Cathy Emeis

Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). DATA SOURCES: 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. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: 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. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

New Insights on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Can It Be Predicted?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) screening tools and to identify additional factors that may predict VBAC or failed trial of labor. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and the Cochrane databases (1980-September 2009), and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, web sites, and experts. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria limited studies to those of humans, written in English, studies conducted in the United States and developed countries, and those rated good or fair quality by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Studies of individual predictors were combined using a random effects model when the estimated odds ratios were comparable across included studies. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers, of which 203 met inclusion criteria and were quality-rated. Twenty-eight provided evidence on predictors of VBAC and 16 presented information on scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor). Six of the 11 scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor) were validated by separated dataset, cross-validation, or both. Whereas accuracy remained high across all models for predicting VBAC, with predictive values ranging from 88% to 95%, accuracy for predicting failed trial of labor was low, ranging from 33% to 58%. Individual predictors including Hispanic ethnicity, African-American race, advanced maternal age, no previous vaginal birth history, birth weight heavier than 4 kg, and use of either augmentation or induction were all associated with reduced likelihood of VBAC. CONCLUSION: Current scored models provide reasonable predictability for VBAC, but none provides consistent ability to identify women at risk for failed trial of labor. A scoring model is needed that incorporates known antepartum factors and can be adjusted for current obstetric factors and labor patterns if induction or augmentation is needed. This would allow women and clinicians to better determine individuals most likely to require repeat cesarean delivery.

The impact of hospital obstetric volume on maternal outcomes in term, non–low-birthweight pregnancies

OBJECTIVE The impact of hospital obstetric volume specifically on maternal outcomes remains under studied. We examined the impact of hospital obstetric volume on maternal outcomes in low-risk women who delivered non-low-birthweight infants at term. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a retrospective cohort study of term singleton, non-low-birthweight live births from 2007-2008 in California. Deliveries were categorized by hospital obstetric volume categories and separately for nonrural hospitals (category 1: 50-1199 deliveries per year; category 2: 1200-2399; category 3: 2400-3599, and category 4: ≥3600) and rural hospitals (category R1: 50-599 births per year; category R2: 600-1699; category R3: ≥1700). Maternal outcomes were compared with the use of the chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS There were 736,643 births in 267 hospitals that met study criteria. After adjustment for confounders, there were higher rates of postpartum hemorrhage in the lowest-volume rural hospitals (category R1 adjusted odds ratio, 3.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-6.23). Rates of chorioamnionitis, endometritis, severe perineal lacerations, and wound infection did not differ between volume categories. Longer lengths of stay were observed after maternal complications (eg, chorioamnionitis) in the lowest-volume hospitals (16.9% prolonged length of stay in category 1 hospitals vs 10.5% in category 4 hospitals; adjusted odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.61). CONCLUSION After confounder adjustment, few maternal outcomes differed by hospital obstetric volume. However, elevated odds of postpartum hemorrhage in low-volume rural hospitals raises the possibility that maternal outcomes may differ by hospital volume and geography. Further research is needed on maternal outcomes in hospitals of different obstetric volumes.

Group prenatal care: Review of outcomes and recommendations for model implementation

&NA; The intent and delivery of prenatal care have evolved since its formal inception in the early 1900s. Group prenatal care offers an alternative care delivery model to the currently dominant prenatal care model. The group model has been associated with a number of improved perinatal outcomes including decreased preterm birth, higher birth weight, improved breast-feeding initiation and duration, decreased cesarean delivery, and greater patient satisfaction. This article outlines the tenets of CenteringPregnancy, the current dominant form of group prenatal care, reviews literature regarding perinatal outcomes related to group prenatal care, suggests future research agendas, and highlights relevant considerations when implementing this alternate model of prenatal health care delivery. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After completing this CME activity, physicians should be better able to identify the elements of the CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care model, evaluate which perinatal outcomes have been associated with CenteringPregnancy and similar group prenatal care models, and compare the benefits and risks to implementing a group prenatal care model.

Fetal and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality Following Delivery After Previous Cesarean

This article examines data from a recent systematic evidence review on term deliveries conducted for the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on vaginal birth after caesarean, from a meta-analysis of associated perinatal outcomes, and subsequent publications that meet stringent quality review standards. We present a summary of fetal and neonatal outcomes emphasizing information that clinicians and patients need to make decisions regarding mode of delivery after prior cesarean and look for areas where future studies may provide important insights.

The Effect of Childbirth Self-Efficacy on Perinatal Outcomes

OBJECTIVE To synthesize and critique the quantitative literature on measuring childbirth self-efficacy and the effect of childbirth self-efficacy on perinatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES Eligible studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. STUDY SELECTION Published research articles that used a tool explicitly intended to measure childbirth self-efficacy and that examined outcomes within the perinatal period were included. All articles were in English and were published in peer-reviewed journals. DATA EXTRACTION First author, country, year of publication, reference and definition of childbirth self-efficacy, measurement of childbirth self-efficacy, sample recruitment and retention, sample characteristics, study design, interventions (with experimental and quasiexperimental studies), and perinatal outcomes were extracted and summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS Of 619 publications, 23 studies published between 1983 and 2015 met inclusion criteria and were critiqued and synthesized in this review. CONCLUSION There is overall consistency in how childbirth self-efficacy is defined and measured among studies, which facilitates comparison and synthesis. Our findings suggest that increased childbirth self-efficacy is associated with a wide variety of improved perinatal outcomes. Moreover, there is evidence that childbirth self-efficacy is a psychosocial factor that can be modified through various efficacy-enhancing interventions. Future researchers will be able to build knowledge in this area through (a) use of experimental and quasiexperimental design, (b) recruitment and retention of more diverse samples, (c) explicit reporting of definitions of terms (e.g., high risk), (d) investigation of interventions that increase childbirth self-efficacy during pregnancy, and (e) investigation about how childbirth self-efficacy-enhancing interventions might lead to decreased active labor pain and suffering. Exploratory research should continue to examine the potential association between higher prenatal childbirth self-efficacy and improved early parenting outcomes.

The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission

INTRODUCTION Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. METHODS A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. RESULTS Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P = .049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P = .005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. DISCUSSION Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.

Trial of Labor and Vaginal Delivery Rates in Women with a Prior Cesarean

OBJECTIVE To evaluate evidence on trial of labor (TOL) and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean and to understand the characteristics of women offered a trial of labor. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, DARE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles evaluating mode of delivery for women with a prior cesarean delivery published between 1980 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION Studies were included if they involved human participants, were in English, conducted in the United States or in developed countries, and if they were rated fair or good base on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The search yielded 3,134 abstracts: 69 full-text papers on TOL and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates and 10 on predictors of TOL. The TOL rate in U.S. studies was 58% (95% CI [52, 65]) compared with 64% (95% CI [59, 70]) in non U.S. STUDIES The TOL rate in the U.S. was 62% (95% CI [57, 66]) for studies completed prior to 1996 and dropped to 44% (95% CI [34, 53]) in studies launched after 1996, p = .016. In U.S. studies, 74% (95% CI [72, 76]) of women who had a TOL delivered vaginally. Women who had a prior vaginal birth or delivered at a large teaching hospital were more likely to be offered a TOL. CONCLUSIONS Although the TOL rate has dropped since 1996, the rate of vaginal delivery after a TOL has remained constant. Efforts to increase rates of TOL will depend on patients understanding the risks and benefits of both options. Maternity providers are well positioned to provide key education and counseling when patients are not informed of their options.

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.

Intermittent Auscultation of the Fetal Heart Rate During Labor: An Opportunity for Shared Decision Making

Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring is the most common form of intrapartal fetal assessment in the United States. Intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate is an acceptable option for low-risk laboring women, yet it is underutilized in the hospital setting. Several expert organizations have proposed the use of intermittent auscultation as a means of promoting physiologic childbirth. Within a shared decision-making model, the low-risk pregnant woman should be presented with current evidence about options for fetal heart rate assessment during labor.