Dataset Information

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To improve care for women going through trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), we need to understand their birth experience better. We investigated the association between mode of delivery on birth experience in second birth among women with a first cesarean. METHODS:A population-based cohort study based on the Swedish Pregnancy Register with 808 women with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC in 2014-2017. Outcomes were mean birth experience measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) score from 1-10 and having a negative birth experience defined as VAS score ?5. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed with ?-estimates and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS:Mean VAS score among women with an elective repeat cesarean (n = 251 (31%)), vaginal birth (n = 388 (48%)) or unplanned repeat cesarean (n = 169 (21%)) in second birth were 8.8 (standard deviation SD 1.4), 8.0 (SD 2.0) and 7.6 (SD 2.1), respectively. Compared to women having an elective repeat cesarean, women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had five-fold higher odds of negative birth experience (adjusted OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.5-16.5). Women having a first elective cesarean and a subsequent unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had the highest odds of negative birth experience (crude OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.5-35.5). CONCLUSIONS:Most women with a first cesarean scored their second birth experience as positive irrespective of mode of delivery. However, the odds of a negative birth experience increased among women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery, especially when the first cesarean delivery was elective.

SUBMITTER: Lindblad Wollmann C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7060072 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study.

Lindblad Wollmann Charlotte C Liu Can C Saltvedt Sissel S Elvander Charlotte C Ahlberg Mia M Stephansson Olof O

PloS one 20200306 3

<h4>Background</h4>To improve care for women going through trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), we need to understand their birth experience better. We investigated the association between mode of delivery on birth experience in second birth among women with a first cesarean.<h4>Methods</h4>A population-based cohort study based on the Swedish Pregnancy Register with 808 women with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC in 2014-2017. Outcomes were mean birth experience measured by visual analo ...[more]

PMID: 32143213

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether cervical ripening with oral misoprostol increases cesarean delivery risk and prolongs time to vaginal delivery compared with vaginal misoprostol in a predominantly overweight population.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care academic medical center and compared labor induction outcomes with vaginal misoprostol to outcomes with oral misoprostol after a complete institutional shift to oral misoprostol. Labor induction using 25 micrograms vaginal misoprostol in 2013-2014 was compared with 50 micrograms oral misoprostol in 2014-2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery, uterine tachysystole, maternal hemorrhage, and composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Multivariable regression models accounting for potential confounders were created for the primary and secondary outcomes with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) as the measures of effect.ResultsThere were 138 women in the oral and 138 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. In the overall cohort, the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 31.7 (28.2-36.8) and most women (72%) were of either black or Hispanic race or ethnicity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was higher in the oral than the vaginal misoprostol group (32% vs 21%; P=.04). The adjusted odds of cesarean was higher with oral misoprostol (aOR 2.01; 95% CI 1.07-3.76). Among nulliparous women, the frequency of cesarean delivery was 41% in the oral and 28% in the vaginal misoprostol groups (aOR 2.79; 95% CI 1.26-6.19). Women had a longer time to vaginal delivery in the oral compared with vaginal misoprostol group (41 vs 31 hours respectively, P=.01). Tachysystole occurred more frequently with vaginal misoprostol (20% vs 11%; P=.04).ConclusionCompared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol may be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and longer time to vaginal delivery.

Project description:BackgroundIn the Twin Birth Study, women at 320/7-386/7 weeks of gestation, in whom the first twin was in cephalic presentation, were randomized to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean section. The study found no significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes in the two planned mode of delivery groups. We aimed to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes of twin gestations without spontaneous onset of labor, who underwent induction of labor or pre-labor cesarean section as the intervention of induction may affect outcomes.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study we compared those who had an induction of labor with those who had a pre-labor cesarean section. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity and mortality.Trial registrationNCT00187369.ResultsOf the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, a total of 1347 (48%) women required a delivery before a spontaneous onset of labor occurred: 568 (42%) in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 779 (58%) in the planned cesarean arm. Induction of labor was attempted in 409 (30%), and 938 (70%) had a pre-labor cesarean section. The rate of intrapartum cesarean section in the induction of labor group was 41.3%. The rate of the primary outcome was comparable between the pre-labor cesarean section group and induction of labor group (1.65% vs. 1.97%; p = 0.61; OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.43-1.62). The maternal composite outcome was found to be lower with pre-labor cesarean section compared to induction of labor (7.25% vs. 11.25%; p = 0.01; OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.91).ConclusionIn women with twin gestation between 320/7-386/7 weeks of gestation, induction of labor and pre-labor cesarean section have similar neonatal outcomes. Pre-labor cesarean section is associated with favorable maternal outcomes which differs from the overall Twin Birth Study results. These data may be used to better counsel women with twin gestation who are faced with the decision of interventional delivery.

Project description:ObjectiveTrial of labor after cesarean delivery has been mostly studied in the setting of one prior cesarean delivery; controversy remains regarding the risks and benefits of trial of labor for women with two prior cesarean deliveries. This study aimed to examine utilization, success rate, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor in this population.MethodsUsing linked hospital discharge and birth certificate data, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of mothers with nonanomalous, term, singleton live births in California between 2010-2012 and had two prior cesarean deliveries and no clear contraindications for trial of labor. We measured whether they attempted labor and, if so, whether they delivered vaginally. Association of patient and hospital characteristics with the likelihood of attempting labor and successful vaginal birth was examined using multivariable regressions. We compared composite severe maternal morbidities and composite severe newborn complications in those who underwent trial of labor as opposed to planned cesarean delivery using a propensity score-matching approach.ResultsAmong 42,771 women who met sample eligibility criteria, 1,228 (2.9%) attempted labor, of whom 484 (39.4%) delivered vaginally. There was no significant difference in the risk of composite severe maternal morbidities, but there was a modest increase in the risk of composite severe newborn complications among women who attempted labor compared with those who did not (2.0% vs 1.4%, P=.04). After accounting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics, propensity score-matched analysis showed no significant association between trial of labor and the risk of composite severe maternal morbidities (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.91), but trial of labor was associated with a higher risk for the composite of severe newborn complications (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.04-3.04).ConclusionAmong women with two prior cesarean deliveries, trial of labor was rarely attempted and was successful in 39.4% of attempts. Trial of labor in this population was associated with a modest increase in severe neonatal morbidity.

Project description:BackgroundInter-delivery interval (IDI) has been proven to be a factor associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, the optimal IDI in trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between IDI and major maternal and neonatal outcomes in women who underwent TOLAC.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective cohort study including five hospitals was conducted between January 2018 and December 2019 in Foshan, China. This study included 1080 pregnant women with one or two cesarean deliveries who attempted a TOLAC. Data on maternal and neonatal outcomes were collected from the electronic record system. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in different groups of IDI were compared by univariate and multivariable analyses.ResultsA short IDI of < 24 months did not show a statistically significant association with uterine rupture in the univariate analysis (P = 0.668). In multivariable analysis, the incidences of postpartum hemorrhage (OR 19.6, 95% CI:4.4-90.9, P < 0.05), preterm birth (OR 5.5, 95% CI:1.5-21.3, P < 0.05), and low birth weight (OR 3.5, 95% CI:1.2-10.3, P < 0.05) were significantly increased in women with an IDI of < 24 months than in those with a normal interval (24-59 months). Infection morbidity (OR 1.8, 95% CI:1.4-7.9, P < 0.05), transfusion (OR 7.4, 95% CI:1.4-40.0, P < 0.05), and neonatal unit admission (OR 2.6, 95% CI:1.4-5.0, P < 0.05) were significantly increased in women with an IDI of 120 months or more than in those with a normal interval. Postpartum hemorrhage (P = 0.062) had a trend similar to that of a significant IDI of 120 months or more. We found no statistically significant difference in maternal and neonatal outcomes between 24-59 months and 60-119 months.ConclusionsAn IDI of less than 24 months or 120 months or more increased the risk of major maternal and neonatal outcomes. We recommend that the optimal interval for women who underwent TOLAC should be 24 to 119 months.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a web-based decision aid on patient-centered decision making outcomes among women considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery.MethodsThe Birth Decision Aid Study (B-READY) was a quasi-experimental pre-post study of two sequential cohorts. From June 18, 2018 to July 31, 2019, 50 women were enrolled in routine care, followed by 50 women who were enrolled in the decision aid group. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies between 19/0 to 36/6 weeks, ≤2 prior cesareans, and no contraindications to TOLAC. The decision aid group viewed the online Healthwise® "Pregnancy: Birth Options After Cesarean" program. Both groups received the same birth options counseling and completed the same online assessment. Primary patient-centered outcomes were knowledge about birth options and shared decision making at online assessment, and informed, patient-centered decision making about her preferred mode of delivery at delivery admission.ResultsAmong 100 women participated in this study (50 per group), the mean gestational age at enrollment was 31 weeks, and 71% or 63/89 women who consented to delivery data abstraction had a cesarean delivery. Women in the patient decision aid group gained more knowledge (defined as score ≥ 75%) about birth options compared to those in the routine care group (72% vs. 32%; adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 6.15 [95% CI: 2.34 to 16.14]), and were more likely to make an informed, patient-centered decision (60% vs. 26%; AOR: 3.30 [95% CI: 1.20 to 9.04]. Women in both groups reported similar involvement in shared decision making, as well as satisfaction and values. More than 90% of decision aid users reported it was a useful tool and would recommend it to other TOLAC-eligible women.ConclusionsA web-based birth options patient-centered decision aid for TOLAC eligible women can be integrated into prenatal Telehealth and may improve the quality of decision making about mode of delivery.Trial registrationThe study was registered with ClinincalTrials.gov and the ID# was NCT04053413 . Registered 12 August 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study.

Publications

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets