Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes

Jeanne-Marie Guise, Mary Denman, Cathy Emeis, Nicole Marshall, Miranda Walker, Rongwei (Rochelle) Fu, Rosalind Janik, Peggy Nygren, Karen Eden, Marian McDonagh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

141 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Data sources: Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of medline, dare, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Methods of study selection: Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses. Tabulation, integration, and Results: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Conclusion: Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1267-1278
Number of pages12
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology
Volume115
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Vaginal Birth after Cesarean
Trial of Labor
Mothers
Uterine Rupture
Maternal Mortality
Information Storage and Retrieval
Perinatal Mortality
Hysterectomy
Developed Countries
Patient Selection
Language
Parturition
Databases
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Vaginal birth after cesarean : New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. / Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Denman, Mary; Emeis, Cathy; Marshall, Nicole; Walker, Miranda; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle); Janik, Rosalind; Nygren, Peggy; Eden, Karen; McDonagh, Marian.

In: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 115, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 1267-1278.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1495ef2e9589441096a8dcc2eea58e45,
title = "Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes",
abstract = "Objective: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Data sources: Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of medline, dare, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Methods of study selection: Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses. Tabulation, integration, and Results: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013{\%} compared with 0.004{\%} for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30{\%}, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47{\%} compared with 0.03{\%} for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13{\%} compared with 0.05{\%} for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Conclusion: Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.",
author = "Jeanne-Marie Guise and Mary Denman and Cathy Emeis and Nicole Marshall and Miranda Walker and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)} and Rosalind Janik and Peggy Nygren and Karen Eden and Marian McDonagh",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "115",
pages = "1267--1278",
journal = "Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0029-7844",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vaginal birth after cesarean

T2 - New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes

AU - Guise, Jeanne-Marie

AU - Denman, Mary

AU - Emeis, Cathy

AU - Marshall, Nicole

AU - Walker, Miranda

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

AU - Janik, Rosalind

AU - Nygren, Peggy

AU - Eden, Karen

AU - McDonagh, Marian

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Objective: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Data sources: Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of medline, dare, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Methods of study selection: Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses. Tabulation, integration, and Results: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Conclusion: Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.

AB - Objective: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Data sources: Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of medline, dare, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Methods of study selection: Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses. Tabulation, integration, and Results: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Conclusion: Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952985732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952985732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f

DO - 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f

M3 - Article

C2 - 20502300

AN - SCOPUS:77952985732

VL - 115

SP - 1267

EP - 1278

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0029-7844

IS - 6

ER -