Previous cesarean sections impose added risks during VBAC births
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
4 sources for · 0 against
Multiple peer-reviewed studies and systematic reviews establish that previous cesarean sections introduce distinct maternal and fetal risks during vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), notably increased odds of uterine rupture, emergency cesarean delivery, and associated morbidity.
<h4>Background</h4>Evidence for the relationship between maternal and perinatal factors and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) is conflicting. We aimed to systematically analyze published data on maternal and fetal factors for successful VBAC.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from each database's inception to March 16, 2018. Observational studies, identifying women with a trial of labor after one previous low-transverse cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.<h4>Results</h4>We included 94 eligible observational studies (239,006 pregnant women with 163,502 VBAC). Factors were associated with successful VBAC with the following odds ratios (OR;95%CI): age (0.92;0.86-0.98), obesity (0.50;0.39-0.64), diabetes (0.50;0.42-0.60), hypertensive disorders complicating pregnancy (HDCP) (0.54;0.44-0.67), Bishop score (3.77;2.17-6.53), labor induction (0.58;0.50-0.67), macrosomia (0.56;0.50-0.64), white race (1.39;1.26-1.54), previous vaginal birth before cesarean section (3.14;2.62-3.77), previous VBAC (4.71;4.33-5.12), the indications for the previous cesarean section (cephalopelvic disproportion (0.54;0.36-0.80), dystocia or failure to progress (0.54;0.41-0.70), failed induction (0.56;0.37-0.85), and fetal malpresentation (1.66;1.38-2.01)). Adjusted ORs were similar.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Diabetes, HDCP, Bishop score, labor induction, macrosomia, age, obesity, previous vaginal birth, and the indications for the previous CS should be considered as the factors affecting the success of VBAC.
Background Trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery (TOLAC) has reduced the rate of cesarean sections (CS). Nevertheless, the widespread use of TOLAC has been limited by an increase in adverse outcomes, the most serious one being the risk of symptomatic uterine rupture, which is possibly associated with oxytocin. In this meta-analysis, we explored the risk association between oxytocin use and uterine rupture in TOLAC. Methods Multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched for cross-sectional studies reporting on TOLAC, oxytocin and uterine rupture, which were published between January 1986 and October 2019. The bias-corrected Hedge’s g was calculated as the effect size using the random-effects model. A two-sample Z test was used to compare the differences in synthetic rates between groups. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty ratings system. Results A total of 14 studies, which included 48,457 women who underwent TOLAC, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of vaginal birth after a cesarean section (VBAC) and the rate of uterine rupture in spontaneous labor were 74.3 and 0.7%, respectively. In addition, the pooled rate of VBAC and the rate of uterine rupture in the induction labor group was 60.7 and 2.2%, respectively. The women who had spontaneous labor had a significantly higher rate of VBAC ( p = 0.001) and a lower rate of uterine rupture ( p = 0.0003) compared to induced labor. The pooled rates of uterine rupture in women using oxytocin and women not using oxytocin in TOLAC were 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively, and the difference was significant ( p = 0.0002). Also, the synthetic rate of uterine rupture in oxytocin augmentation among women with spontaneous labor and women who had a successful induction of labor were 1.7% and 2.2%, respectively, without significant difference ( p = 0.443). Conclusions Women with induced labor had a higher risk of uterine rupture compared to women with spontaneous labor following TOLAC. Oxytocin use may increase this risk, which could be influenced by the process of induction or individual cervix condition. Consequently, simplified and standardized intrapartum management, precise protocol, and cautious monitoring of oxytocin use in TOLAC are necessary.
A prior cesarean section is the primary risk factor for uterine rupture in a trial of labor after cesarean, a rare event associated with severe maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. This population-based cohort study aimed to determine the risk of uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after one previous cesarean section in the Stockholm-Gotland Region and to examine associations between induction methods, labor management, and rupture risk. The cohort included 11,947 women with a cephalic-presenting, singleton infant at ≥ 37 + 0/6 weeks of gestation. Incidence of uterine rupture was calculated by labor onset and management strategies. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between labor characteristics, uterine rupture, and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Overall, 216 (1.8%) women experienced uterine rupture. Induction of labor was associated with higher odds of rupture than spontaneous onset (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.20–2.22). Prostaglandin induction showed 2.6-fold increased odds (aOR 2.58; 95% CI 1.77–3.74), while balloon catheter showed no association (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.61–1.61). Prostaglandin use was thus linked to increased risk of uterine rupture, whereas balloon catheter induction was not. When induction is necessary, mechanical methods may be safer, though vigilant monitoring remains crucial.
Women with a history of previous cesarean delivery, presenting with a placenta previa, have become the largest group with the highest risk for placenta previa accreta. The objective of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound imaging in the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta and the impact of the depth of villous invasion on management in women presenting with placenta previa or low-lying placenta and with 1 or more prior cesarean deliveries. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicalTrials.gov, and MEDLINE for studies published between 1982 and November 2016. Criteria for the study were cohort studies that provided data on previous mode of delivery, placenta previa, or low-lying placenta on prenatal ultrasound imaging and pregnancy outcome. The initial search identified 171 records, of which 5 retrospective and 9 prospective cohort studies were eligible for inclusion in the quantitative analysis. The studies were scored on methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. The 14 cohort studies included 3889 pregnancies presenting with placenta previa or low-lying placenta and 1 or more prior cesarean deliveries screened for placenta accreta. There were 328 cases of placenta previa accreta (8.4%), of which 298 (90.9%) were diagnosed prenatally by ultrasound. The incidence of placenta previa accreta was 4.1% in women with 1 prior cesarean and 13.3% in women with ≥2 previous cesarean deliveries. The pooled performance of ultrasound for the antenatal detection of placenta previa accreta was higher in prospective than retrospective studies, with a diagnostic odds ratios of 228.5 (95% confidence interval, 67.2-776.9) and 80.8 (95% confidence interval, 13.0-501.4), respectively. Only 2 studies provided detailed data on the relationship between the depth of villous invasion and the number of previous cesarean deliveries, independently of the depth of the villous invasion. A cesarean hysterectomy was performed in 208 of 232 cases (89.7%) for which detailed data on management were available. Positive correlations were found in the largest prospective studies between the cumulative rates of the more invasive forms of accreta placentation and the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound imaging but not with diagnostic odds ratio values. We found no data on the ultrasound screening of placenta accreta at the routine midtrimester ultrasound examination from the nonexpert ultrasound units. Planning individual management for delivery is possible only with accurate evaluation of prenatal risk of accreta placentation in women presenting with a low-lying placenta/previa and a history of prior cesarean delivery. Ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific in the prenatal diagnosis of accreta placentation when performed by skilled operators. Developing a prenatal screening protocol is now essential to further improve the outcome of this increasingly more common major obstetric complication.
Everything we examined (4)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.