Trends and patterns of vaginal birth after cesarean availability in the United States

The impact of a trial of labor after cesarean versus elective repeat cesarean delivery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increasing global incidence of cesarean section has prompted efforts to reduce cesarean delivery rates. A trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) has emerged as an alternative to elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) for women with a prior cesarean delivery. However, the available evidence on the comparative outcomes of these 2 options remains inconsistent, primarily due to varying advantages and risks associated with each. Our meta-analysis aims to compare the maternal-neonatal results in TOLAC and ERCD in women with prior cesarean deliveries.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library databases up to September,2022 to identity studies evaluating perinatal outcomes in women who underwent TOLAC compared to ERCD following a previous cesarean delivery. The included studies were subjected to meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the overall findings.

RESULTS

A total of 13 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences were identified in the rate of uterine rupture (OR = 2.01,95%CI = 1.48-2.74, P < .00001) and APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes (OR = 2.17,95%CI = 1.69-2.77, P < .00001) between the TOLAC and ERCD groups. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of hysterectomy, maternal blood transfusion, postpartum infection, postpartum hemorrhage and neonatal intensive care unit (P ≥ .05) admission between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed that TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture and lower incidence APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes compared to ERCD. It is vital to consider predictive factors when determining the appropriate mode of delivery in order to ensure optimal pregnancy outcomes. Efforts should be made to identify the underlying causes of adverse outcomes and implement safety precautions to select suitable participants and create safe environments for TOLAC.

An exploration of barriers to access to trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean in the United States: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Increasing the number of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries is one strategy to reduce the cesarean rate in the United States. Despite evidence of its safety, access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) and VBAC are limited by many clinical and non-clinical factors. We used a scoping review methodology to identify barriers to access of TOLAC and VBAC in the United States and extract potential leverage points from the literature.

CONTENT

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed, English-language studies published after 1990, focusing on access to TOLAC and/or VBAC in the United States. Themes and potential leverage points were mapped onto the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework. The search yielded 21 peer-reviewed papers.

SUMMARY

Barriers varied across levels of influence and included factors related to restrictive clinical guidelines, provider reluctance, geographic disparities, and midwifery scopes of practice. While barriers varied in levels of influence, the majority were related to systemic and interpersonal factors.

OUTLOOK

Barriers to TOLAC and VBAC exist at many levels and are both clinical and non-clinical in nature. The existing body of literature can benefit from more research examining the impact of recent revisions to clinical guidelines related to VBAC as well as additional qualitative studies to more deeply understand the complexity of provider reluctance.

African American Women's Experiences with Birth After a Prior Cesarean Section

OBJECTIVES

Women who have had a cesarean section (C-section) and become pregnant again may choose to have a planned repeat cesarean delivery (RCD) or vaginal birth after a cesarean (VBAC). This study aimed to characterize the pregnancy and birth experiences of African American (AA) women who had a successful VBAC, failed VBAC, or RCD.

METHODS

Eligible participants (N = 25) self-identified as AA, had a C-section and a subsequent birth(s) in the past 12 years, and were educated past high school. Each participant was individually interviewed via phone call. The Sort and Sift, Think and Shift method was used to evaluate interview transcripts to minimize researcher bias and emphasize the voices of the participants.

RESULTS

The resulting themes included the impact of providers on pregnancy and childbirth satisfaction, the value of autonomy in maternal health decision-making, and the role that racism plays in AA women's birth experiences. Although some participants recalled a positive experience, the presence of limited autonomy, lack of support, and negative experiences with providers indicate that birth after a prior C-section for AA women can be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers should address their own racial biases and utilize the shared decision-making approach when their patients decide between a VBAC and RCD to improve patient satisfaction.

Nationwide implementation of a decision aid on vaginal birth after cesarean: a before and after cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Woman with a history of a previous cesarean section (CS) can choose between an elective repeat CS (ERCS) and a trial of labor (TOL), which can end in a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or an unplanned CS. Guidelines describe women's rights to make an informed decision between an ERCS or a TOL. However, the rates of TOL and vaginal birth after CS varies greatly between and within countries. The objective of this study is to asses nation-wide implementation of counselling with a decision aid (DA) including a prediction model, on intended delivery compared to care as usual. We hypothesize that this may result in a reduction in practice variation without an increase in cesarean rates or complications.

METHODS

In a multicenter controlled before and after cohort study we evaluate the effect of nation-wide implementation of a DA. Practice variation was defined as the standard deviation (SD) of TOL percentages.

RESULTS

A total of 27 hospitals and 1,364 women were included. A significant decrease was found in practice variation (SD TOL rates: 0.17 control group vs. 0.10 intervention group following decision aid implementation, p=0.011). There was no significant difference in the ERCS rate or overall CS rates. A 21% reduction in the combined maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide implementation of the DA showed a significant reduction in practice variation without an increase in the rate of cesarean section or complications, suggesting an improvement in equality of care.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Socioeconomic Status and Medical Correlates of Trial of Labor After Cesarean and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean

Objectives: Black and Latinx women have higher rates of trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) compared with White women, but lower rates of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). This study examined potential racial/ethnic differences in correlates of TOLAC and VBAC. Materials and Methods: The analytic sample includes term, singleton hospital births to women with one prior cesarean in birth certificate data for 2016. We estimated associations between medical factors (diabetes, hypertension, and prepregnancy obesity) and socioeconomic status (education level and insurance type) and TOLAC and VBAC using logistic regression, stratifying by race/ethnicity and testing whether coefficients differed across models. Results: Hypertension and obesity were more strongly related to reduced chances of TOLAC among White women than among women of color. For example, having a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 39 (vs. normal BMI) was associated with a 6.3 percentage-point (pp) lower probability of TOLAC for White women, a 5.9 pp lower probability for Black women, and 2.9 pp lower probability for Latinx women. Paying out-of-pocket for birth was associated with a 5.5 pp increase in the probability of TOLAC among White women, versus a 3.2 pp decrease among Black women. Overweight and obesity were associated with lower probability of VBAC, but the magnitude of this association was smaller for Black and Latinx women than for White women. Conclusions: More research is needed to elucidate the underlying decision-making processes that lead to these associations. Future work should focus on ensuring equity in access to VBAC-supportive providers and hospitals and fostering informed decision-making after a prior cesarean.

Trial of labor after previous single cesarean delivery in grand-multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To compare pregnancy outcomes in grand-multiparous (GMP) women with and without one previous cesarean delivery (CD), and to evaluate the number of previous successful vaginal deliveries after a CD needed to reduce the complication rate of trials of labor after a previous CD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of women with singleton pregnancy at term who had a trial of vaginal delivery between 2007 and 2014 at a tertiary medical center. We compared pregnancy outcomes in GMP women with and without one previous cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was mode of delivery and secondary outcomes were uterine rupture and composite maternal and neonatal morbidity. For the secondary objective, we compared pregnancy outcomes in women in TOLAC, stratified by the number of previous vaginal deliveries.

RESULTS

Overall, 2815 GMP women met the study criteria, of which 310 (11%) had a previous cesarean delivery. The rate of a successful vaginal deliveries (VBAC) was similar, regardless of the presence of a previous cesarean delivery. No other differences in outcomes were found between the groups. In a secondary analysis, it was found that the presence of a single previous VBAC (compared to no previous VBACs) increased the odds of achieving a vaginal delivery in the next trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) (aOR 5.66; 95% CI 3.73-8.60), and decreased the risk of maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.97, and aOR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.97, respectively). Multiple prior VBACs (as compared to a single prior VBAC) did not increase the odds of achieving another VBAC.

CONCLUSION

Grand-multiparous women with and without previous uterine scar have comparable pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, after the first VBAC, additional successful VBACs do not improve the success rate in the next TOLAC.

Effect of a Patient-Centered Decision Support Tool on Rates of Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery: The PROCEED Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Reducing cesarean delivery rates in the US is an important public health goal; despite evidence of the safety of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, most women have scheduled repeat cesarean deliveries. A decision support tool could help increase trial-of-labor rates.

Objective

To analyze the effect of a patient-centered decision support tool on rates of trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and decision quality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted in Boston, Chicago, and the San Francisco Bay area. A total of 1485 English- or Spanish-speaking women with 1 prior cesarean delivery and no contraindication to trial of labor were enrolled between January 2016 and January 2019; follow-up was completed in June 2019.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to use a tablet-based decision support tool prior to 25 weeks' gestation (n=742) or to receive usual care (without the tool) (n=743).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was trial of labor; vaginal birth was the main secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes focused on maternal and neonatal outcomes and decision quality.

Results

Among 1485 patients (mean age, 34.0 [SD, 4.5] years), 1470 (99.0%) completed the trial (n = 735 in both randomization groups) and were included in the analysis. Trial-of-labor rates did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups (43.3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted absolute risk difference, -2.78% [95% CI, -7.80% to 2.25%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.05]). There were no statistically significant differences in vaginal birth rates (31.8% in both groups; adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.04% [95% CI, -4.80% to 4.71%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.16]) or in any of the other 6 clinical maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. There also were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in the 5 decision quality measures (eg, mean decisional conflict scores were 17.2 and 17.5, respectively; adjusted mean difference, -0.38 [95% CI, -1.81 to 1.05]; scores >25 are considered clinically important).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among women with 1 previous cesarean delivery, use of a decision support tool compared with usual care did not significantly change the rate of trial of labor. Further research may be needed to assess the efficacy of this tool in other clinical settings or when implemented at other times in pregnancy.

Reasons for previous Cesarean deliveries impact a woman's independent decision of delivery mode and the success of trial of labor after Cesarean

BACKGROUND

Cesarean delivery rates are increasing globally with almost half of them occurring due to a previous Cesarean delivery. A trial of labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) is considered a safe procedure, but most eligible women instead undergo Cesarean before 39 weeks of gestation. Lack of education about TOLAC is often associated with increased repeat Cesarean. To reveal the safety and feasibility of TOLAC, we conducted this observational, prospective study with women's independent decisions. We aimed to clarify the relationship between their chosen mode of delivery and the reason for their previous Cesarean. Additionally, we have tried to identify maternal and obstetric factors associated with failed TOLAC to improve its success rate.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study of 1086 pregnant women with at least one previous Cesarean delivery. Of these, 735 women met our TOLAC criteria (Table 1), and then, could choose TOLAC or repeat Cesarean after receiving detailed explanations regarding the risks and benefits of both procedures. The primary outcomes were the number of successful TOLAC procedures and 5-min Apgar scores < 7 for the trial of labor after Cesarean group and elective Cesarean group. We collected the maternal and neonatal data including the reasons of previous Cesarean.

RESULTS

In total, 64.1% of women chose TOLAC. The success rate was 91.3%. The uterine rupture rate was 0.6%. There were no significant differences in the rate of Apgar scores at 5 min < 7 between both groups. Histories of experience of labor in previous Cesarean delivery were observed in 30 and 50% of women who chose TOLAC and repeat Cesarean, respectively (p < 0.05). Factors related to failed TOLAC included ≥40 weeks of gestation (odds: 5.47, 95% CI: 2.55-11.70) and prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) (odds: 4.47, 95% CI: 2.07-9.63).

CONCLUSIONS

TOLAC is a favorable delivery option for both mothers and neonates when women meet criteria and choose after receiving detailed explanations. Women who experience PROM or ≥ 40 weeks of gestation, their modes of delivery should be reconsulted.

Hospital bans on trial of labor after cesarean and antepartum transfer of care

BACKGROUND

Hospital policies restricting access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) are prevalent. Many women with a previous cesarean birth are affected by these bans, but there are limited data on the effect of these bans and whether women would consider changing delivery hospitals in the setting of a real or hypothetical TOLAC ban.

METHODS

This was a survey of TOLAC-eligible women receiving prenatal care at four hospitals where TOLAC is available, and 1 non-TOLAC site. Participants were asked about their likelihood of switching hospitals to pursue TOLAC if it were unavailable. Women at the non-TOLAC site had their medical records reviewed to ascertain final location and approach to delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 297 women were interviewed, 48 from the non-TOLAC site. 162 (54%) participants indicated they would transfer care if TOLAC were unavailable. Among women at the non-TOLAC site, 57% who indicated an intention to switch hospitals did so. In a multivariable logistic regression model, variables associated with transferring care included race/ethnicity other than Latina (aOR 25.20 [95% CI 2.23-284.26]), being unaware of the TOLAC ban (19.81 [1.99-196.64]), and perceiving that a close friend/relative thought they should undergo TOLAC (17.31 [1.70-176.06]).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of women with prior cesarean would consider transferring care if TOLAC became unavailable, and more than 1 of 3 of women at a non-TOLAC site transferred care. More research is needed on the impact of TOLAC bans and how to facilitate transfer for those who desire TOLAC.

Caesarean section and children's health: A quasi-experimental design

The prevalence of inflammatory child health conditions-such as asthma, eczema, and food allergy-and their associated costs have increased rapidly over the last 30 years. While environmental factors likely underpin these increases, recent studies explain only a fraction of the trend and rely on associational methods. Caesarean (or C-) section rates increased dramatically in the period of interest, and this method of delivery is an understudied environmental factor linked to child health outcomes via the gut microbiome. We fuse 22 years of birth cohort data from the United States National Surveys of Children's Health with C-section rates from the National Vital Statistics System generated for subgroups based on state, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and birth year. Then, we model the effects of C-section on rates of asthma, eczema, and food allergy using a quasi-experimental fixed effects design. We find that C-section significantly predicts food allergy, with qualitatively significant implications.

Correlates of Trial of Labor and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean in the United States

Background: Little is known about trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) uptake and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success on the national level, which is important as national-level data may help shape future clinical guidelines. This study examined correlates of trial of labor and successful VBAC among women with one prior cesarean in the United States in 2016. Materials and Methods: We used publically available birth certificate data for 2016. Outcomes were TOLAC among women with one prior cesarean (N = 338,311) and VBAC among women with a TOLAC (N = 76,688). We used logistic regression to assess the association between the outcomes and the following categories of independent variables: social determinants of health, demographic and medical factors impacting birth, behavioral factors, and geographic access. Results: About 23% of women had a TOLAC, and 74% of women with a TOLAC gave birth vaginally. Black women had higher odds of TOLAC relative to White women, but lower odds of successful VBAC. Women without a high school degree had higher odds of TOLAC and of successful VBAC compared to women who completed high school or beyond, as did women with inadequate prenatal care utilization. Conclusions: Understanding correlates of TOLAC and successful VBAC at the population level is important for developing national guidelines that can be considered and individualized at the patient/provider level.

Women's preference for vaginal birth after a first delivery by cesarean

BACKGROUND

Nearly 90% of United States pregnant women with a prior cesarean give birth by repeat cesarean. Public health goals encourage greater use of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), but there is little prospective data on predictors of women's preference for VBAC. We characterized predictors of women's preferred mode of delivery after a first cesarean and thematically categorized reasons for their preference.

METHODS

Data were from a cohort of 3006 women whose first childbirth was in Pennsylvania in 2009-2011. The analytic sample included women who had their first birth by cesarean and reported mode of delivery preference for their next delivery at 12 months postpartum (n = 616). Associations with future birth mode preference were assessed using multivariate logistic regression, and reasons for preference were categorized using content analysis.

RESULTS

At 12 months postpartum, 45% of women who delivered by cesarean in their first birth wanted to have their next delivery vaginally. Independent predictors of VBAC preference were Black race/ethnicity, nonrecurrent indication for the first cesarean, planning three or more additional children, and difficulty recovering from the first cesarean. The most common reason for preferring a vaginal birth was wanting the experience of vaginal birth; the most common reason for preferring cesarean birth was that the first birth was by cesarean.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of respondents preferred VBAC in future births, but national estimates indicate that only about 12% of women with prior cesareans have a VBAC. This suggests a need to ensure greater access to VBAC for women who want it.

Vaginal birth after caesarean birth in Italy: variations among areas of residence and hospitals

BACKGROUND

The rates of caesarean section (CS) are increasing globally. CS rates are one of the most frequently used indicators of health care quality. Vaginal Birth After Caesarean (VBAC) could be considered a reasonable and safe option for most women with a previous CS. Despite this fact, in some European countries, many women who had a previous CS will have a routine CS subsequently and VBAC rates are extremely variable across countries. VBAC use is inversely related to caesarean use. The objective of the present study was to analyze VBAC rates with respect to caesarean rates and the variations among areas of residence, hospitals and hospital ownership types in Italy.

METHODS

This study was based on information from the Hospital Information System (HIS). We collected data from all deliveries in Italy from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 and we considered only deliveries with a previous caesarean section. Applying multivariate logistic regression analysis, the adjusted proportions of VBAC for each Local Health Units (LHU), each hospital and by hospital ownership types were calculated. Cross-classified logistic multilevel models were performed to analyze within geographic, hospitals and hospital ownership types variations.

RESULTS

We studied a total of 77,850 deliveries with a previous caesarean section in Italy between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. The proportion of VBAC in Italy slightly increased in the last few years, from 5.8% in 2010 to 7.5% in 2014. Proportions of VBAC ranged from 0.29 to 50.05% in Italian LHUs. The LHUs with lower proportions of VBAC deliveries were characterized by higher values for primary caesarean deliveries. Private hospitals showed the lowest mean of crude VBAC proportions but the highest variation among hospitals, ranging from 0 to 47.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital rates of caesarean section for women with at least one previous caesarean section vary widely, and only some of the variation can be explained by case-mix and hospital-level factors, suggesting that additional factors influence practices. Identifying disparities in VBAC may have important implications for health services planning and targeted efforts to reduce overall rates of caesarean deliveries.

Quality measures in high-risk pregnancies: Executive Summary of a Cooperative Workshop of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Providers perceive current obstetric quality measures as imperfect and insufficient. Our organizations convened a "Quality Measures in High-Risk Pregnancies Workshop." The goals were to (1) review the current landscape regarding quality measures in obstetric conditions with increased risk for adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, (2) evaluate the available evidence for management of common obstetric conditions to identify those that may drive the highest impact on outcomes, quality, and value, (3) propose measures for high-risk obstetric conditions that reflect enhanced quality and efficiency, and (4) identify current research gaps, improve methods of data collection, and recommend means of change.

Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Uterine rupture is a potential life-threatening complication during a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Single-layer closure of the uterus at cesarean delivery has been associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture compared with double-layer closure. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement by ultrasound has been used to evaluate the quality of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery and is associated with the risk of uterine rupture.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of previous uterine closure on lower uterine segment thickness.

STUDY DESIGN

Women with a previous single low-transverse cesarean delivery were recruited at 34-38 weeks' gestation. Transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of the lower uterine segment thickness was performed by a sonographer blinded to clinical data. Previous operative reports were reviewed to obtain the type of previous uterine closure. Third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness at the next pregnancy was compared according to the number of layers sutured and according to the type of thread for uterine closure, using weighted mean differences and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 1613 women recruited, with operative reports available, 495 (31%) had a single-layer and 1118 (69%) had a double-layer closure. The mean third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness was 3.3 ± 1.3 mm and the proportion with lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm was 10.5%. Double-layer closure of the uterus was associated with a thicker lower uterine segment than single-layer closure (weighted mean difference: 0.11 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.21 mm). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, a double-layer closure also was associated with a reduced risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm (odd ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.90). Compared with synthetic thread, the use of catgut for uterine closure had no significant impact on third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness (WMD: -0.10 mm; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.02 mm) or on the risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.33). Finally, double-layer closure was associated with a reduced risk of uterine scar defect (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.61) at birth.

CONCLUSION

Compared with single-layer closure, a double-layer closure of the uterus at previous cesarean delivery is associated with a thicker third-trimester lower uterine segment and a reduced risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm in the next pregnancy. The type of thread for uterine closure has no significant impact on lower uterine segment thickness.

Neonatal outcomes following a trial of labor after Caesarean delivery: a population-based study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the neonatal effects of trial of labor after Caesarean (TOLAC) births.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using the CDC's Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Public Use File (2011-2013) on women with a live singleton pregnancy and prior Caesarean delivery. Multivariate logistic regression compared neonatal outcomes between women who underwent a TOLAC with women who did not. Secondary analysis compared outcomes of birth with uterine rupture to those without.

RESULTS

A total of 1,036,554 births met inclusion criteria, of which 17.5% underwent TOLAC. Women who had a TOLAC were more likely to deliver infants requiring neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (odds ratios (OR) 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16) and assisted ventilation (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.03-1.12). Among women with TOLAC, 0.18% of births were in context of a uterine rupture and those neonates had an increased risk of NICU admissions (OR 5.95, 95%CI 4.56-7.76), assisted ventilation (OR 8.89, 95%CI 6.73-11.75), seizures (OR 91.66, 95%CI 42.23-198.93), and death (OR 16.28, 95%CI 5.09-52.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Neonatal morbidity appears slightly increased among women with a TOLAC. However, morbidity and mortality are considerably increased in cases of uterine rupture. Appropriate selection and counseling of women for TOLAC should be undertaken as to minimize uterine rupture risk.

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.

Trial of labor after cesarean in the low-risk obstetric population: a retrospective nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with trial of labor (TOL) after cesarean during subsequent pregnancies in the low-risk population.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and ICD-9 diagnostic and procedure codes from the years 2003 to 2011. A cohort of low-risk pregnant women with a history of previous cesarean delivery were identified and separated into two groups: TOL and no TOL. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) comparing adverse maternal outcomes between these two groups.

RESULTS

Out of 7 290 474 registered deliveries, there were 685 137 low-risk women who met inclusion criteria. Of these women, 144 066 (21.0%) underwent a TOL, with rates remaining steady over the course of our study. The TOL group was at increased risk of overall morbidity (OR 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.66-1.79), most notably uterine rupture (OR 22.52, 95% CI, 19.35-26.20, P<0.01). A secondary analysis showed no apparent correlation between TOL and concomitant adverse maternal outcomes in cases of uterine rupture.

CONCLUSION

Although these outcomes remain rare, low-risk women undergoing a TOL remain at increased risk of adverse maternal events as compared with those who chose elective repeat cesarean delivery.

Effectiveness and short-term safety of modified sodium hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose at cesarean delivery: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The rising cesarean birth rate has drawn attention to risks associated with repeat cesarean birth. Prevention of adhesions with adhesion barriers has been promoted as a way to decrease operative difficulty. However, robust data demonstrating effectiveness of such interventions are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We report data from a multicenter trial designed to evaluate the short-term safety and effectiveness of a modified sodium hyaluronic acid (HA)-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) absorbable adhesion barrier for reduction of adhesions following cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent primary or repeat cesarean delivery were included in this multicenter, single-blinded (patient), randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into either HA-CMC (N = 380) or no treatment (N = 373). No other modifications to their treatment were part of the protocol. Short-term safety data were collected following randomization. The location and density of adhesions (primary outcome) were assessed at their subsequent delivery using a validated tool, which can also be used to derive an adhesion score that ranges from 0-12.

RESULTS

No differences in baseline characteristics, postoperative course, or incidence of complications between the groups following randomization were noted. Eighty patients from the HA-CMC group and 92 controls returned for subsequent deliveries. Adhesions in any location were reported in 75.6% of the HA-CMC group and 75.9% of the controls (P = .99). There was no significant difference in the median adhesion score; 2 (range 0-10) for the HA-CMC group vs 2 (range 0-8) for the control group (P = .65). One third of the HA-CMC patients met the definition for severe adhesions (adhesion score >4) compared to 15.5% in the control group (P = .052). There were no significant differences in the time from incision to delivery (P = .56). Uterine dehiscence in the next pregnancy was reported in 2 patients in HA-CMC group vs 1 in the control group (P = .60).

CONCLUSION

Although we did not identify any short-term safety concerns, HA-CMC adhesion barrier applied at cesarean delivery did not reduce adhesion formation at the subsequent cesarean delivery.

Planned Out-of-Hospital Birth and Birth Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The frequency of planned out-of-hospital birth in the United States has increased in recent years. The value of studies assessing the perinatal risks of planned out-of-hospital birth versus hospital birth has been limited by cases in which transfer to a hospital is required and a birth that was initially planned as an out-of-hospital birth is misclassified as a hospital birth.

METHODS

We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all births that occurred in Oregon during 2012 and 2013 using data from newly revised Oregon birth certificates that allowed for the disaggregation of hospital births into the categories of planned in-hospital births and planned out-of-hospital births that took place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital. We assessed perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal morbidity, and obstetrical procedures according to the planned birth setting (out of hospital vs. hospital).

RESULTS

Planned out-of-hospital birth was associated with a higher rate of perinatal death than was planned in-hospital birth (3.9 vs. 1.8 deaths per 1000 deliveries, P=0.003; odds ratio after adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical conditions, 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 4.30; adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1000 births; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.54). The odds for neonatal seizure were higher and the odds for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit lower with planned out-of-hospital births than with planned in-hospital birth. Planned out-of-hospital birth was also strongly associated with unassisted vaginal delivery (93.8%, vs. 71.9% with planned in-hospital births; P<0.001) and with decreased odds for obstetrical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Perinatal mortality was higher with planned out-of-hospital birth than with planned in-hospital birth, but the absolute risk of death was low in both settings. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.).

Prediction of successful trial of labor after cesarean - the benefit of prior vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

To determine predictive factors for vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all women with singleton pregnancies and a prior single low transverse cesarean section (CS) who attempted vaginal delivery in a tertiary hospital (2010-2014). Pregnancy outcome of women with VBAC was compared to those who failed vaginal delivery. Sub-analysis for women with no prior vaginal deliveries was performed. Pregnancies with non-cephalic presentation, estimated fetal weight >4000 g and any contraindications for vaginal delivery were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 40 714 deliveries, 1767 women met inclusion criteria. Among them 1563 (88.5%) had a VBAC and 204 (11.5%) failed. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding maternal age, comorbidities and pregnancy complications. Predictors for VBAC were (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) interval from prior CS (1.13, 1.04-1.22, p=0.004), previous VBAC (2.77, 1.60-4.78, p < 0.001), prior vaginal delivery prior to the CS (3.05, 1.73-5.39, p < 0.001) and induction of labor (0.62, 0.40-0.97, p = 0.03). For women with no prior vaginal birth, only birthweight was associated with VBAC (0.99, 0.99-1.00, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

While different variables may influence the rate of VBAC, the predictive ability of VBAC for women with no previous vaginal deliveries remains poor.

Midwifery care at a freestanding birth center: a safe and effective alternative to conventional maternity care

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of a midwifery model of care delivered in a freestanding birth center on maternal and infant outcomes when compared with conventional care.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Birth certificate data for women who gave birth in Washington D.C. and D.C. residents who gave birth in other jurisdictions.

STUDY DESIGN

Using propensity score modeling and instrumental variable analysis, we compare maternal and infant outcomes among women who receive prenatal care from birth center midwives and women who receive usual care. We match on observable characteristics available on the birth certificate, and we use distance to the birth center as an instrument.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Birth certificate data from 2005 to 2008.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Women who receive birth center care are less likely to have a C-section, more likely to carry to term, and are more likely to deliver on a weekend, suggesting less intervention overall. While less consistent, findings also suggest improved infant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For women without medical complications who are able to be served in either setting, our findings suggest that midwife-directed prenatal and labor care results in equal or improved maternal and infant outcomes.

Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?

Background

There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour.

Methods

As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed.

Results

The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present].

Conclusions

Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications.

The effect of malpractice claims on the use of caesarean section

Malpractice fears are believed to influence various aspects of obstetrical practice. They seem to have contributed in small part to the rising primary caesarean section rate, but have also played a considerable role in the downtrend in vaginal birth after caesarean statistics. The rising vaginal birth after caesarean section rate between 1981 and 1995 was interrupted by a spate of lawsuits associated with broadened indications for vaginal birth after caesarean section in conjunction with requirements for immediate clinician availability. These factors dramatically reduced the availability of hospitals and clinicians willing to offer vaginal birth after caesarean section. This reversal, however, has not diminished the demand for vaginal birth after caesarean section from various stakeholders in the name of patient autonomy, clinician beneficence and optimal care. Nevertheless, as long as stringent requirements remain for clinician attendance during vaginal birth after caesarean section, and as long as the spectre of preventable error and the lingering dread of lawsuits retain their hold on obstetrical practice, caesarean section trends are unlikely to change.

Nonclinical factors affecting women's access to trial of labor after cesarean delivery

The use of trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) has declined in the last decade, and the clinical risks of TOLAC remain low. Nonclinical factors continue to affect women's access to TOLAC. This article considers 5 categories of factors that seem to be influencing rates of TOLAC and vaginal birth after cesarean: opinion leaders and professional guidelines, hospital facilities and cesarean availability, reimbursement for providing TOLAC, medical liability, and patient-level factors. An evidence base and strategies to provide guidance to create a safe environment for vaginal birth after cesarean are needed. Obstetric information systems are critical to this effort.

Delivery after prior cesarean: success rate and factors

Cesarean delivery rates in the United States have reached an all-time high. The current rate of 31% is 6 times higher than the 1970s rate. Many factors including physician preference and hospital accessibility account for this trend. A decreased vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rate and an increased repeat cesarean rate have important consequences for women in future pregnancies. Because of these considerations, VBAC has been an important issue within the obstetric community for over 3 decades. Identifying the best candidates for VBAC using factors available to the obstetrician can increase the VBAC success rate while minimizing maternal morbidity.

Can a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery be a normal labor and birth? Lessons from midwifery applied to trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery

Women who undergo a trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery (TOLAC) have special needs prenatally and during the intrapartum period. Counseling about the choice of TOLAC versus an elective repeat cesarean delivery involves complex statistical concepts. Prenatal counseling that is patient centered, individualized, and presented in a way that addresses the health literacy and health numeracy of the recipient encompasses best practices that support patient decision making. Evidence-based practices during labor that support vaginal birth and increase patient satisfaction are of special value for this population.

Toward an ethically responsible approach to vaginal birth after cesarean

Determining approach to delivery after a previous cesarean is among the most contentious areas of obstetrics. We present a framework for ethically responsible guidelines and practice regarding vaginal birth after cesarean. We describe ethical complexities of 3 key issues that mark the debate: the cesarean delivery rate, safety, and patient autonomy. We then describe a taxonomy of considerations that should inform a responsible framework for guideline development and highlight critical distinctions between types of guidelines that have been blurred in the past. We then forward 2 central claims. First, in otherwise uncomplicated birth after a single previous cesarean, both vaginal birth after cesarean and repeat cesarean should be regarded as reasonable options; women, rather than policymakers, providers, insurance carriers, or hospitals, should determine delivery approach. Second, in complicated cases, providers and policymakers should carefully calibrate the strength of evidence to ensure differential risk and cost are adequate to justify directive guidelines given important variations in values women bring to childbirth.