Management of deliveries after caesarean section in Český Krumlov Hospital

Czech version

Authors: MUDr. Lukáš Dostálek
Authors‘ workplace: prim. MUDr. Jan Shon Gynekologicko-porodnické oddělení, Nemocnice Český Krumlov
Published in: Prakt Gyn 2015; 19(1): 51-59
Category: Gynecology and Obstetrics: Review Article

Overview

Study type:
retrospective

Aim:
The aim of this study was to determine the success rate of births in patients with caesarean section in medical history in our clinic. We also wanted to determine the predictive factors for successful vaginal birth and the amount of risk which the vaginal birth after caesarean brings to the patient.

Metodics:
There were 1,060 births in our study, that took place in our clinic at the specified time. Out of this set there were 103 women, who had caesarean delivery in medical history and 70 of those tried to deliver vaginally.

Results:
Out of 1,060 births there were 19.2 % caesarean sections, from 70 patients who tried to give birth vaginally after caesaren (TOLAC – trial of labour after caesarean) 54.3 % succeeded (the rest gave birth per sectionem caesaream), out of 13 induced labours after caesarean there were only 23.1 % successful. We determined following predictive factors for successful TOLAC: at least one vaginal birth in medical history (p = 0.00), BMI under 35 (p = 0.04) at the time of birth and age under 25 (p = 0.05). We found significant difference in the blood loss between following groups: TOLAC vs deliveries without caesarean in medical history (p = 0.000), TOLAC vs. elective repeat sections (p = 0.000) and successful vs. unsuccessful TOLAC (p = 0.000). We also found significant difference in Apgar score in first and fifth minute between the group of successful TOLAC and unsucessful TOLAC. These results were compared with the current guidelines in UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Germany and Austria.

Conclusion:
This study has brought us data, that should be provided to the patients who think about giving birth in our clinic and who have already caesarean section in medical history.

Key words:
cesarean section – TOLAC – trial of labour after caesarean

Sources

1. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E et al. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (4): CD004224.

2. Davies GA, Hahn PM, McGrath MM. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Physicians’ perceptions and practice. J Reprod Med 1996; 41(7): 515–520.

3. Asakura, H, Myers SA. More than one previous cesarean delivery: a 5-year experience with 435 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(6): 924–929.

4. Macones GA, Cahill A, Pare E et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192(4): 1223–1228; discussion 1228–1229.

5. Spaans WA, van der Vliet LM, Röell-Schorer EA et al. Trial of labour after two or three previous caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 110(1): 16–19.

6. Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181(4): 872–876.

7. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108(1): 12–20.

8. Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193(3 Pt 2): 1016–1023.

9. Smith GC, White IR, Pell JP et al. Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS Med 2005; 2(9): e252.

10. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109(4): 806–812.

11. Hibbard, Judith U et al. Trial of labor or repeat cesarean delivery in women with morbid obesity and previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(1): 125–133.

12. Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Carroll CS et al. Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(2):349–354.

13. Bujold E, Hammoud AO, Hendler I. Trial of labor in patients with a previous cesarean section: does maternal age influence the outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190(4): 1113–1118.

14. Coassolo KM, Stamilio DM, Paré E et al. Safety and efficacy of vaginal birth after cesarean attempts at or beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(4): 700–706.

15. Hoskins IA1, Gomez JL. Correlation between maximum cervical dilatation at cesarean delivery and subsequent vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89(4): 591–593.

16. Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181(4): 872–876.

17. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P et al. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ. 2004; 329(7456):19–25.

18. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183(5): 1187–1197.

19. Elkousy MA, Sammel M, Stevens E et al. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188(3): 824–830.

20. Zelop CM1, Shipp TD, Repke JT et al. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185(4): 903–905.

21. Chauhan SP, Martin JN Jr, Henrichs CE et al. Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189(2): 408–417.

22. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB et al. Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(1): 30.e1–5. Dostupné z DOI:<http://doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.039>.

23. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183(5): 1187–1197.

24. Stutchfield P, Whitaker R, Russell I et at. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ 2005; 331(7518): 662. Epub 2005 Aug 22.

25. Collin SM, Marshall T, Filippi V. Caesarean section and subsequent fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. BJOG 2006; 113(3): 276–283.

26. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115(6): 1267–1278.

27. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(25): 2581–2589.

28. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335(10): 689–695.

29. Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluation. Swiss Working Group Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93(3): 332–337.

30. Shimonovitz S, Botosneano A, Hochner-Celnikier D. Successful first vaginal birth after cesarean section: a predictor of reduced risk for uterine rupture in subsequent deliveries. Isr Med Assoc J 2000; 2(7): 526–528.

31. Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 2002; 287(20): 2684–2690.

32. Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ et al. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97(3): 439–442.

33. Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The association of placenta previa with history of cesarean delivery and abortion: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177(5): 1071–1078.

34. Miller DA, Chollet JA, Goodwin TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177(1): 210–214.

35. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(6): 1226–1232.

36. Quiñones JN, Stamilio DM, Paré E et al. The effect of prematurity on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: success and maternal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(3): 519–524.

37. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(25): 2581–2589.

38. Varner MW, Leindecker S, Spong CY et al. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit cesarean registry: trial of labor with a twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193(1): 135–140.

39. Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Paré E et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) attempt in twin pregnancies: is it safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193(3 Pt 2): 1050–1055.

40. Sansregret A, Bujold E, Gauthier RJ Twin delivery after a previous caesarean: a twelve-year experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25(4): 294–298.

41. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187(5): 1199–1202.

42. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115(5): 1003–1006.

43. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P et al. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 329(7456): 19–25.

44. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186(6): 1326–1330.

45. Taylor DR, Doughty AS, Kaufman H et al. Uterine rupture with the use of PGE2 vaginal inserts for labor induction in women with previous cesarean sections. J Reprod Med 2002; 47(7): 549–554.

46. Blanchette HA1, Nayak S, Erasmus S. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) with those of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180(6 Pt 1): 1551–1559.

47. Delaney T, Young DC. Spontaneous versus induced labor after a previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(1): 39–44.

48. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK. Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183(5): 1176–1179.

49. Hochler H, Yaffe H, Schwed P et al. Safety of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in grandmultiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123(2 Pt 1): 304–308.

50. Rosenstein MG, Kuppermann M, Gregorich SE et al. Association between vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122(5): 1010–1017.

51. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights, March 8–10, 2010, Bethesda, Maryland, Final Panel Statement. Dostupné z: <http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbacstatement.htm>.

52. Grady D. New guidelines seek to reduce repeat Caesareans. The New York Times. July 21 (2010). Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/health/22birth.html?_r=0>.

53. Rodička a novorozenec 2012. ÚZIS 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.uzis.cz/katalog/zdravotnicka-statistika/rodicka-novorozenec>.

54. Roztočil A, Velebil P. Vedemí porodu u těhotné s císařským řezem v anamnéze – doporučený postup. Čes gynek 2013; 78(Suppl): 48–49.

55. Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM et al. “ Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(4):326.e1–326.e10. Dostupné z WWW: <http://doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.058>.

56. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45 February 2007. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg45>.

57. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG practice bulletin; no. 115. 2010. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Practice-Bulletins/Committee-on-Practice-Bulletins-Obstetrics/Vaginal-Birth-After-Previous-Cesarean-Delivery>.

58. Martel MJ, MacKinnon CJ. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous Caesarean birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27(2): 164–188.

59. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Planned Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Section. Trial of Labour. New College Statement C-Obs 38. 2010. Review 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/college-statements-guidelines.html#obstetrics>.

60. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (2010). Schwangerenbetreuung und Geburtseinleitung bei Zustand nach Kaiserschnitt. AWMF 015/021 (S1). Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.dggg.de/fileadmin/public_docs/Leitlinien/3–4–5-entbindung-nach-sectio-2010.pdf>.

61. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Entbindungsmodus bei Zustand nach Kaiserschnitt (in Anlehnung an die Empfehlung der AG für materno-fetale Medizin der DGGG) 2003. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.oeggg.at/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/Leitlinien/Leitlinie_Entbindungsmodus_bei_Status_post_Sectio.pdf>.

62. Kalkulátor dostupný z https: <https://mfmu.bsc.gwu.edu/PublicBSC/MFMU/VGBirthCalc/vagbirth.html>.