Selected maternal morbidities in women with a prior caesarean delivery planning vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean section: a retrospective cohort analysis using data from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System

The safety of trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) versus elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No comprehensive overview or systematic summary is currently available.

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2020. Studies reporting the safety of TOLAC and ERCS in pregnant women with prior cesarean delivery were included. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted as the effective measures.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies covering 676,532 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the rates of uterine rupture (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.57, 7.15], I² = 81%), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 2.32, 95%CI [1.76, 3.08], I² = 0%) and perinatal death (OR = 1.71, 95%CI [1.29, 2.25], I² = 0%) were higher in the TOLAC group compared with the ERCS group. The rates of peripartum hysterectomy (OR = 0.70, 95%CI [0.44, 1.11], I² = 62%), blood transfusion (OR = 1.24, 95%CI [0.72, 2.12], I² = 95%), and puerperal infection (OR = 1.11, 95%CI [0.77, 1.60], I² = 95%) showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal death compared with ERCS. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the risks of all complications were small in both groups. This information is important for healthcare providers and women choosing the delivery type.

Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section: A structured review of the evidence on the associated outcomes for women and their children in high-income setting

In many high-income settings policy consensus supports giving pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean section a choice between planning an elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or planning a vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC), provided they have no contraindications to VBAC. To help women make an informed decision regarding this choice, clinical guidelines advise women should be counseled on the associated risks and benefits. The most recent and comprehensive review of the associated risks and benefits of planned VBAC compared to ERCS in high-income settings was published in 2010 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This paper describes a structured review of the evidence in high-income settings that has been published since the AHRQ review and the literature in high-income settings that has been published since 1980 on outcomes not included in the AHRQ review. Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for relevant studies meeting pre-specified eligible criteria, supplemented by searching of reference lists. Forty-seven studies were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria and included in the structured review. The review suggests that while planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with an increased risk of various serious birth-related complications for both the mother and her baby, the absolute risk of these complications is small for either birth approach. The review also found some evidence that planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay and a higher likelihood of breastfeeding. The limited evidence available also suggests that planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section is not associated with the child’s subsequent risk of experiencing adverse neurodevelopmental or health problems in childhood. This information can be used to manage and counsel women with previous cesarean section about their subsequent birth choices. Collectively, the evidence supports existing consensus that there are risks and benefits associated with both planned VBAC and ERCS, and therefore women without contraindications to VBAC should be given an informed choice about planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section. However, further studies into the longer-term effects of planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section are needed along with more research to address the other key limitations and gaps that have been highlighted with the existing evidence.

Feeding Practices, Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Vaginal Birth after Cesarean and Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery

Cesarean section rates are constantly rising, and the number of women with a prior cesarean considering a delivery mode for their next labor is increasing. We aimed to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes and feeding method in women undergoing vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) versus elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). This was a retrospective cohort study of women with one prior cesarean delivery (CD) and no previous vaginal births, delivering vaginally or by a CD in a single institution between 2016 and 2018. 355 live singleton spontaneous vaginal and cesarean deliveries were included. 121 women delivered vaginally and 234 had a CD. Neonates born by a CD were more likely to have higher birth weight (p < 0.001), higher weight at discharge (p < 0.001), macrosomia (p = 0.030), lose >10% of their body mass (p = 0.001), be mixed-fed (p < 0.001), and be hospitalized longer (p < 0.001). Children born vaginally were more likely to be exclusively breastfed (p < 0.001). Women undergoing VBAC were more likely to deliver preterm (p = 0.006) and post-term (p < 0.001), present with PROM (p < 0.001), have greater PROM latency period (p < 0.001), and experience intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (p = 0.029), postpartum anemia (p < 0.001), and peripartum blood loss >1 L (p = 0.049). The incidence of anemia during pregnancy was higher in the ERCD cohort (p = 0.047). Women undergoing VBAC are more likely to breastfeed their children, perhaps for the same reason they choose the vaginal method of delivery, as vaginal delivery and breastfeeding along with antibiotic use, are the most important factors decreasing the risk for future diseases in their offspring.

Patients at the centre of care: debriefing patients after caesarean section

Empowering patients and working collaboratively to improve healthcare is a focus for current healthcare development strategies. In obstetric practice, working in collaboration with women to discuss mode of delivery after caesarean section has been shown to impact women’s choice. A preliminary survey in our tertiary maternity unit showed 20% of women gained ‘full clarity’ with the information they received after caesarean-section regarding indication, complications and impact on future delivery. Focus groups identified what information patients required about their surgery. General practitioners (GP) highlighted a lack of communication between secondary and primary care. Junior obstetricians surveyed felt uncertain about debriefing. The aim was to improve monthly ‘full clarity’ scores to 30% in 6 months. Our team introduced a debrief form, filled by the operator and kept in maternity notes. The operator verbally debriefed as part of their current standard practice. Junior doctors postoperatively debriefed the patient using the form. The triplicate form ensured both patients and primary care received a copy. It was anticipated that in the long term, this would provide consistent information and aid informed decision making in subsequent pregnancies. Review of the forms’ use was undertaken weekly. Multidisciplinary input identified barriers to uptake. Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles promoted the project, disseminated results, evidenced growing participation and rewarded consistent form use. Patient groups critiqued the form layout. Teaching aimed to improve junior doctor confidence in debriefing discussions. Sustained participation resulted in effective form uptake. Patient ‘full clarity’ scores improved to 60% with minimal impact on workload. Teaching successfully improved junior doctor confidence as evidenced by increased documented debrief discussions. GP focus groups felt empowered to counsel women consistently about their surgery increasing clarity for everyone. This project highlights that patient satisfaction improves when we listen to their views and commit to change.

Planned mode of delivery after previous cesarean section and short-term maternal and perinatal outcomes: A population-based record linkage cohort study in Scotland

BACKGROUND

Policy consensus in high-income countries supports offering pregnant women with previous cesarean section a choice between planning an elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or attempting a vaginal birth, known as a planned vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC), provided they do not have contraindications to planned VBAC. However, robust comprehensive information on the associated outcomes to counsel eligible women about this choice is lacking. This study investigated the short-term maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with planned mode of delivery after previous cesarean section among women delivering a term singleton and considered eligible to have a planned VBAC.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A population-based cohort of 74,043 term singleton births in Scotland between 2002 and 2015 to women with one or more previous cesarean sections was conducted using linked Scottish national datasets. Logistic or modified Poisson regression, as appropriate, was used to estimate the effect of planned mode of delivery on maternal and perinatal outcomes adjusted for sociodemographic, maternal medical, and obstetric-related characteristics. A total of 45,579 women gave birth by ERCS, and 28,464 had a planned VBAC, 28.4% of whom went on to have an in-labor nonelective repeat cesarean section. Compared to women delivering by ERCS, those who had a planned VBAC were significantly more likely to have uterine rupture (0.24%, n = 69 versus 0.04%, n = 17, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-13.9, p < 0.001), a blood transfusion (1.14%, n = 324 versus 0.50%, n = 226, aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.8, p < 0.001), puerperal sepsis (0.27%, n = 76 versus 0.17%, n = 78, aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.7, p = 0.002), and surgical injury (0.17% versus 0.09%, n = 40, aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8-4.8, p < 0.001) and experience adverse perinatal outcomes including perinatal death, admission to a neonatal unit, resuscitation requiring drugs and/or intubation, and an Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes (7.99%, n = 2,049 versus 6.37%, n = 2,570, aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5-1.7, p < 0.001). However, women who had a planned VBAC were more likely than those delivering by ERCS to breastfeed at birth or hospital discharge (63.6%, n = 14,906 versus 54.5%, n = 21,403, adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p < 0.001) and were more likely to breastfeed at 6-8 weeks postpartum (43.6%, n = 10,496 versus 34.5%, n = 13,556, aRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3, p < 0.001). The effect of planned mode of delivery on the mother's risk of having a postnatal stay greater than 5 days, an overnight readmission to hospital within 42 days of birth, and other puerperal infection varied according to whether she had any prior vaginal deliveries and, in the case of length of postnatal stay, also varied according to the number of prior cesarean sections. The study is mainly limited by the potential for residual confounding and misclassification bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women considered eligible to have a planned VBAC, planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with an increased risk of the mother having serious birth-related maternal and perinatal complications. Conversely, planned VBAC is associated with an increased likelihood of breastfeeding, whereas the effect on other maternal outcomes differs according to whether a woman has any prior vaginal deliveries and the number of prior cesarean sections she has had. However, the absolute risk of adverse outcomes is small for either delivery approach. This information can be used to counsel and manage the increasing number of women with previous cesarean section, but more research is needed on longer-term outcomes.

Neonatal near miss determinants at a maternity hospital for high-risk pregnancy in Northeastern Brazil: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the associations of maternal variables - sociodemographic, obstetrical and maternal near miss (MNM) variables - with neonatal near miss (NNM) using the new concept of NNM formulated by the Centro Latino-Americano de Perinatologia (CLAP) and the corresponding health indicators for NNM.

METHODS

An analytical prospective cohort study was performed at maternity hospital for high-risk pregnancy in Northeastern Brazil. Puerperal women whose newborn infants met the selection criteria were subjected to interviews involving pretested questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed with the Epi Info 3.5.1 program using the Chi square test and Fisher's exact test when appropriate, with a level of significance of 5%. A bivariate analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the groups. All the variables evaluated in the bivariate analysis were subsequently included in the multivariate analysis. For stepwise logistic regression analysis, a hierarchical model was plotted to assess variable responses and adverse outcomes associated with MNM and NNM variables.

RESULTS

There were 1002 live births (LB) from June 2015 through May 2016, corresponding to 723 newborn infants (72.2%) without any neonatal adverse outcomes, 221 (22%) NNM cases, 44 (4.4%) early neonatal deaths and 14 (1.4%) late neonatal deaths. The incidence of NNM was 220/1000 LB. Following multivariate analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with increased risk of NNM were fewer than 6 prenatal care visits (odds ratio (OR): 3.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.57-4.94) and fetal malformations (OR: 8.78; 95% CI: 3.69-20.90). Maternal age older than 35 years (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23-0.83) and previous cesarean section (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.29-0.68) protected against NNM.

CONCLUSION

Based on the large differences between the NNM and neonatal mortality rates found in the present study and the fact that NNM seems to be a preventable precursor of neonatal death, we suggest that all cases of NNM should be audited. Inadequate prenatal care and fetal malformations increased the risk of NNM, while older maternal age and a history of a previous cesarean section were protective factors.

Prior caesarean section and likelihood of vaginal birth, 2012-2016, China

OBJECTIVE

To examine the trends and safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section around the period of the one-child policy relaxation in China.

METHODS

We used data from China's National Maternal Near Miss Surveillance System between 2012 and 2016. To examine trends in vaginal birth after caesarean section, we used Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator. We also assessed the association between vaginal birth after caesarean section and maternal and perinatal outcomes.

FINDINGS

We analysed 871 636 deliveries by women with a previous caesarean section. Both in 2012 and 2016, the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section was 9.8%. After adjusting for institutional, sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics, the rate increased by 14% between 2012 and 2016 (adjusted relative risk, aRR: 1.14; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.07-1.21). Compared to women with a repeat caesarean section, women with a vaginal birth after caesarean section experienced lower incidence of uterine rupture (aRR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.42), blood transfusion (aRR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.87) and admission to the intensive care unit (aRR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25-0.52), but higher incidence of intrapartum stillbirths, (aRR: 7.20, 95% CI: 6.09-8.51), newborns with a 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 (aRR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.54-1.99) and neonatal death before discharge (aRR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.61-2.24).

CONCLUSION

Promotion of vaginal birth after caesarean section could increase the rate even further in China. To ensure the safety of mothers and their newborns, national policies and guidelines on vaginal birth after caesarean section are needed.

Outcome of vaginal birth after cesarean section: A retrospective comparative analysis of spontaneous versus induced labor in women with one previous cesarean section

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare the success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in spontaneous and induced labor.

Design

This is an 8-year retrospective comparative study.

Setting

University hospital.

Population

Five hundred and ninety-four women who had one previous lower segment cesarean delivery.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective study of all women, who had lower segment cesarean section, admitted for trial of labor between April 2010 and November 2016. Five hundred and sixty-seven women who elected to have trial of labor after one previous cesarean were included in the study, of these 477 (84.13%) had spontaneous onset of labor (control group) and 90 (15.87%) had induction of labor (IOL) (study group). Two hundred and seventy-seven women had no previous vaginal delivery, and 297 had one previous vaginal delivery.

Results

We compared the success rates of VBAC in women who had IOL with those who came with spontaneous labor. The rate of vaginal delivery after CS (VBAC) was 50.0% and 66.6% in the study and control groups, respectively. There was a significant increase in the rate of cesarean delivery due to fetal distress in the study group (P = 0.016). There were no cases of uterine rupture in the control group and one case in the study group. Patients who had spontaneous labor and at least one previous vaginal delivery have higher success rate of vaginal delivery.

Conclusion

Women with one previous CS, who undergo IOL, have lower success rates of vaginal delivery compared with those who presented in spontaneous labor. They also have higher risk of CS delivery due to fetal distress. Previous normal vaginal delivery increases the success rate of VBAC.

Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries

BACKGROUND

The OptiBIRTH study incorporates a multicentre cluster randomised trial in 15 hospital sites across three European countries. The trial was designed to test a complex intervention aimed at improving vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) rates through increasing women's involvement in their care. Prior to developing a robust standardised model to conduct the health economic analysis, an analysis of a hypothetical cohort was performed to estimate the costs and health effects of VBAC compared to elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) for low-risk women in four European countries.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and the health effects, measured using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), of VBAC compared with ERCD. A cost-effectiveness analysis for the period from confirmation of pregnancy to 6 weeks postpartum was performed for short-term consequences and during lifetime for long-term consequences, based on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 pregnant women in each of four different countries; Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Italy. A societal perspective was adopted. Where possible, transition probabilities, costs and health effects were adapted from national data obtained from the respective countries. Country-specific thresholds were used to determine the cost-effectiveness of VBAC compared to ERCD. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of model assumptions.

RESULTS

Within a 6-week time horizon, VBAC resulted in a reduction in costs, ranging from €3,334,052 (Germany) to €66,162,379 (Ireland), and gains in QALYs ranging from 6399 (Italy) to 7561 (Germany) per 100,000 women birthing in each country. Compared to ERCD, VBAC is the dominant strategy in all four countries. Applying a lifetime horizon, VBAC is dominant compared to ERCD in all countries except for Germany (probabilistic analysis, ICER: €8609/QALY). In conclusion, compared to ERCD, VBAC remains cost-effective when using a lifetime time.

CONCLUSIONS

In all four countries, VBAC was cost-effective compared to ERCD for low-risk women. This is important for health service managers, economists and policy makers concerned with maximising health benefits within limited and constrained resources.

Mode of birth and medical interventions among women at low risk of complications: A cross-national comparison of birth settings in England and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To compare mode of birth and medical interventions between broadly equivalent birth settings in England and the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data were combined from the Birthplace study in England (from April 2008 to April 2010) and the National Perinatal Register in the Netherlands (2009). Low risk women in England planning birth at home (16,470) or in freestanding midwifery units (11,133) were compared with Dutch women with planned home births (40,468). Low risk English women with births planned in alongside midwifery units (16,418) or obstetric units (19,096) were compared with Dutch women with planned midwife-led hospital births (37,887).

RESULTS

CS rates varied across planned births settings from 6.5% to 15.5% among nulliparous and 0.6% to 5.1% among multiparous women. CS rates were higher among low risk nulliparous and multiparous English women planning obstetric unit births compared to Dutch women planning midwife-led hospital births (adjusted (adj) OR 1.89 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.18) and 3.66 (2.90 to 4.63) respectively). Instrumental vaginal birth rates varied from 10.7% to 22.5% for nulliparous and from 0.9% to 5.7% for multiparous women. Rates were lower in the English comparison groups apart from planned births in obstetric units. Transfer, augmentation and episiotomy rates were much lower in England compared to the Netherlands for all midwife-led groups. In most comparisons, epidural rates were higher among English groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering maternal outcomes, findings confirm advantages of giving birth in midwife-led settings for low risk women. Further research is needed into strategies to decrease rates of medical intervention in obstetric units in England and to reduce rates of avoidable transfer, episiotomy and augmentation of labour in the Netherlands.

Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery and optimising childbirth by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section through enhanced women-centred care (OptiBIRTH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10612254)

BACKGROUND

The proportion of pregnant women who have a caesarean section shows a wide variation across Europe, and concern exists that these proportions are increasing. Much of the increase in caesarean sections in recent years is due to a cascade effect in which a woman who has had one caesarean section is much more likely to have one again if she has another baby. In some places, it has become common practice for a woman who has had a caesarean section to have this procedure again as a matter of routine. The alternative, vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), which has been widely recommended, results in fewer undesired results or complications and is the preferred option for most women. However, VBAC rates in some countries are much lower than in other countries.

METHODS/DESIGN

The OptiBIRTH trial uses a cluster randomised design to test a specially developed approach to try to improve the VBAC rate. It will attempt to increase VBAC rates from 25 % to 40 % through increased women-centred care and women's involvement in their care. Sixteen hospitals in Germany, Ireland and Italy agreed to join the study, and each hospital was randomly allocated to be either an intervention or a control site.

DISCUSSION

If the OptiBIRTH intervention succeeds in increasing VBAC rates, its application across Europe might avoid the 160,000 unnecessary caesarean sections that occur every year at an extra direct annual cost of more than €150 million.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10612254 , registered 3 April 2013.