Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: A systematic review
ABSTRACT Objective External cephalic version (ECV) is a safe and effective intervention that can prevent breech delivery, thus reducing the need for cesarean delivery. It is recommended in national guidelines. These guidelines also mention contraindications for ECV, and thereby restrict the application of ECV. We assessed whether the formulation of these contraindications in guidelines are based on empiric data. Design Systematic review. Population Pregnant women with a singleton breech presentation from 34 weeks. Methods We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1953-2009), EMBASE (1980-2009), TRIP database (until 2011), NHS (National Health Services, until 2011), Diseases database (until 2011) and NICE guidelines (until 2011) for existing guidelines on ECV and studied the reproducibility of the contraindications stated in the guidelines. Furthermore, we systematically reviewed the literature for contraindications and evidence on these contraindications. Main outcome measures Contraindications of ECV. Results We found five guidelines mentioning 18 contraindications, varying from 5 to 13 per guideline. The contraindications were not reproducible between the guidelines with oligohydramnios as the only contraindication mentioned in all guidelines. The literature search yielded 60 studies reporting on 39 different contraindications, of which we could only assess evidence of six of them. Conclusion The present study shows that there is no general consensus on the eligibility of patients for ECV. Therefore we propose to limit contraindications for ECV to clear empirical evidence or to a clear pathophysiological relevance.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since the publication of the Term Breech Trial in 2000, planned cesarean has become the preferred mode of birth for women whose fetus is in a breech presentation. Over the past 20 years, however, subsequent evidence has not shown conclusively that cesarean birth is safer than vaginal birth for a fetus in a breech presentation when certain criteria are met. Many obstetric organizations support the option of planned vaginal birth for women with a breech presentation under strict prelabor selection criteria and intrapartum management guidelines. The growing trend toward cesarean unfortunately has left midwives and other intrapartum care providers in training with dwindling opportunities to competently master skills for vaginal breech birth. Although simulation training offers opportunities to practice infrequently encountered skills such as vaginal breech birth, it is unknown if this alternative will provide sufficient experience for future generations of clinicians. As a result, women with a breech presentation at term who desire a trial of labor often have limited choices. This article reviews the controversies surrounding the ideal mode of birth created by the Term Breech Trial. Criteria for vaginal breech birth are summarized and the role of simulation explored. Implications for midwifery practice when a breech presentation is diagnosed are also included.Journal of midwifery & women's health 04/2014; DOI:10.1111/jmwh.12198 · 1.04 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Professional society guidelines recommend that women with breech presentation be delivered surgically due to a higher incidence of fetal risks compared with vaginal delivery. An alternative is attempted external cephalic version, which if successful, enables attempted vaginal delivery. Attitudes towards external cephalic version (ECV) will be considered in this review, along with pain relief methods and their impact on ECV success rates. RECENT FINDINGS: Articles suggest that ECV is infrequently offered, due to both physician and patient factors. Success of ECV is higher in multiparous women, complete breech, posterior placenta, or smaller fetus. Preterm ECV performance does not increase vaginal delivery rates. Neuraxial techniques (spinal or epidural) significantly increase ECV success rates, as do moxibustion and hypnosis. Four reviews summarized studies considering ECV and neuraxial techniques. These reviews suggest that neuraxial techniques using high (surgical) doses of local anesthetic are efficacious compared with control groups not using anesthesia, whereas techniques using low-doses are not. Low-dose versus high-dose neuraxial analgesia/anesthesia has not been directly compared in a single study. Based on currently available data, the rate of cephalic presentation is not increased using neuraxial techniques, but vaginal delivery rates are higher. ECV appears to be a low-risk procedure. SUMMARY: The logistics of routine ECV and provision of optimal neuraxial techniques for successful ECV require additional research. Safety aspects of neuraxial anesthesia for ECV require further investigation.Current opinion in anaesthesiology 04/2013; DOI:10.1097/ACO.0b013e328360f64e · 2.53 Impact Factor