Influence of the external cephalic version attempt on the Cesarean section rate: experience of a type 3 maternity hospital in France.


Journal

Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
received: 14 03 2020
accepted: 24 08 2020
pubmed: 9 9 2020
medline: 16 3 2021
entrez: 8 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To define the effects of attempted external cephalic version (ECV) in a low-risk population for breech delivery in a maternity hospital where breech vaginal delivery is widely practiced. Retrospective exposed-unexposed study including 204 patients presented with a live singleton fetus breech presentation on third-trimester ultrasound and who delivered at Reims University Hospital between January 1st, 2013 and July 1st, 2018. 121 patients received ECV. Cesarean section rate was lower (OR with no adjustment 0.42 [0.24-0.76] p = 0.004) but without significant difference in the exposed patients after adjustment. This difference was significant between exposed and unexposed patients in the subgroup of 51 primiparous (OR = 0.14 [0.04-0.52] p = 0.002) and 51 multiparous (OR = 0.26 [0.08-0.89] p = 0.028) but not in the subgroup of 102 nulliparous. There was no difference in fetal impact other than neonatal management in the delivery room, which is less needed in exposed primiparous women. Attempted ECV significantly decreased the breech rate (72.5 vs 100%, p < 0.001). There were 7 (5.79%) complications. Three factors favored success: high uterine height (p = 0.011), a non-elevated BMI (p = 0.006) and an earlier term at ECV (p = 0.003). The attempt of ECV in the Reims University Hospital does not significantly reduce the Cesarean section rate and has no effect on neonatal status.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32895742
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05765-2
pii: 10.1007/s00404-020-05765-2
doi:

Substances chimiques

Phloroglucinol DHD7FFG6YS
Albuterol QF8SVZ843E

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

443-454

Références

Hall JE, Kohl SG, Obrien F, Ginsberg M (1965) Breech presentation and perinatal mortality; a study of 6,044 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 91:665–683
pubmed: 14266210
Morgan HS, Kane SH (1964) An analysis of 16,327 breech births. JAMA 187:262–264
pubmed: 14074462
Fischer-Rasmussen W, Trolle D (1967) Abdominal versus vaginal delivery in breech presentation. A retrospective study comparing 420 breech presentations and 9,291 cephalic presentations for infants weighing more than 2,5000 g at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 46:69–76
doi: 10.3109/00016346709158629
Rovinsky JJ, Miller JA, Kaplan S (1973) Management of breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 115:497–513
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(73)90398-0
Pinard A (1878) Traité du palper abdominal au point de vue obstétrical et de la version par manoeuvres externes. Paris, H. Lauwereyns
Cuerva MJ, Piñel CS, Caceres J, Espinosa JA (2017) Labor induction just after external cephalic version with epidural analgesia at term. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 56:366–367
doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2017.04.018
Rosman AN et al (2016) Mode of childbirth and neonatal outcome after external cephalic version: a prospective cohort study. Midwifery 39:44–48
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.014
Coppola C et al (2016) Impact de la version par manœuvre externe sur le pronostic obstétrical dans une équipe à fort taux de réussite de l’accouchement vaginal du siège. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 45:859–865
doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.03.007
Laros RK, Flanagan TA, Kilpatrick SJ (1995) Management of term breech presentation: a protocol of external cephalic version and selective trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:1916–1923 (discussion 1923–1925)
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)91432-3
Higgins M, Turner MJ (2006) How useful is external cephalic version in clinical practice? J Obstet Gynaecol 26:744–745
doi: 10.1080/01443610600955784
Gottvall T, Ginstman C (2011) External cephalic version of non-cephalic presentation; is it worthwhile: external cephalic version. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90:1443–1445
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01221.x
Bogner G, Xu F, Simbrunner C, Bacherer A, Reisenberger K (2012) Single-institute experience, management, success rate, and outcome after external cephalic version at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet 116:134–137
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.09.027
Cho LY, Lau WL, Lo TK, Tang HHT, Leung WC (2012) Predictors of successful outcomes after external cephalic version in singleton term breech pregnancies: a nine-year historical cohort study. Hong Kong Med J Xianggang Yi Xue Za Zhi 18:11–19
pubmed: 22302905
Salzer L et al (2015) Predictors of successful external cephalic version and assessment of success for vaginal delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28:49–54
doi: 10.3109/14767058.2014.900749
Theron GB, Kader R (2014) Obstetric outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet 127:298–299
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.07.019
Burgos J et al (2015) Probability of cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version. Int J Gynecol Obstet 131:192–195
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.04.050
de Hundt M et al (2016) Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29:2005–2007
doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1072160
Basu A, Flatley C, Kumar S (2016) Intrapartum intervention rates and perinatal outcomes following successful external cephalic version. J Perinatol 36:439–442
doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.220
Beuckens A et al (2016) An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123:415–423
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13234
Bin YS, Roberts CL, Nicholl MC, Ford JB (2017) Uptake of external cephalic version for term breech presentation: an Australian population study, 2002–2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17:244
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1430-5
Boujenah J et al (2017) Successful external cephalic version is an independent factor for Cesarean section during trial of labor—a matched controlled study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 46:737–742
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.001
Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M (1997) Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176:218–223
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)80040-3
Chan LY-S, Leung TY, Fok WY, Chan LW, Lau TK (2002) High incidence of obstetric interventions after successful external cephalic version. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 109:627–631
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01514.x
Vézina Y, Bujold E, Varin J, Marquette GP, Boucher M (2004) Cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version of breech presentation at term: a comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:763–768
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.056
Jain S, Mulligama C, Tagwira V, Guyer C, Cheong Y (2010) Labour outcome of women with successful external cephalic version: a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol 30:13–16
doi: 10.3109/01443610903383341
Kuppens SMI et al (2013) Mode of delivery following successful external cephalic version: comparison with spontaneous cephalic presentations at delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35:883–888
doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30809-4
Zandstra H, Mertens HJMM (2013) Improving external cephalic version for foetal breech presentation. Facts Views Vis ObGyn 5:85–90
pubmed: 24753933 pmcid: 3987362
Hants Y et al (2015) Induction of labor at term following external cephalic version in nulliparous women is associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292:313–319
doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3643-z
Egge T, Schauberger C, Schaper A (1994) Dysfunctional labor after external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 83:771–773
pubmed: 8164942
Siddiqui D, Stiller RJ, Collins J, Laifer SA (1999) Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1092–1095
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70087-6
Wax JR, Sutula K, Lerer T, Steinfeld JD, Ingardia CJ (2000) Labor and delivery following successful external cephalic version. Am J Perinatol 17:183–186
doi: 10.1055/s-2000-9421
Ben-Haroush A et al (2002) Mode of delivery following successful external cephalic version. Am J Perinatol 19:355–360
doi: 10.1055/s-2002-35609
Matsuzaki S, Shimoya K, Murata Y (2006) Cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version of breech presentation at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet 93:248–249
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.03.015
Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH (2009) Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol 29:96–100
doi: 10.1038/jp.2008.227
McCarthy EA et al (2014) Successful external cephalic version does not confer a measurable increased risk of intrapartum cesarean section in modern obstetric practice. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93:522–523
doi: 10.1111/aogs.12343
Policiano C, Costa A, Valentim-Lourenço A, Clode N, Graça LM (2014) Route of delivery following successful external cephalic version. Int J Gynecol Obstet 126:272–274
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.03.029
Westgren M, Edvall H, Nordström L, Svalenius E, Ranstam J (1985) Spontaneous cephalic version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92:19–22
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb01043.x
Roux-Chevalier M, Gaucherand P, Cluze CL (2011) version par manœuvre externe: audit sur un an dans une maternité de niveau 3. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil 39:346–350
doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2011.02.001
Hutton EK, Simioni JC, Thabane L, for the Early ECV2 Trial Collaborative Group (2017) Predictors of success of external cephalic version and cephalic presentation at birth among 1253 women with non-cephalic presentation using logistic regression and classification tree analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96:1012–1020
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13161
Teoh TG (1997) Effect of learning curve on the outcome of external cephalic version. Singap Med J 38:323–325

Auteurs

Benjamin Birene (B)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France. benjamin.birene@gmail.com.

U Ishaque (U)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France.

J Chrusciel (J)

Department of Research and Public Health, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France.

S Bonneau (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France.

R Gabriel (R)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France.

O Graesslin (O)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH