Understanding Factors Leading to Primary Cesarean Section and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 01 2020
15 01 2020
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
accepted:
22
12
2019
entrez:
17
1
2020
pubmed:
17
1
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although there is no evidence that elevated rates of cesarean sections (CS) translate into reduced maternal/child perinatal morbidity or mortality, CS have been increasingly overused almost everywhere, both in high and low-income countries. The primary cesarean section (PCS) has become a major driver of the overall CS (OCS) rate, since it carries intrinsic risk of repeat CS (RCS) in future pregnancies. In our study we examined patterns of PCS, pl compared with planned TOLAC anned PCS (PPCS), vaginal birth after 1 previous CS (VBAC-1) and associated factors in Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG), a region of North-Eastern Italy, collecting data from its 11 maternity centres (coded from A to K) during 2005-2015. By fitting three multiple logistic regression models (one for each delivery mode), we calculated the adjusted rates of PCS and PPCS among women without history of CS, whilst the calculation of the VBAC rate was restricted to women with just one previous CS (VBAC-1). Results, expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI), were controlled for the effect of hospital, calendar year as well as several factors related to the clinical and obstetric conditions of the mothers and the newborn, the obstetric history and socio-demographic background. In FVG during 2005-2015 there were 24,467 OCS (rate of 24.2%), 19,565 PCS (19.6%), 7,736 PPCS (7.7%) and 2,303 VBAC-1 (28.4%). We found high variability of delivery mode (DM) at hospital level, especially for PCS and PPCS. Breech presentation was the strongest determinant for PCS as well as PPCS. Leaving aside placenta previa/abuptio placenta/ante-partum hemorrhage, further significant factors, more importantly associated with PCS than PPCS were non-reassuring fetal status and obstructed labour, followed by (in order of statistical significance): multiple birth; eclampsia/pre-eclampsia; maternal age 40-44 years; placental weight 600-99 g; oligohydramios; pre-delivery LoS 3-5 days; maternal age 35-39 years; placenta weight 1,000-1,500 g; birthweight < 2,000 g; maternal age ≥ 45 years; pre-delivery LoS ≥ 6 days; mother's age 30-34 years; low birthweight (2,000-2,500 g); polyhydramnions; cord prolaspe; ≥6 US scas performed during pregnancy and pre-term gestations (33-36 weeks). Significant factors for PPCS were (in order of statistical significance): breech presentation; placenta previa/abruptio placenta/ante-partum haemorrhage; multiple birth; pre-delivery LoS ≥ 3 days; placental weight ≥ 600 g; maternal age 40-44 years; ≥6 US scans performed in pregnancy; maternal age ≥ 45 and 35-39 years; oligohydramnios; eclampsia/pre-eclampsia; mother's age 30-34 years; birthweight <2,000 g; polyhydramnios and pre-term gestation (33-36 weeks). VBAC-1 were more likely with gestation ≥ 41 weeks, placental weight <500 g and especially labour analgesia. During 2005-2015 the overall rate of PCS in FVG (19.6%) was substantially lower than the corresponding figure reported in 2010 for the entire Italy (29%) and still slightly under the most recent national PCS rate for 2017 (22.2%). The VBAC-1 rate on women with history of one previous CS in FVG was 28.4% (25.3% considering VBAC on all women with at least 1 previous CS), roughly three times the Italian national rate of 9% reported for 2017. The discrepancy between the OCS rate at country level (38.1%) and FVG's (24.2%) is therefore mainly attributable to RCS. Although there was a marginal decrease of PCS and PPCS crudes rates over time in the whole region, accompained by a progressive enhancement of the crude VBAC rate, we found remarkable variability of DM across hospitals. To further contain the number of unnecessary PCS and promote VBAC where appropriate, standardized obstetric protocols should be introduced and enforced at hospital level. Decision-making on PCS should be carefully scrutinized, introducing a diagnostic second opinion for all PCS, particularly for term singleton pregancies with cephalic presentation and in case of obstructed labour as well as non-reassuring fetal status, grey areas potentially affected by subjective clinical assessment. This process of change could be facilitated with education of staff/patients by opinion leaders and prenatal counseling for women and partners, although clinical audits, financial penalties and rewards to efficient maternity centres could also be considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31941963
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-57037-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-57037-y
pmc: PMC6962159
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
380Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 2(8452), 436–7 (1985).
Mascarello, K. C., Horta, B. L. & Silveira, M. F. Maternal complications and cesarean section without indication: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Saude Publica. 51, 105 (2017).
pubmed: 29166440
pmcid: 5697917
doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2017051000389
Betrán, A. P. et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS ONE 11(2), e0148343 (2016).
pubmed: 26849801
pmcid: 4743929
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
Gregory, K. D., Jackson, S., Korst, L. & Fridman, M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whosebenefits? Am. J. Perinatol. 29(1), 7–18 (2012).
pubmed: 21833896
doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1285829
Timor-Tritsch, I. E. & Monteagudo, A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries:early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 207(1), 14–29 (2012).
pubmed: 22516620
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007
Marshall, N. E., Fu, R. & Guise, J. M. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematicreview. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 205(3), 262 e1–8 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.035
Brown, H. L. Informing the patient and the community about the implications of primary cesarean. SeminPerinatol. 36, 403–6 (2012).
Silver, R. M. et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet. Gynecol. 107, 1226–32 (2006).
pubmed: 16738145
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.84
Clark, E. A. & Silver, R. M. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 205, S2–10 (2011).
pubmed: 22114995
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.028
Franchi, M. et al. Unintentional transvesical caesarean section: incidence, risk factors, surgical technique and post-operative management. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 236, 26–31 (2019).
pubmed: 30877907
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.02.023
Laganà, A. S. et al. Uterine Scar Healing After Cesarean Section: Managing an Old Surgery in an Evidence-Based Environment. J. Invest. Surg. 9, 1–3 (2018).
Sandall, J. et al Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 13, 392(10155), 1349–1357 (2018).
Cegolon, L. et al. Length of Stay Following Cesarean Sections: A Population Based Study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005–2015. PLoS One. 14(2), e021075 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210753
Cegolon, L. et al A Systematic Evaluation of Hospital Performance of Childbirth Delivery Modes and Associated Factors in the Friuli Venezia-Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005–2015. Scientific Reports. (under review) (2019).
Declercq, E. et al. Maternal Outcomes Associated With Planned Primary Cesarean Births Compared With Planned Vaginal Births. Obstet. & Gynecol. 669(109), 669–677 (2007).
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000255668.20639.40
Kenny, C. et al. A cost-comparison of midwife-led compared with consultant-led maternity care in Ireland (the MidU study). Midwifery. 31(11), 1032–8 (2015).
pubmed: 26381076
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.06.012
World Health Organization (2015). WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates.
Molina, G. et al. Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA. 314(21), 2263–70 (2015).
pubmed: 26624825
doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15553
Boerma, T. et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 392, 1341–48 (2018).
pubmed: 30322584
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7
Hall, M. J., DeFrances, C. J., Williams, S. N., Golosinskiy, A. G. & Schwartzman, A. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 Summary. Natl Vital. Stat. Report. 29, 1–24 (2010).
Betrán, A. P. et al. Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 21(2), 98–113 (2007).
pubmed: 17302638
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x
Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A. & Osterman, M. J. Births: Preliminary Data for 2015. Natl Vital. Stat. Rep. 65, 1–15 (2015).
Gibbons, L. et al. for WHO. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage., http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf (accessed in September 2019) (2010).
Zhang, J. et al. for the Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 203(326), e1–10 (2010).
Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J. M. & Rouse, D. J. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 210, 179–93 (2014).
pubmed: 24565430
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026
Cheng, Y. et al. Delivery after prior caesarean: maternal morbidity and mortality. Clin. Perinatol. 38(2), 297–309 (2011).
pubmed: 21645797
pmcid: 3428794
doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.012
Barber, E. L. et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet. Gynecol. 118, 29–38 (2011).
pubmed: 21646928
pmcid: 3751192
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65
MacDorman, M., Declercq, E. & Menacker, F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin. Perinatol. 38, 179–92 (2011).
pubmed: 21645788
doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007
Lee, Y. Y., Roberts, C. L. & Patterson, J. A. Unexplained variation in hospital caesarean section rates. Med. J. Aust. 199(5), 348–54 (2013).
pubmed: 23992192
doi: 10.5694/mja13.10279
Hall, M. H. & Bewley, S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet. 354(9180), 776 (1999).
pubmed: 10475219
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76016-5
Esteves-Pereira, A. P. et al. Caesarean delivery and postpartum maternal mortality: a population based case control study in Brazil. PLoS One. 13(4), 11 (2016).
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 133(2), e110–e127 (2019).
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078
Kaiser Permanente (2009). A history of Total Health. Empowered women shape modern maternity care. Available from: www.kaiserpermanentehistory.org/tag/early-discharge/ (last accessed in October 2019).
Brick, A., Layte, R., Farren, M., Mahony, R. & Turner, M. J. Recent trends in vaginal birth after caesarean section. Ir. Med. J. 109(10), 482 (2016).
pubmed: 28644587
McMahon, M. J., Luther, E. R., Bowes, W. A. Jr & Olshan, A. F. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N. Engl. J. Med. 335(10), 689–95 (1996).
pubmed: 8703167
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001
Lydon-Rochelle, M., Holt, V. L., Easterling, T. R. & Martin, D. P. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 345(1), 3–8 (2001).
pubmed: 11439945
doi: 10.1056/NEJM200107053450101
Persadie, R. J. & McDonagh, R. J. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: clinical and legal perspectives. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 25(10), 846–52 (2003).
pubmed: 14532953
doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30675-2
Landon, M. B. et al. Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2581–2589 (2004).
pubmed: 15598960
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040405
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 116, 450–463 (2010).
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251
Clark, S. L., Garite, T. J., Hamilton, E. F., Belfort, M. A. & Hankins, G. D. “Doing something” about the cesarean delivery rate. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 219(3), 267–271 (2018).
pubmed: 29733840
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.044
Guise, J. M. et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet. Gynecol. 115(6), 1267–78 (2010).
pubmed: 20502300
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f
Euro-Peristat. Project with SCPE and EUROCAT. European perinatal health report. The health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. May 2013. Online Data Tables. Available from: http://www.europeristat.com/our-indicators/euro-peristat-perinatal-health-indicators-2010.html (last accessed: 11 November 2019).
AGENAS (2018). National Outcomes Program – PNE 2018 Edition. Available from: https://pne.agenas.it/main/doc/introduzione.pdf (last accessed on 9
Cegolon, L. et al. Length of Stay Following Vaginal Deliveries: A Population Based Study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005–2015. PLoS One. 14(1), e0204919 (2019).
pubmed: 30605470
pmcid: 6317786
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204919
Italian Ministry of Health. Ministerial Decree April 2, 2015, (G.U. June 4, 2015, n. 127). http://www.camera.it/temiap/2016/09/23/OCD177-2353.pdf . (Last accessed 14 October 2019).
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Society. 57, 289–300 (1995).
Minkoff, H. & Chervenak, F. A. Elective Primary Cesarean Delivery. NEJM. 348, 946–949 (2003).
pubmed: 12621140
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb022734
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Approaches to Limit Intervention During Labor and Birth. Obstet. Gynecol. 133, e164–73 (2019).
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003074
Gilliam, M., Rosenberg, D. & Davis, F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet. Gynecol. 99, 976–80 (2002).
pubmed: 12052584
Hemminki, E. & Meriläinen, J. Long-term effects of cesarean sec- tions: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am. J. ObstetGynecol. 174, 1569–74 (1996).
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70608-7
National Insitute for Health and Care Excellence (2011). Caesarean section - Clinical guideline. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG132 (last accessed on October 2019).
Sentilhes, L. et al. Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 170, 25–32 (2013).
pubmed: 23810846
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.05.015
Levine, L. D. et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 218(2), 254.e1–254.e7 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603
Betrán, A. P. et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 13(392(10155)), 1358–1368 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin 13 External Cephalic Version. Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version. Obstet. & Gynecology. 127, e54–e61 (2016).
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001312
Stivanello, E., Rucci, P., Lenzi, J. & Fantini, M. P. Determinants of cesarean delivery: a classification tree analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 14, 215 (2014).
pubmed: 24973937
pmcid: 4090181
doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-215
Sakala, C. Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: introduction to a symposium. Soc. Sci. Med. 37, 1177–1198 (1993).
pubmed: 8272898
doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90331-W
Boyle, A. et al. Primary Cesarean Delivery in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 122(1), 33–40 (2013).
pubmed: 23743454
pmcid: 3713634
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182952242
Pinas, A. & Chandraharan, E. Continuous cardiotocography during labour: Analysis, classification and management. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 30, 33–47 (2016).
pubmed: 26165747
doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.03.022
Zhang, J. et al. for the Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet. Gynecol. 116, 1281–7 (2010).
pubmed: 21099592
pmcid: 3660040
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdef6e
Gimovsky, A. C. & Berghella, V. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 214(3), 361 (2016).
pubmed: 26928148
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.042
Shrem, G., Nagawkar, S. S., Hallaka, M. & Walfisch, A. Isolated Oligohydramnios at Term as an Indication for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 40, 161–173 (2016).
pubmed: 27160748
doi: 10.1159/000445948
Alfirevic, Z. et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost effectiveness analysis. Health Technol. Assess. 20(65), 1–584 (2016).
pubmed: 27587290
pmcid: 5027380
doi: 10.3310/hta20650
Mylonas, I. & Freise, K. Indications and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section. Deuthtches Artzebl Int. 112, 489–95 (2015).
Ciancimino, L. et al. Would it be too late? A retrospective case-control analysis to evaluate maternal-fetal outcomes in advanced maternal age. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 290(6), 1109–14 (2014).
pubmed: 25027820
doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3367-5
Pallasmaa, N., Ekblad, U., Gissler, M. & Alanen, A. The impact of maternal obesity, age, pre-eclampsia and insulin dependent diabetes on severe maternal morbidity by mode of delivery-a register-based cohort study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 291(2), 311–8 (2015).
pubmed: 25115277
doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3352-z
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (2014). Umbilical Cord Prolapse. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg-50-umbilicalcordprolapse-2014.pdf (last accessed on 11th November 2019).
Hamza, A., Herr, D. & Solomayer, E. F. Polyhydramnios: Causes, Diagnosis and Therapy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 73(12), 1241–1246 (2013).
pubmed: 24771905
pmcid: 3964358
doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1360163
Suleiman, R. & Salim, R. Mode of delivery among women admitted with polyhydramnios. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 37(4), 454–458 (2017).
pubmed: 28019126
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2016.1253669
Foulon, A. et al. Defining the Most Appropriate Delivery Mode in Women with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 23(5), 712–720 (2017).
pubmed: 28426452
doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001112
Kadam, P. D. & Chuan, H. H. Erratum to: Rectocutaneous fistula with transmigration of the suture: a rare delayed complication of vault fixation with the sacrospinous ligament. Int. Urogynecol J. 27(3), 505 (2016).
pubmed: 26811110
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-2952-5
Mohammadi, S. F., Letafat-Nejad, M., Ashrafi, E. & Delshad-Aghdam, H. A survey of ophthalmologists and gynecologists regarding termination of pregnancy and choice of delivery mode in the presence of eye diseases. J. Curr. Ophthalmol. 29(2), 126–132 (2017).
pubmed: 28626823
pmcid: 5463005
doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.09.010
Laganà, A. S. et al. Global Congress on Hysteroscopy Scientific Committee. Optimal Timing and Recommended Route of Delivery after Hysteroscopic Management of Isthmocele? A Consensus Statement From the Global Congress on Hysteroscopy Scientific Committee. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 25(4), 558 (2018).
pubmed: 29410381
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.018
Liu, E. H. C. & Sia, A. T. H. Rates of caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery in nulliparous women after low concentration epidural infusions or opioid analgesia: systematic review. BMJ. 12(328), 1410 (2004).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.38097.590810.7C
Bonanno, C., Clausing, M. & Berkowitz, R. VBAC: A medico legal perspective. Clin. Perinatol. 38, 217–25 (2011).
pubmed: 21645790
doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.005
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference, P. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 115, 1279–1295 (2010).
Li, H. T. et al. Geographic Variations and Temporal Trends in Cesarean Delivery Rates in China, 2008-2014. JAMA. 317, 69–76 (2017).
pubmed: 28030701
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.18663
Schemann, K., Patterson, J. A., Nippita, T. A., Ford, J. B. & Roberts, C. L. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates for women with at least one previous caesarean section: a population based cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 15, 179 (2015).
pubmed: 26285692
pmcid: 4545707
doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0609-x
Shilhady, I. R. et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: do California hospital policies follow national guidelines? J. Reprod. Med. 52, 349–58 (2007).
Korst, L. M., Gregory, F. D., Fridman, M. & Phelan, J. P. Non clinical factors affecting women’s access to trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Clin. Perinatol. 38, 193–216 (2011).
pubmed: 21645789
doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.004
Penn, Z. & Ghaem-Maghami, S. Indications for caesarean section. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 15, 1–15 (2001).
pubmed: 11359312
doi: 10.1053/beog.2000.0146
Wingert, A. et al. Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 18, 452 (2018).
pubmed: 30463530
pmcid: 6249876
doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-2065-x
Lundgren, I. et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15, 16 (2015).
pubmed: 25652550
pmcid: 4324420
doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0441-3
Lundgren, I. et al. Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 16, 350 (2016).
pubmed: 27832743
pmcid: 5103375
doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1144-0
Nilsson, C., van Limbeek, E., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K. & Lundgren, I. Vaginal birth after cesarean: views of women from countries with high VBAC rates. Qual. Health Res. 27(3), 325–340 (2017).
pubmed: 26531882
doi: 10.1177/1049732315612041
Nilsson, C. et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean: Views of women from countries with low VBAC rates. Women Birth. 30(6), 481–490 (2017).
pubmed: 28545775
doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.04.009
Clarke, M. et al. Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery and optimising childbirth by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section through enhanced women-centred care (OptiBIRTH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10612254). Trials. 16, 542 (2015).
pubmed: 26620402
pmcid: 4666170
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1061-y
Shorten, A. & Shorten, B. The importance of mode of birth after previous cesarean: success, satisfaction, and postnatal health. J. Midwifery Womens Health. 57(2), 126–32 (2012).
pubmed: 22432483
doi: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00106.x
Bossano, C. M., Townsend, K. M., Walton, A. C., Blomquist, J. L. & Handa, V. L. The maternal childbirth experience more than a decade after delivery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 217(3), 342.e1–342.e8 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.027
Karlstrom, A., Nystedt, A. & Hildingsson, I. A comparative study of the experience of childbirth between women who preferred and had a caesarean section and women who preferred and had a vaginal birth. Sex. Reprod. Healthc. 2(3), 93–9 (2011).
pubmed: 21742287
doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2011.03.002
Lobel, M. & De Luca, R. Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: review and analysis of their causes and implications. Soc. Sci. Med. 64(11), 2272–84 (2007).
pubmed: 17395349
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.028
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 115(6), 1279–95 (2010).
Frass, K. A. & Al Harazi, A. H. Outcome of vaginal birth after caesarean section in women with one previous section and spontaneous onset of labour. East. Mediterr. Health J. 17(8), 646–50 (2011).
pubmed: 21977566
doi: 10.26719/2011.17.8.646
Tahseen, S. & Griffiths, M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC‐2)—a systematic review with meta‐analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC‐2 versus VBAC‐1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG. 117(1), 5–19 (2010).
pubmed: 19781046
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (2015). Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_45.pdf (last accessed on 5th November 2019).
Eshkoli, T., Weintraub, A. Y., Sergienko, R. & Sheiner, E. Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 208, 219.e1–7 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.12.037
Cook, J. R., Jarvis, S., Knight, M. & Dhanjal, M. K. Multiple repeat caesarean section in the UK: incidence and consequences to mother and child. A national, prospective, cohort study. BJOG. 120, 85–91 (2013).
pubmed: 23095012
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12010
Fitzpatrick, K. E. et al. Incidence and risk factors for placenta accreta/increta/percreta in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS One 7, e52893 (2012).
pubmed: 23300807
pmcid: 3531337
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052893
Kamara, M., Henderson, J. J., Doherty, D. A., Dickinson, J. E. & Pennell, C. E. The risk of placenta accreta following primary elective caesarean delivery: a case-control study. BJOG. 120, 879–86 (2013).
pubmed: 23448347
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12148
Grobman, W. A. et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Pregnancy outcomes for women with placenta previa in relation to the number of prior cesarean deliveries. Obstet. Gynecol. 110, 1249–55 (2007).
pubmed: 18055717
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000292082.80566.cd
Macones, G. A. et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 192, 1223–8; discussion 1228–9. (2005).
Miller, D. A., Diaz, F. G. & Paul, R. H. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet. Gynecol. 84, 255–8 (1994).
pubmed: 8041542
Caughey, A. B. et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 181, 872–6 (1999).
pubmed: 10521745
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70317-0
Spaans, W. A., van der Vliet, L. M., Röell-Schorer, E. A., Bleker, O. P. & van Roosmalen, J. Trial of labour after two or three previous caesarean sections. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 110, 16–9 (2003).
pubmed: 12932864
doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00082-4
Landon, M. B. et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 108, 12–20 (2006).
pubmed: 16816050
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224694.32531.f3
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: NewInsights”. Available from: https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/er191-abstract.html (accessed in November 2019).
Olsen, A. L., Smith, V. J., Bergstrom, J. O., Colling, J. C. & Clark, A. L. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet. Gynecol. 89, 501–6 (1997).
pubmed: 9083302
doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
Feldman, G. B. & Freiman, J. A. Prophylactic cesarean section at term? N. Engl. J. Med. 312, 1264–7 (1985).
pubmed: 3990727
doi: 10.1056/NEJM198505093121926
Saunders, N. & Paterson, C. Effect of gestational age on obstetric performance: when is “term” over? Lancet. 338, 1190–2 (1991).
pubmed: 1682603
doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92044-3
Caughey, A. B. Evidence-Based Labor and Delivery Management Can We Safely Reduce the Cesarean Rate? Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North. Am. 44, 523–533 (2017).
pubmed: 29078936
doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2017.08.008
Pyykönen, A. et al. Cesarean section trends in the Nordic Countries - a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 96, 607–616 (2017).
pubmed: 28176334
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13108
Nilsson, C. et al. Women-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. Midwifery. 31(7), 657–63 (2015).
pubmed: 25931275
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.003