Document Detail


Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20502300     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
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.
Authors:
Jeanne-Marie Guise; Mary Anna Denman; Cathy Emeis; Nicole Marshall; Miranda Walker; Rongwei Fu; Rosalind Janik; Peggy Nygren; Karen B Eden; Marian McDonagh
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Review    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Obstetrics and gynecology     Volume:  115     ISSN:  1873-233X     ISO Abbreviation:  Obstet Gynecol     Publication Date:  2010 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-05-26     Completed Date:  2010-07-01     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0401101     Medline TA:  Obstet Gynecol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1267-78     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA. guisej@ohsu.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Cesarean Section, Repeat
Female
Humans
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Participation
Pregnancy
Vaginal Birth after Cesarean* / adverse effects,  contraindications
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
290-2007-10057-I//PHS HHS
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115(6):1112-3   [PMID:  20502277 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Ectopic pregnancy and emergency contraceptive pills: a systematic review.
Next Document:  Inherited Thrombophilia Polymorphisms and Pregnancy Outcomes in Nulliparous Women.