Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.8). 06/2010; 115(6):1267-78. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).
Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE, DARE, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts.
Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses.
We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery).
Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.

  • Anesthesia and analgesia 04/2014; 118(4):884. · 3.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pregnant women who had a previous cesarean birth must choose whether to have a repeat cesarean or to attempt a vaginal birth. Many of these women are candidates for a trial of labor. Current practice guidelines recommend that women should be thoroughly counseled during prenatal care about the benefits and harms of both a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) and an elective repeat cesarean delivery and be offered the opportunity to make an informed decision about mode of birth in collaboration with their provider. The purpose of this article is to improve the process of counseling, decision making, and informed consent by increasing health care providers' knowledge about the essential elements of shared decision making. Factors that affect the decisions to be made and concepts that are critical for effective counseling are explored, including clinical considerations, women's perspectives, decision-making models, health literacy and numeracy, communicating risk, and the use of decision aids. Issues related to birth sites for TOLAC are also discussed, including access, safety, refusal of surgery, and clinical management.
    Journal of midwifery & women's health 04/2014; · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: This study aims to evaluate factors that predict the likelihood of the success of induction of labor (IOL) in women that had a previous cesarean section (pCS). Methods: Pregnant women with one pCS performed more than 18 months prior were included in this retrospective observational study. Of 242 eligible women, 234 were enrolled; 120 (51.3%) of these women delivered vaginally (VD), with the remainder receiving a repeat cesarean section (CS). Results: The main reasons for IOL were premature rupture of membranes (PROM) (37.1%) and post-date pregnancy (26.5%). Babies with a birth weight ≥4000 g were more prevalent in women undergoing CS (21/114; 18.4%, p<.02) and were associated with the failure of IOL. Uterine rupture during labor (1.3%) occurred in 3 cases. Having had a previous vaginal delivery (VD) (P=.01), not being African (P=.022), and receiving IOL for PROM (P=.04) with a cervical Bishop score ≥5 (P=.015) significantly predicted the occurrence of a VD, with an 15% variance (P<.001). An age >35 years appears to not affect the success of induction. Conclusions: A successful IOL should be expected in Caucasian women induced for PROM with a favorable Bishop score.
    The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians 03/2014; · 1.36 Impact Factor