Dataset Information

Calculators Estimating the Likelihood of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Uses and Perceptions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A calculator estimating likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) has been promoted by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, but little is known about how it is used and perceived in practice. Cutoffs for prohibiting labor after cesarean are discouraged by the calculator's developers, but such uses may be widespread. The purpose of this study was to determine how calculators predicting VBAC are used and perceived in midwifery practices.

Methods

Certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives currently providing care for labor after cesarean were surveyed between January 17, 2019, and February 7, 2019. Quantitative and text data were collected regarding the uses and perceptions of calculators among midwives and their colleagues. We compared these findings with midwives' perceptions of their ability to accommodate patient wishes for labor after cesarean. We used descriptive content analysis to evaluate themes occurring in text responses.

Results

There were 1305 valid responses. A requirement to use calculator scores for patient counseling was reported by 527 (40.4%) of responding midwives. Over 1 in 5 midwives reported that scores were used to discourage or prohibit labor after cesarean. Almost half reported some or strong disagreement with physician colleagues regarding calculator use. Interprofessional agreement and disagreement centered on how scores are used to direct clinical care or restrict patient options. Calculator scores were used in more than twice as many midwives' practices to discourage rather than encourage labor after cesarean. Descriptive analysis of text revealed 4 themes regarding calculators: inconsistent use, information counseling, informed consent, and influence patient management or options.

Discussion

Calculators predicting likelihood of VBAC success are widely used in midwifery settings and are more often used to discourage than to encourage labor after cesarean. Midwives reported both directive and nondirective counseling based on calculator scores.

SUBMITTER: Thornton PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7606451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rates of cesarean deliveries have been increasing, and contributes to the rising number of elective cesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies with associated maternal and neonatal risks. Multiple guidelines recommend that women be offered a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC). The objective of the study is to systematically review the literature on adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS:We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any adjunct clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting changes in TOLAC or VBAC rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS:Twenty-three studies of overall moderate to good methodological quality examined adjunct clinical interventions affecting TOLAC and/or VBAC rates: system-level interventions (three studies), provider-level interventions (three studies), guidelines or information for providers (seven studies), provider characteristics (four studies), and patient-level interventions (six studies). Provider-level interventions (opinion leader education, laborist, and obstetrician second opinion for cesarean sections) and provider characteristics (midwifery antenatal care, physicians on night float call schedules, and deliveries by family physicians) were associated with increased rates of VBAC. Few studies employing heterogeneous designs, sample sizes, interventions and comparators limited confidence in the effects. Studies of system-level and patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for providers reported mixed findings. CONCLUSIONS:Limited evidence indicates some provider-level interventions and provider characteristics may increase rates of attempted and successful TOLACs and/or VBACs, whereas other adjunct clinical interventions such as system-level interventions, patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for healthcare providers show mixed findings.

Project description:BackgroundWith the development of China's two-child-policy, vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) has aroused public concern. It is important to understand the labour characteristics and intrapartum management of women attempting VBAC to enhance the rates of successful VBAC. The purpose of our research was to investigate the differences in the characteristics of labor, intervention measures and perinatal outcomes between women who had a VBAC and primiparas or multiparas not undergoing VBAC, providing clinical references of intrapartum management for women who are planning a VBAC.Material and methodsThis observational retrospective study enrolled all women who laboured spontaneously and who had a VBAC (n = 139) at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in China between 2016 and 2019. They were allocated into VBAC group A (the previous cesarean section was performed before dilation of the cervix) and VBAC group B (the previous cesarean section was performed after dilation of the cervix). The primipara control group included 149 primiparae, and the multipara control group included 155 multiparae with second vaginal birth. Durations of labor, intervention measures and perinatal outcomes were compared among the groups.ResultsThe durations of labor, intrapartum interventions and maternal and neonatal outcomes in VBAC group A were similar to those of the VBAC group B. However, all women who had a VBAC and those in VBAC group A had shorter first, second and the total stages of labor than primiparae. All women with VBAC and those in VBAC group B had longer second stage of labor, but shorter third stage of labor than multiparae. Oxytocin, labor analgesia and artificial rupture of membranes were administered less often in women with VBAC than in primiparae, while phloroglucinol was administered more often in women with VBAC than in multiparae. Women who had a VBAC were more likely to receive episiotomy and had higher incidences of postpartum hemorrhage than primipara and multipara women.ConclusionsLabor characteristics, intrapartum interventions and perinatal outcomes in women who had a VBAC with cervical dilation were similar to those in women who had a VBAC without cervical dilation before the previous cesarean section, but differed significantly from those of multiparae and primiparae who did not undergo VBAC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To systematically review the literature on clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS:We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel (random effects model) relative risks (VBAC rate) and risk differences (uterine rupture and dehiscence). Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies (six trials and 23 cohorts) examined different clinical interventions affecting rates of vaginal deliveries among women with a prior cesarean delivery (CD). Methodological quality was good overall for the trials; however, concerns among the cohort studies regarding selection bias, comparability of groups and outcome measurement resulted in higher risk of bias. Interventions for labor induction, with or without cervical ripening, included pharmacologic (oxytocin, prostaglandins, misoprostol, mifepristone, epidural analgesia), non-pharmacologic (membrane sweep, amniotomy, balloon devices), and combined (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Single studies with small sample sizes and event rates contributed to most comparisons, with no clear differences between groups on rates of VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review evaluated clinical interventions directed at increasing the rate of vaginal delivery among women with a prior CD and found low to very low certainty in the body of evidence for cervical ripening and/or labor induction techniques. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform optimal clinical interventions among women attempting a trial of labor after a prior CD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is high-quality evidence supporting induction of labour (IOL) for a number of maternal and fetal indications. However, one fifth of inductions fail to result in vaginal births, requiring cesarean deliveries. This has negative clinical, emotional and resource implications. The importance of predicting the success of labour induction to enable shared decision-making has been recognized, but existing models are limited in scope and generalizability. Our objective was to derive and internally validate a clinical prediction model that uses variables readily accessible through maternal demographic data, antenatal history, and cervical examination to predict the likelihood of vaginal birth following IOL. METHODS:Data was extracted from electronic medical records of consecutive pregnant women who were induced between April and December 2016, at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed using 16 readily accessible variables identified through literature review and expert opinion, as predictors of vaginal birth after IOL. The final model was internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS:Of the 1123 cases of IOL, 290 (25.8%) resulted in a cesarean delivery. The multivariable logistic regression model found maternal age, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index and weight, weight at delivery, and cervical dilation at time of induction as significant predictors of vaginal delivery following IOL. The prediction model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow ?2?=?5.02, p?=?0.76) and demonstrated good discriminatory ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.83)). Finally, the model showed good internal validity [AUROC 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82)]. CONCLUSIONS:We have derived and internally validated a well-performing clinical prediction model for IOL in a large and diverse population using variables readily accessible through maternal demographic data, antenatal history, and cervical examination. Once prospectively validated in diverse settings, and if shown to be acceptable to pregnant women and healthcare providers as well as clinically and cost-effective, this model has potential for widespread use in clinical practice and research for enhancing patient autonomy, improving induction outcomes, and optimizing allocation of resources.

Project description:IntroductionPredicting a woman's probability of vaginal birth after cesarean could facilitate the antenatal decision-making process. Having a previous vaginal birth strongly predicts vaginal birth after cesarean. Delivery outcome in women with only a cesarean delivery is more unpredictable. Therefore, to better predict vaginal birth in women with only one prior cesarean delivery and no vaginal deliveries would greatly benefit clinical practice and fill a key evidence gap in research. Our aim was to predict vaginal birth in women with one prior cesarean and no vaginal deliveries using machine-learning methods, and compare with a US prediction model and its further developed model for a Swedish setting.Material and methodsA population-based cohort study with a cohort of 3116 women with only one prior birth, a cesarean, and a subsequent trial of labor during 2008-2014 in the Stockholm-Gotland region, Sweden. Three machine-learning methods (conditional inference tree, conditional random forest and lasso binary regression) were used to predict vaginal birth after cesarean among women with one previous birth. Performance of the new models was compared with two existing models developed by Grobman et al (USA) and Fagerberg et al (Sweden). Our main outcome measures were area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC), overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of prediction of vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery.ResultsThe AUROC ranged from 0.61 to 0.69 for all models, sensitivity was above 91% and specificity below 22%. The majority of women with an unplanned repeat cesarean had a predicted probability of vaginal birth after cesarean >60%.ConclusionsBoth classical regression models and machine-learning models had a high sensitivity in predicting vaginal birth after cesarean in women without a previous vaginal delivery. The majority of women with an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery were predicted to succeed with a vaginal birth (ie specificity was low). Additional covariates combined with machine-learning techniques did not outperform classical regression models in this study.