Fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality following delivery after previous cesarean

The Association between Hospital Frequency of Labor after Cesarean and Outcomes in California

BACKGROUND

Labor after cesarean (LAC) is an alternative to planned repeat cesarean delivery. The effect of hospital-level factors on LAC frequency and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) has been relatively understudied. It was our goal to determine if hospital frequency of LAC (number of women undergoing LAC/number of women with previous uterine scars) is associated with increased VBAC and associated outcomes among women undergoing LAC.

METHODS

We analyzed 43,331 term, singleton births to women who experienced LAC in California from 2007 to 2010. We conducted multivariable logistic regressions of infant and maternal outcomes for women at hospitals with high LAC frequency (≥median) compared with low LAC frequency (<median), adjusting for maternal and hospital characteristics. We stratified analyses by overall hospital birth volume (categories 1, low; 2, medium; 3, high).

RESULTS

We did not observe an association between high LAC frequency and VBAC in any category of hospital birth volume in regression models. We found that women in hospitals with high LAC frequency had higher odds of infection in category 1 (low) and 2 (medium) hospitals (category 1 hospitals adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.48; category 2 hospitals, aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.34-3.35) and postpartum hemorrhage in category 2 and 3 hospitals (category 2 hospitals: aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.57-3.94; category 3 hospitals: aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.24-2.70). We observed that high LAC frequency was associated with more adverse outcomes (e.g., infection, severe perineal lacerations, decreased Apgar scores) in category 2 than in category 1 and 3 hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that high LAC frequency was associated with more VBAC, nor with many perinatal complications in category 1 and 3 hospitals. The associations between high LAC frequency and both infection and postpartum hemorrhage are concerning and require further investigation. There may be a sensitive balance between increasing LAC access and determining appropriate LAC candidate selection.

Vaginal birth after cesarean: neonatal outcomes and United States birth setting

BACKGROUND

Women who seek vaginal birth after cesarean delivery may find limited in-hospital options. Increasing numbers of women in the United States are delivering by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery out-of-hospital. Little is known about neonatal outcomes among those who deliver by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in- vs out-of-hospital.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes between women who deliver via vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in-hospital vs out-of-hospital (home and freestanding birth center).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2007-2010 linked United States birth and death records to compare singleton, term, vertex, nonanomolous, and liveborn neonates who delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in- or out-of-hospital. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to estimate unadjusted, absolute, and relative birth-setting risk differences. Analyses were stratified by parity and history of vaginal birth. Sensitivity analyses that involved 3 transfer status scenarios were conducted.

RESULTS

Of women in the United States with a history of cesarean delivery (n=1,138,813), only a small proportion delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery with the subsequent pregnancy (n=109,970; 9.65%). The proportion of home vaginal birth after cesarean delivery births increased from 1.78-2.45%. A pattern of increased neonatal morbidity was noted in unadjusted analysis (neonatal seizures, Apgar score <7 or <4, neonatal seizures), with higher morbidity noted in the out-of-hospital setting (neonatal seizures, 23 [0.02%] vs 6 [0.19%; P<.001]; Apgar score <7, 2859 [2.68%] vs 139 [4.42%; P<.001; Apgar score <4, 431 [0.4%] vs 23 [0.73; P=.01]). A similar, but nonsignificant, pattern of increased risk was observed for neonatal death and ventilator support among those neonates who were born in the out-of-hospital setting. Multivariate regression estimated that neonates who were born in an out-of-hospital setting had higher odds of poor outcomes (neonatal seizures [adjusted odds ratio, 8.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-25.4); Apgar score <7 [adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.96]; Apgar score <4 [adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.79]). Although the odds of neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-6.05; P=.18) and ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-2.46) appeared to be increased in out-of-hospital settings, findings did not reach statistical significance. Women birthing their second child by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in out-of-hospital settings had higher odds of neonatal morbidity and death compared with women of higher parity. Women who had not birthed vaginally prior to out-of-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery had higher odds of neonatal morbidity and mortality compared with women who had birthed vaginally prior to out-of-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Sensitivity analyses generated distributions of plausible alternative estimates by outcome.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than 1 in 10 women in the United States with a previous cesarean delivery delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in any setting, and increasing proportions of these women delivered in an out-of-hospital setting. Adverse outcomes were more frequent for neonates who were born in an out-of-hospital setting, with risk concentrated among women birthing their second child and women without a history of vaginal birth. This information urgently signals the need to increase availability of in-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and suggests that there may be benefit associated with increasing options that support physiologic birth and may prevent primary cesarean delivery safely. Results may inform evidence-based recommendations for birthplace among women who seek vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

Trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) is associated with increased risk for instrumental delivery

We compared the rates of instrumental delivery in a cohort of nulliparous women at term (n = 19,416), to primiparous women who attempted labour after prior caesarean (TOLAC) (n = 1747). The rate of instrumental deliveries was higher in the TOLAC group compared to nulliparous gravidas (17.3 vs. 15% respectively, p = 0.001). The difference was more prominent for women who eventually had successful vaginal delivery (TOLAC: 23.9% vs.

CONTROLS

17.1%, p < 0.0001 respectively). Based on our results, previous caesarean whether urgent or elective was associated with an increased risk of instrumental delivery in the subsequent pregnancy.

A critical review of vaginal birth rates after a primary Caesarean in Queensland hospitals

INTRODUCTION

For women with a lower uterine incision without indication for repeat Caesarean section (CS), vaginal birth for their next pregnancy is a safe option. Although these women should be encouraged to consider vaginal birth after a Caesarean section (VBAC) it is not consistently supported in practice. There is relatively little information on the extent to which maternal preference, birthing decisions and outcomes match best available evidence.

AIM

To describe current VBAC rates for women in Queensland, Australia and compare this to safe, achievable VBAC rates reported in national and international studies.

METHOD

Perinatal data from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed to determine current VBAC rates following a primary CS for women birthing in Queensland. These were compared with VBAC rates reported in the literature.

RESULTS

Queensland has a high overall CS rate and high repeat CS rate compared with the national average. In 2010, Queensland VBAC rates for next birth following primary CS were 14% (range 13-21% public sector, 7-11% private hospitals). This is substantially lower than achievable Australian rates of 24% and international rates.

CONCLUSION

Low VBAC rates reflect low numbers of women commencing labour in a pregnancy subsequent to a primary CS. There is unexplained variation in VBAC rates between maternity facilities. Clinical reviews to support evidence-based practice are warranted.

[Benefits and harms to the newborn of maternal attempt at trial of labor after prior caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate neonatal outcome after elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) versus trial of labor (TOL) after previous cesarean delivery.

METHODS

This systematic evidence review is based on Pubmed search, Cochrane library and experts recommendations.

RESULTS

The risks of fetal, perinatal and neonatal mortality are low after previous cesarean delivery but significantly higher for TOL as compared with ERCD. The risk of bag-and-mask ventilation and intubation for meconium-stained amniotic fluid are higher for TOL as compared with ERCD. Infants born after ERCD are more likely presented transient tachypnea. The risk of hypoxic encephalopathy/asphyxia is low after previous cesarean delivery but significantly higher for TOL as compared with ERCD. The risk of neonatal sepsis after previous cesarean delivery is significantly higher for TOL as compared with ERCD. There is no significant difference between TOL or ERCD regarding NICU admission. The strength of evidence is low to conclude about the impact of route of delivery upon birth trauma and Apgar score.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of the main neonatal complications is low whatever the route of delivery after previous caesarean delivery. However, the risk of perinatal mortality, bag-and-mask ventilation, perinatal asphyxia, is higher after TOL compared with ERCD. The risk of transient tachypnea is higher after ERCD compared with TOL.