Successful vaginal delivery and maternal and perinatal outcomes in patients with a history of cesarean section and labor trial: cross-sectional study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.3874Keywords:
Vaginal delivery after cesarean section, labor, uterine ruptureAbstract
Objectives: To determine the proportion of successful vaginal deliveries in women with prior cesarean section; to describe maternal and perinatal complications; and to examine the factors associated with vaginal delivery.
Materials and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study of women with a history of cesarean delivery, gestational age of more than 24 weeks, singleton live fetuses, with prior vaginal delivery who received care in a high complexity public institution in 2019. Patients with a history of more than one cesarean section or myomectomy were excluded. Consecutive sampling was used. Sociodemographic and obstetric variables, delivery route and maternal and perinatal complications were measured. A descriptive analysis as well as a multivariate exploratory analysis of the factors associated with successful vaginal delivery were carried out.
Results: Among 286 pregnant women included, the percentage of successful vaginal deliveries was 74.5 %. Maternal complications were identified in 3.2 % of vaginal delivery cases and in 6.8 % of cesarean births. Complications occurred in 1.3 % of all live neonates; there were 2 perinatal deaths. An association was found between successful vaginal delivery and a history of prior vaginal delivery (OR: 2.7; 95 % CI: 1.15-6.29); a Bishop score greater than 6 (OR: 2.2; 95 % CI: 1.03-4.56); spontaneous labor initiation (OR: 4.5; IC 95 % CI: 2.07-9.6); and maternal age under 30 years (OR:2.28; 95 % CI: 1.2-4.2).
Conclusions: Vaginal delivery is a safe option to consider in patients with prior cesarean section, in particular in cases of spontaneous labor initiation or prior vaginal delivery. Prospective cohorts are needed in order to confirm these findings.
Author Biographies
Carolina Arango-Montoya, Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
María Ximena López-Arroyave, Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Juliana Marín-Ríos, Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Alejandro Colonia-Toro, Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
Docente Universidad CES. Hospital General de Medellín, Medellín (Colombia).
José Bareño-Silva, Universidad CES, Medellín (Colombia).
Universidad CES, Medellín (Colombia).
References
Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman M, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Births: Final data for 2014. Natl Vit Stats. Rep 2015;64(12):1-64.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde (MS). TabNet: Proporção de partos cesáreos. Datasus [Internet]. 2016 [acceso 2018 mar 31]. Disponible en: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?idb2010/f08.def
Rubio-Romero JA, Fonseca-Pérez JE, Molina S, Buitrago Leal M, Zuleta-Tobón JJ, Ángel-Müller E, et al. Racionalización del uso de la cesárea en Colombia. Consenso de la Federación Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología (Fecolsog) y la Federación Colombiana de Perinatología (Fecopen). Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2014;65(2):139-51. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.62
World Health Organization. Caesarean section rates continue to rise, amid growing inequalities in access. [Internet]. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-rates-continue-to-rise-amid-growing-inequalities-in-access
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026
World Health Organization. Caesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary says WHO. [Internet]. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/news/item/09-04-2015-caesarean-sections-should-only-be-performed-when-medically-necessary-says-who
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: Final Data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68(13):1-47.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG). ACOG practice bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. 2019;133(2),e110-e127. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003078
Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F. The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:54-7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199901073400112
Abdelazim IA, Elbiaa AM, Al-Kadi M, Yehia AH, Nusair, Sami Nusair BM, Faza MA. Maternal and obstetrical factors associated with a successful trial of vaginal birth after cesarean section. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2014;15(4), 245-249. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2014.14104
Fonseca JE, Rodriguez JL, Maya Salazar D. Validation of a predictive model for successful vaginal birth after cesarean section. Colomb Med. 2019;50(1):13-21. https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v50i1.2521
Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, Jackson M, Holmgren C, Esplin S. Simple, validated vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction model for use at the time of admission. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(3):571-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829f8ced
Soni A, Sharma C, Verma S, Justa U, Soni P, Verma A. A prospective observational study of trial of labor after cesarean in rural India. Int J Gynecol Obst. 2015;129(2):156-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.007
Baranov A, Gratacós E, Vikhareva O, Figueras F. Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at the university hospital in Barcelona. J Matern Fetal Neonat Med. 2017;30(24):2998-3003. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1271407
Wingert A, Hartling L, Sebastianski M, Johnson C, Featherstone R, Vandermeer B, Wilson RD. Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2689-5
Borovac-Pinheiro A, Pacagnella RC, Cecatti JG, et al Postpartum hemorrhage: New insights for definition and diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219:162-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.013
Stevens EJ, Stamilio DM, Pare E, Elovitz M, Sciscione A, Sammel MD, Ratcliffe SJ. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1656-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.04.002
Tanos V, Toney ZA. Uterine scar rupture - Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:115-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.01.009
Holmgren C, Scott JR, Porter TF, Esplin MS, Bardsley T. Uterine rupture with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: Decision-to-delivery time and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):725-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318249a1d7
Takeya A, Adachi E, Takahashi Y, Kondoh E, Mandai M, Nakayama T. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) in Japan: Rates and complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(4):995-1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05492-8
Landon M, Hauth J, Leveno K, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(25):2581-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040405
Chiossi G, D’Amico R, Tramontano AL, Sampogna V, Laghi V, Facchinetti F. Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women withunscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0253957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253957
Katz Eriksen JL, Chandrasekaran S, Delaney SS. Is Foley catheter use during a trial of labor after cesarean associated with uterine rupture? Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(14):1431-6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1691766
Kurinczuk JJ, White-Koning M, Badawi N. Epidemiology of neonatal encephalopathy and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Early Hum Dev. 2010;86(6):329-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.05.010
Hashima JN, Eden KB, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Guise JM. Predicting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A review of prognostic factors and screening tools. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(2):547-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.045
Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW, et al.; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: Factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1016-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.045
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):806-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000259312.36053.02
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
