTs would be the best approach to determine the optimal method for induction of labour in women with a prior caesarean birth. However, such trials are unlikely to be undertaken due to the very large numbers needed to investigate the risk of infrequent but serious adverse outcomes (e.g. uterine rupture). Observational studies (cohort studies), including different methods of cervical ripening, may be the best alternative. Studies could compare methods believed to provide effective induction of labour with low risk of serious harm, and report the outcomes listed in this review.

Local birthing services for rural women: Adaptation of a rural New South Wales maternity service

Objective

To describe the outcomes of a public hospital maternity unit in rural New South Wales (NSW) following the adaptation of the service from an obstetrician and general practitioner‐obstetrician (GPO)‐led birthing service to a low‐risk midwifery group practice (MGP) model of care with a planned caesarean section service (PCS).

Design

A retrospective descriptive study using quantitative methodology.

Setting

Maternity unit in a small public hospital in rural New South Wales, Australia.

Participants

Data were extracted from the ward‐based birth register for 1172 births at the service between July 2007 and June 2012.

Main outcome measures

Birth numbers, maternal characteristics, labour, birthing and neonatal outcomes.

Results

There were 750 births over 29 months in GPO and 277 and 145 births over 31 months in MGP and PCS, respectively, totalling 422 births following the change in model of care. The GPO had 553 (73.7%) vaginal births and 197 (26.3%) caesarean section (CS) births (139 planned and 58 unplanned). There were almost universal normal vaginal births in MGP (>99% or 276). For normal vaginal births, more women in MGP had no analgesia (45.3% versus 25.1%) or non‐invasive analgesia (47.9% versus 38.6%) and episiotomy was less common in MGP than GPO (1.9% versus 3.4%). Neonatal outcomes were similar for both groups with no difference between Apgar scores at 5 min, neonatal resuscitations or transfer to high‐level special care nurseries.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates how a rural maternity service maintained quality care outcomes for low‐risk women following the adaptation from a GPO to an MGP service.

Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of ‘near-miss’ maternal morbidity

Background

Studies of maternal mortality have been shown to result in important improvements to women’s health. It is now recognised that in countries such as the UK, where maternal deaths are rare, the study of near-miss severe maternal morbidity provides additional information to aid disease prevention, treatment and service provision.

Objectives

To (1) estimate the incidence of specific near-miss morbidities; (2) assess the contribution of existing risk factors to incidence; (3) describe different interventions and their impact on outcomes and costs; (4) identify any groups in which outcomes differ; (5) investigate factors associated with maternal death; (6) compare an external confidential enquiry or a local review approach for investigating quality of care for affected women; and (7) assess the longer-term impacts.

Methods

Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods including primary national observational studies, database analyses, surveys and case studies overseen by a user advisory group.

Setting

Maternity units in all four countries of the UK.

Participants

Women with near-miss maternal morbidities, their partners and comparison women without severe morbidity.

Main outcome measures

The incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of uterine rupture, placenta accreta, haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, severe sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism and pregnancy at advanced maternal age (≥ 48 years at completion of pregnancy); factors associated with progression from severe morbidity to death; associations between severe maternal morbidity and ethnicity and socioeconomic status; lessons for care identified by local and external review; economic evaluation of interventions for management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH); women’s experiences of near-miss maternal morbidity; long-term outcomes; and models of maternity care commissioned through experience-led and standard approaches.

Results

Women and their partners reported long-term impacts of near-miss maternal morbidities on their physical and mental health. Older maternal age and caesarean delivery are associated with severe maternal morbidity in both current and future pregnancies. Antibiotic prescription for pregnant or postpartum women with suspected infection does not necessarily prevent progression to severe sepsis, which may be rapidly progressive. Delay in delivery, of up to 48 hours, may be safely undertaken in women with HELLP syndrome in whom there is no fetal compromise. Uterine compression sutures are a cost-effective second-line therapy for PPH. Medical comorbidities are associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of maternal death from direct pregnancy complications. External reviews identified more specific clinical messages for care than local reviews. Experience-led commissioning may be used as a way to commission maternity services.

Limitations

This programme used observational studies, some with limited sample size, and the possibility of uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

Implementation of the findings of this research could prevent both future severe pregnancy complications as well as improving the outcome of pregnancy for women. One of the clearest findings relates to the population of women with other medical and mental health problems in pregnancy and their risk of severe morbidity. Further research into models of pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postnatal care is clearly needed.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Effects of Recruiting Midwives into a Family Physician Program on Women's Awareness and Preference for Mode of Delivery and Caesarean Section Rates in Rural Areas of Kurdistan

BACKGROUND

The accepted rate rate of caesarean section is 15%. It is expected that an increase in the density of midwives in the family physician program lead to a decrease in this indicator. This study aimed to compare the rates of caesarean section and women's awareness and preference for mode of delivery before and after the implementation of the family physician program in health centres with and without an increase in midwives density.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, using multistage cluster sampling method a total of 668 mothers with two-month-old children were selected from among all mothers with two-month-old children who were living in rural areas of Kurdistan province. Using the difference-in-differences model and Matchit statistical model, the factors associated with caesarean section rates and women's awareness and preference for mode of delivery were compared in centres with and without an increase in midwives density after the implementation of the family physician program. To compare the changes before and after the program, we used the data collected from the same number of women in 2005 as the baseline.

RESULTS

After adjusting for baseline data collected in 2005, the resutls showed no significant change in caesarean section rates and women's awareness and preference for mode of delivery in the centres with and without an increase in midwives density after the implementation of the family physician program. The Matchit model showed a significant mean increase 14%(0.03-0.25) in women's awareness of the benefits of natural childbirth between 2005 and 2013 in health centres where the density of midwives increased compared with health centres where it did not. The difference-in-differences model showed that the odds ratio of women's preference for caesarean section decreased by 41% among participants who were aware of the benefits of natural childbirth, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: (0.22-0.85); P>0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that an increase in the density of midwives in the family physician program led to an increase in women's awareness of the benefits of natural childbirth. An increase in women's awareness of the benefits of natural childbirth was associated with a decreased preference for caesarean section, however this reduction did not have a significant impact on caesarean section rates; possibly, this finding might be attributed to the complexity of this problem that needs a mixed strategy involving various stockholders.

Internet information on birth options after caesarean compared to the RCOG patient information leaflet; a web survey

Background

Repeat caesarean sections make a substantial contribution to the overall caesarean section rate. It is important to understand what influences women to choose this option when the alternative of attempting vaginal birth after caesarean section is available. As many such women use the internet while seeking information on their options, the aim of this study was to assess content of websites on birth after previous caesarean and identify website characteristics which predict content.

Methods

An internet survey of the forty eight most frequently encountered websites retrieved from a search using various terms relating to birth after caesarean section via a popular search engine was performed. Websites were assessed for their content supportive of either vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS), using the RCOG patient information document, ‘Birth after previous caesarean; Information for You’ as a ‘gold standard’. A simple scoring method which categorised information into either supportive of VBAC (14 facts available) or ERCS (10 facts available) was employed and mean scores compared. Poisson regression analysis was used to assess the extent to which the score was predicted by website funding source, country of origin, author status and intended audience.

Results

A mean of 42.4% (SD 23.8) of facts supportive of VBAC and 44.8% (SD 25.0) of facts supportive of ERCS were featured across the 48 websites, with corresponding scores in the five most frequently encountered websites being 40.0% (SD 13.9) and 66.0% (SD 20.7). Extent of featured information supportive of ERCS was related to country of origin with the UK having higher scores on average than the US.

Conclusions

Women searching for internet information on birth after previous caesarean are exposed to incomplete information. Origin of website has a significant effect on website content.

Obstetric care and method of delivery in Mexico: results from the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Survey

OBJECTIVE

To identify the current clinical, socio-demographic and obstetric factors associated with the various types of delivery strategies in Mexico.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study based on the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Survey (ENSANUT) of 6,736 women aged 12 to 49 years. Delivery types discussed in this paper include vaginal delivery, emergency cesarean section and planned cesarean section. Using bivariate analyses, sub-population group differences were identified. Logistic regression models were applied, including both binary and multinomial outcome variables from the survey. The logistic regression results identify those covariates associated with the type of delivery.

RESULTS

53.1% of institutional births in the period 2006 through 2012 were vaginal deliveries, 46.9% were either a planned or emergency cesarean sections. The highest rates of this procedure were among women who reported a complication during delivery (OR: 4.21; 95%CI: 3.66-4.84), between the ages of 35 and 49 at the time of their last child birth (OR: 2.54; 95%CI: 2.02-3.20) and women receiving care through private healthcare providers during delivery (OR: 2.36; 95%CI: 1.84-3.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The existence of different socio-demographic and obstetric profiles among women who receive care for vaginal or cesarean delivery, are supported by the findings of the present study. The frequency of vaginal delivery is higher in indigenous women, when the care provider is public and, in women with two or more children at time of the most recent child birth. Planned cesarean deliveries are positively associated with years of schooling, a higher socioeconomic level, and higher age. The occurrence of emergency cesarean sections is elevated in women with a diagnosis of a health issue during pregnancy or delivery, and it is reduced in highly marginalized settings.

Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth

BACKGROUND

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section with a policy of planned VBAC for women with a previous caesarean birth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who planned a repeat elective caesarean section with outcomes in women who planned a vaginal birth, where a previous birth had been by caesarean.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised trials involving 320 women and their infants were included. However, data for maternal and infant clinical outcomes were available from one trial with very low event rates, involving 22 women only.For the primary outcomes maternal death or serious morbidity (one study; 22 women; risk ratio (RR) not estimable), and infant death or serious morbidity (one study; 22 women; RR not estimable), there were no statistically significant differences between planned caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned VBAC for women with a prior caesarean birth are both associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices is largely drawn from non-randomised studies, associated with potential bias. Any results and conclusions must therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and a greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. The differences in neonatal physiology following vaginal and caesarean births are thought to have implications for the infant, with caesarean section potentially increasing the risk of compromised health in both the short and the long term. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012) and reference lists of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.

Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study

BACKGROUND

Recent reports of the risk of morbidity due to uterine rupture are thought to have contributed in some countries to a decrease in the number of women attempting a vaginal birth after caesarean section. The aims of this study were to estimate the incidence of true uterine rupture in the UK and to investigate and quantify the associated risk factors and outcomes, on the basis of intended mode of delivery.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A UK national case-control study was undertaken between April 2009 and April 2010. The participants comprised 159 women with uterine rupture and 448 control women with a previous caesarean delivery. The estimated incidence of uterine rupture was 0.2 per 1,000 maternities overall; 2.1 and 0.3 per 1,000 maternities in women with a previous caesarean delivery planning vaginal or elective caesarean delivery, respectively. Amongst women with a previous caesarean delivery, odds of rupture were also increased in women who had ≥ two previous caesarean deliveries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.02, 95% CI 1.16-7.85) and <12 months since their last caesarean delivery (aOR 3.12, 95% CI 1.62-6.02). A higher risk of rupture with labour induction and oxytocin use was apparent (aOR 3.92, 95% CI 1.00-15.33). Two women with uterine rupture died (case fatality 1.3%, 95% CI 0.2-4.5%). There were 18 perinatal deaths associated with uterine rupture among 145 infants (perinatal mortality 124 per 1,000 total births, 95% CI 75-189).

CONCLUSIONS

Although uterine rupture is associated with significant mortality and morbidity, even amongst women with a previous caesarean section planning a vaginal delivery, it is a rare occurrence. For women with a previous caesarean section, risk of uterine rupture increases with number of previous caesarean deliveries, a short interval since the last caesarean section, and labour induction and/or augmentation. These factors should be considered when counselling and managing the labour of women with a previous caesarean section.

Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists about benefits and harms of a planned vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) compared with elective repeat caesarean (ERC). We conducted a prospective restricted cohort study consisting of a patient preference cohort study, and a small nested randomised trial to compare benefits and risks of a planned ERC with planned VBAC.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

2,345 women with one prior caesarean, eligible for VBAC at term, were recruited from 14 Australian maternity hospitals. Women were assigned by patient preference (n = 2,323) or randomisation (n = 22) to planned VBAC (1,225 patient preference, 12 randomised) or planned ERC (1,098 patient preference, ten randomised). The primary outcome was risk of fetal death or death of liveborn infant before discharge or serious infant outcome. Data were analysed for the 2,345 women (100%) and infants enrolled. The risk of fetal death or liveborn infant death prior to discharge or serious infant outcome was significantly lower for infants born in the planned ERC group compared with infants in the planned VBAC group (0.9% versus 2.4%; relative risk [RR] 0.39; 95% CI 0.19-0.80; number needed to treat to benefit 66; 95% CI 40-200). Fewer women in the planned ERC group compared with women in the planned VBAC had a major haemorrhage (blood loss ≥ 1,500 ml and/or blood transfusion), (0.8% [9/1,108] versus 2.3% [29/1,237]; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.17-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with one prior caesarean, planned ERC compared with planned VBAC was associated with a lower risk of fetal and infant death or serious infant outcome. The risk of major maternal haemorrhage was reduced with no increase in maternal or perinatal complications to time of hospital discharge. Women, clinicians, and policy makers can use this information to develop health advice and make decisions about care for women who have had a previous caesarean.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53974531

Women’s Perceptions of Contributory Factors for Successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean

BACKGROUND:In July 2008, a new midwife-led “Next Birth After Cesarean” (NBAC) service was launched at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEMH) in Perth, Western Australia. Midwives from the NBAC service provide antenatal care, evidence-based information about birth choices, tailored birth preparation classes, and assistance with developing birth plans to pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean birth.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the contributory factors that women who were cared for by the NBAC service and experienced a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) perceived to be associated with achieving their desired mode of birth.

METHODS:A qualitative descriptive approach was used for this study in which semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 participant women who have achieved a VBAC and were analyzed using a modified “constant comparison” technique.

FINDINGS:Two key themes reflecting personal and professional factors comprising eight subthemes emerged from analysis of interview data.

CONCLUSIONS:These findings offer a unique perspective on the phenomenon of achieving a VBAC and provide maternity care practitioners and policy makers around the world with valuable insights into how the care environment might be enhanced for women who would prefer a vaginal birth after their previous cesarean section.

Use of a Classification Tool to Determine Groups of Women That Contribute to the Cesarean Section Rate: Establishing a Baseline for Clinical Decision Making and Quality Improvement

OBJECTIVE:To identify the groups of women who are the largest contributors to the cesarean section rate at a maternity facility in South East Queensland, Australia. Examining the characteristics of these women will allow the development of unit-focused initiatives aimed at reducing cesarean sections in these groups of women.

METHOD:A modified version of the Robson Ten Group Classification System was identified as the most appropriate tool to determine cesarean section rates in different groups of women. A prospective clinical audit was then carried out during a 6-month period in 2010 using the tool.

FINDINGS:The Robson Ten Group Classification System identified that planned repeat cesarean section was the largest contributor to the cesarean rate. This was followed by women having their first baby, women having an induction, and women who have a breech presentation at term.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:The Robson classification tool was useful in identifying groups of women at risk of a cesarean section. Unit-specific strategies can now be developed and implemented in an effort to lower the rate. These include increasing the vaginal birth after cesarean rate, the uptake of external cephalic version, supporting nonintervention birth environments, and implementing models of care where clinicians are skilled in facilitating normal birth. The value of using such a tool is the ability to monitor change over time as well as facilitating the comparison of data between units of a similar nature.

Mode of delivery in women with antepartum fetal death and prior cesarean delivery

We describe obstetric outcomes in a group of patients with prior cesarean delivery (CD) presenting with an intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). A secondary analysis of an observational study of women with prior CD was performed. All antepartum singleton pregnancies with a prior CD and IUFD ≥20 weeks' gestation or 500 g were evaluated. Two hundred nine patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. The mean gestational age ± standard deviation at delivery was 31.3 ± 6.5 weeks. The trial of labor rate was 75.6% (158/209), and the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success rate was 86.7%. Labor induction or augmentation occurred in 83.3% of attempted VBAC. Uterine rupture occurred in five women (2.4%), and in 3.4% of those being induced but none of these required hysterectomy. Women with a history of previous CD and an IUFD often undergo trial of labor with a high VBAC success rate. Uterine rupture complicates 2.4% of such cases.

Birth after caesarean study--planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat caesarean for women at term with a single previous caesarean birth: protocol for a patient preference study and randomised trial

BACKGROUND

For women who have a caesarean section in their preceding pregnancy, two care policies for birth are considered standard: planned vaginal birth and planned elective repeat caesarean. Currently available information about the benefits and harms of both forms of care are derived from retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There have been no randomised trials, and recognising the deficiencies in the literature, there have been calls for methodologically rigorous studies to assess maternal and infant health outcomes associated with both care policies. The aims of our study are to assess in women with a previous caesarean birth, who are eligible in the subsequent pregnancy for a vaginal birth, whether a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean compared with a policy of planned repeat caesarean affects the risk of serious complications for the woman and her infant.

METHODS/DESIGN

DESIGN

Multicentered patient preference study and a randomised clinical trial.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Women with a single prior caesarean presenting in their next pregnancy with a single, live fetus in cephalic presentation, who have reached 37 weeks gestation, and who do not have a contraindication to a planned VBAC. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible women will be given an information sheet during pregnancy, and will be recruited to the study from 37 weeks gestation after an obstetrician has confirmed eligibility for a planned vaginal birth. Written informed consent will be obtained. Women who consent to the patient preference study will be allocated their preference for either planned VBAC or planned, elective repeat caesarean. Women who consent to the randomised trial will be randomly allocated to either the planned vaginal birth after caesarean or planned elective repeat caesarean group. Treatment Groups: Women in the planned vaginal birth group will await spontaneous onset of labour whilst appropriate. Women in the elective repeat caesarean group will have this scheduled for between 38 and 40 weeks. Primary Study Outcome: Serious adverse infant outcome (death or serious morbidity).

SAMPLE SIZE

2314 women in the patient preference study to show a difference in adverse neonatal outcome from 1.6% to 3.6% (p = 0.05, 80% power).

Once a cesarean always a cesarean? A computer-assisted decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

A previous decision analysis models for two strategic choices for trial of labor or repeated cesarean after prior cesarean concluded that the degree of wish for an additional future pregnancy appeared to be a major determinant for choice between the two strategic options. We had extended the analysis model to stillbirth and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in addition to placental complications while updating most of the outcomes in the decision tree.

STUDY DESIGN

A model was formulated using a decision tree based on reported probabilities for various outcomes and estimated utilities. The question asked was should trial of labor or repeated cesarean be performed after a prior cesarean, with a varying desire for an additional pregnancy. The highest expected outcome determines the preference of our model.

RESULTS

Our model favors repeated elective cesarean (0.9947) over trial of labor (0.9917) after a previous cesarean and is the preferred approach. This approach was preferable irrespective of the probability of additional pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

In contrary to previous models, when taking into account the occurrence of a live infant birth, birth of an infant with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy stillbirth, neonatal death, abnormal placental implantation, hysterectomy and maternal death the preferred approach for women with previous cesarean is an elective repeated cesarean rather than trial of vaginal delivery.

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

BACKGROUND

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy, there are two options for her care: elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1) and PubMed (1966 to January 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who planned a repeat elective caesarean section with outcomes in women who planned induction of labour, where a previous birth had been by caesarean.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There was no data extraction performed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are both associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices is drawn from non-randomised studies, associated with potential bias. Any results and conclusions must therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2005), MEDLINE (1974 to April 2005), EMBASE (1974 to April 2005), CINAHL (1982 to April 2005) and PsycINFO (1887 to April 2005). We also performed a manual search of the references of all retrieved articles, sought unpublished papers and abstracts submitted to international conferences and contacted expert informants.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.