Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below

Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To synthesize the published literature on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Specifically, to review the trends and incidence of VBAC, maternal benefits and harms, infant benefits and harms, relevant factors influencing each, and the directions for future research.

DATA SOURCES:

Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE; DARE; the Cochrane databases (1966 to September 2009); and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts.

REVIEW METHODS:

Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to determine study eligibility. The target population includes healthy women of reproductive age, with a singleton gestation, in the U.S. with a prior cesarean who are eligible for a trial of labor (TOL) or elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). All eligible studies were quality rated and data were extracted from good or fair quality studies, entered into tables, summarized descriptively and, when appropriate, pooled for analysis. The primary focus of the report was term pregnancies. However, due to a small number of studies on term pregnancies, general population studies including all gestational ages (GA) were included in appropriate areas.

RESULTS:

We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers for inclusion, of which 203 papers met inclusion and were quality rated. Studies of maternal and infant outcomes reported data based upon actual rather than intended router of delivery. The range for TOL and VBAC rates was large (28-82 percent and 49-87 percent, respectively) with the highest rates being reported in studies outside of the U.S. Predictors of women having a TOL were having a prior vaginal delivery and settings of higher-level care (e.g., tertiary care centers). TOL rates in U.S. studies declined in studies initiated after 1996 from 63 to 47 percent, but the VBAC rate remained unimproved. Hispanic and African American women were less likely than their white counterparts to have a vaginal delivery. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both TOL and ERCD. While rare for both TOL and ERCD, maternal mortality was significantly increased for ERCD at 13.4 per 100,000 versus 3.8 per 100,000 for TOL. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between TOL and ERCD. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean is 3 per 1,000 and the risk was significantly increased with TOL (4.7/1,000 versus 0.3/1,000 ERCD). Six percent of uterine ruptures were associated with perinatal death. No models have been able to accurately predict women who are more likely to deliver by VBAC or to rupture. Women with one prior cesarean delivery and previa had a statistically significant increased risk of adverse events compared with previa patients without a prior cesarean delivery; blood transfusion (15 versus 32.2 percent), hysterectomy (0.7 to 4 percent versus 10 percent), and composite maternal morbidity (15 versus 23-30 percent). Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD. Insufficient data were found on nonmedical factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital staffing, structure and setting, which all appear to be important drivers for VBAC.

CONCLUSIONS:

Each year 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans. Relatively unexamined contextual factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital structure, and staffing may need to be addressed to prioritize VBAC services. There is still no evidence to inform patients, clinicians, or policymakers about the outcomes of intended route of delivery because the evidence is based largely on the actual route of delivery. This inception cohort is the equivalent of intention to treat for randomized controlled trials and this gap in information is critical. A list of future research considerations as prioritized by national experts is also highlighted in this report.

PMID:
20629481
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk