Trial of Labor After Two Prior Cesarean Deliveries: Patient and Hospital Characteristics and Birth Outcomes

Trial of labor versus elective cesarean delivery for patients with two prior cesarean sections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Cesarean section (CS) rates have been on the rise globally, leading to an increasing number of women facing the decision between a Trial of Labor after two Cesarean Sections (TOLAC-2) or opting for an Elective Repeat Cesarean Section (ERCS). This study evaluates and compares safety outcomes of TOLAC and ERCS in women with a history of two previous CS deliveries.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for studies published until 30 June 2023. Eligible studies were included based on predetermined criteria, and a random-effects model was employed to pool data for maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a combined sample size of 101,011 women who had two prior CS were included. TOLAC-2 was associated with significantly higher maternal mortality (odds ratio (OR)=1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 1.25-1.81) and higher chance of uterine rupture (OR = 7.15, 95% CI = 3.44-14.87) compared to ERCS. However, no correlation was found for other maternal outcomes, including blood transfusion, hysterectomy, or post-partum hemorrhage. Furthermore, neonatal outcomes, such as Apgar scores, NICU admissions, and neonatal mortality, were comparable in the TOLAC-2 and ERCS groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest an increased risk of uterine rupture and maternal mortality with TOLAC-2, emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment and shared decision-making by healthcare professionals. Additional studies are needed to refine our understanding of these outcomes in the context of TOLAC-2.

Trial of Labor versus Repeat Cesarean Delivery in Individuals with Morbid Obesity after Previous Cesarean Delivery

OBJECTIVE

 This study aimed to compare adverse neonatal outcomes associated with the trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) at term in pregnancies according to maternal prepregnancy body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) and the presence of previous vaginal delivery (VD).

STUDY DESIGN

 This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of individuals with singleton, cephalic, and term deliveries with a history of one or two cesarean deliveries in the Linked Birth/Infant Death data from 2011 to 2020. Outcomes were examined according to the BMI category including BMI <30, 30 to 39.9, and 40 to 69.9 kg/m2. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome, defined as any presence of neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, assisted ventilation, surfactant therapy, or seizures. Outcomes were compared between TOLAC and elective repeat cesarean delivery (eRCD) after stratifying by BMI category and previous VD. Log-binomial regression was performed to obtain adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 99% confidence intervals, controlling for covariates.

RESULTS

 Of 4,055,440 individuals, 2,627,131 had BMI <30 kg/m2, 1,108,278 had BMI 30 to 39.9 kg/m2, and 320,031 had BMI 40 to 69.9 kg/m2. In individuals with no previous VD, VD rates after TOLAC were 66.7, 57.2, and 48.1%, respectively. In individuals with previous VD, VD rates after TOLAC were 81.4, 74.7, and 67.3%, respectively. In individuals without previous VD, compared with those who had an eRCD, those who had TOLAC were more likely to experience composite neonatal outcomes in individuals with BMI < 30 kg/m2 (5.0 vs. 6.5%; aRR = 1.33 [1.30-1.36]), BMI 30 to 39.9 kg/m2 (6.1 vs. 7.8%; aRR = 1.29 [1.24-1.34]), and BMI 40 to 69.9 kg/m2 (8.2 vs. 9.0%; aRR = 1.15 [1.07-1.23]). In individuals with previous VD, there was no difference in the composite neonatal outcomes in BMI < 30 kg/m2 (6.2 vs. 5.8%; aRR = 0.98 [0.96-1.00]), BMI 30 to 39.9 kg/m2 (7.4 vs. 7.1%; aRR = 0.99 [0.95-1.02]), and BMI 40 to 69.9 kg/m2 (9.4 vs. 8.7%; aRR = 0.96 [0.91-1.02]).

CONCLUSION

 TOLAC among obese individuals could be offered in selected cases.

KEY POINTS

· TOLAC among obese individuals could be offered selectively, despite their reduced likelihood of attempting or succeeding at it.. · Higher BMI individuals show decreased rates of both attempting and achieving successful TOLAC.. · Despite these trends, attempting TOLAC after a previous vaginal delivery does not heighten neonatal complications..

The Feasibility of a Trial of Labor after Two Cesarean Deliveries: Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for Success

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether a trial of labor after two cesarean deliveries (TOLAC2) increases the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and identify prognostic factors for TOLAC2 success.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single medical center. The study group was comprised of women with a history of TOLAC2. Outcomes were compared with women undergoing trial of labor after one previous cesarean delivery (TOLAC1). The primary outcome was trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) success. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, uterine rupture, and combined adverse outcome (CAO; uterine rupture, postpartum hemorrhage, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, pH < 7.1). Logistic regression was used for the multivariate analysis to identify prognostic factors for TOLAC2 success.

RESULTS

A total of 381 women who underwent TOLAC2 were compared with 3,635 women who underwent TOLAC1. Women attempting TOLAC2 were less likely to achieve vaginal births after cesarean delivery (VBAC; 80.8 and 92.5%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.47; p < 0.001) and more likely to experience uterine rupture (0.8 vs. 0.2%; OR: 4.1; 95% CI: 1.1-15.9; p = 0.02) but not CAO (4.2 vs. 4.8%; OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.5-1.5; p = 0.3). TOLAC2 women with no previous vaginal deliveries had a lower chance of VBAC and a higher risk of uterine rupture compared with TOLAC1 women without a prior vaginal delivery (45.2 vs. 86.3%; OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.07-0.25; p < 0.001; 2.3 vs. 0%) and TOLAC2 women with a prior vaginal delivery (45.2 vs. 85.3%; OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.1-0.3; p < 0.0001; 2.4 vs. 0.6%; OR: 4.1; 95% CI: 0.4-46.3; p = 0.3). Multivariate analysis revealed that a history of vaginal delivery is an independent predictor of TOLAC2 success.

CONCLUSION

Women attempting TOLAC2 are less likely to achieve VBAC and are at greater risk of uterine rupture compared with those attempting TOLAC1. Despite these risks, the overall success rates remain very high, and the absolute risk of adverse outcomes is still very low. Prior vaginal delivery seems to have a protective effect on TOLAC outcomes. These data should be used to counsel women and assist in decision-making when considering the mode of delivery in women with two previous cesarean sections.

KEY POINTS

· TOLAC2 has a lower chance of success and higher rate of uterine rupture compared with TOLAC1.. · Previous vaginal delivery is an independent predictor of TOLAC2 success.. · Overall TOLAC2 outcomes are associated with high chances of success and low risk of uterine rupture..

Middle eastern college of obstetricians and gynecologists (MCOG) practice guidelines: Role of prediction models in management of trial of labor after cesarean section. Practice guideline no. 05-O-22✰,✰✰,★,★★

Cesarean delivery rates have been steadily rising since the beginning of the 21st century. The growing incidence is even more prominent in developing countries owing to lack of evidence-based guidance and audit, and the expansion of private practice. The uprise in Cesarean delivery rate has been associated with considerable financial burden and has increased the risk otherwise uncommon serious complications such as placenta accreta disorders and uterine rupture. In addition to primary prevention of Cesarean delivery, trial of labor after cesarean section is one of the most successful strategies to reduce Cesarean deliveries and minimize risks associated with higher order Cesarean deliveries. This guideline appraises patient selection strategies and use of prediction model to promote counseling and enhance safety in women considering vaginal birth after Cesarean.

What we talk about when we talk about severe maternal morbidity: a call to action to critically review severe maternal morbidity as an outcome measure

Severe maternal morbidity has historically functioned as an umbrella term to define major, potentially life-threatening obstetrical, medical, and surgical complications of pregnancy. There is no overarching or consensus definition of the constellation of conditions that have been used variably to define severe maternal morbidity, although it is clear that having a well-honed definition of severe maternal morbidity is important for research, quality improvement, and health policy purposes. Although severe maternal morbidity may ultimately elude a single unifying definition because different features may be relevant depending on context and modality of data acquisition, it is valuable to explore the intellectual frameworks and various applications of severe maternal morbidity in current practice, and to consider the potential benefit of more consolidated terminology for maternal morbidity.

Maternal and neonatal characteristics associated with clinical outcomes of TOLAC from 2012-20 in the USA: Evidence from a retrospective cohort study

Background

The risks of a few maternal and/or neonatal morbidities are higher with the trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) owing to unplanned caesarean delivery. Thus, it is imperative to consider the trade-off between the risk of side effects and the potential benefits before TOLAC utilisation and whether TOLAC should be provided to women with specific characteristics related to previous caesarean delivery. We aimed to investigate maternal and neonatal characteristics associated with TOLAC utilisation, compare maternal and/or neonatal morbidities in TOLAC women with women who chose planned caesarean deliveries, and assess specific characteristics related to maternal and/or neonatal morbidities in women with TOLAC utilisation.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used nationwide, linked birth and infant death data in the United States between 2012 and 2020, which covers all 50 states in the US. Poisson regression models using generalised estimating equations yielded adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of TOLAC utilisation and unsuccessful TOLAC by maternal and neonatal characteristics. Logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations yielded adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs of maternal and neonatal morbidities. Statistical analysis was performed from February 2022 to July 2022.

Findings

The sample included 4,898,441 women with mean (SD) maternal age years (5.4 years; range 13-50). Several specific maternal and neonatal characteristics were significantly associated with unsuccessful TOLAC, although women with TOLAC utilisation were associated with significantly lower risks of maternal unplanned hysterectomy (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.60-0.61), admission to intensive care (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85), and neonatal seizures (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84). In women who attempted TOLAC, advanced maternal age, higher maternal body mass index, more than 2 previous caesarean deliveries, having maternal co-morbidities and fetal malpresentation increased the likelihood of maternal and neonatal morbidities.

Interpretation

When utilising TOLAC, specific maternal and neonatal characteristics in pregnant women should be considered in conjunction with the potential benefits of TOLAC in preventing maternal and neonatal morbidities.

Funding

This study is funded by the Clinical Medicine Plus X - Young Scholars Project, Peking University, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No: PKU2022LCXQ008).

Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section: A structured review of the evidence on the associated outcomes for women and their children in high-income setting

In many high-income settings policy consensus supports giving pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean section a choice between planning an elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or planning a vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC), provided they have no contraindications to VBAC. To help women make an informed decision regarding this choice, clinical guidelines advise women should be counseled on the associated risks and benefits. The most recent and comprehensive review of the associated risks and benefits of planned VBAC compared to ERCS in high-income settings was published in 2010 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This paper describes a structured review of the evidence in high-income settings that has been published since the AHRQ review and the literature in high-income settings that has been published since 1980 on outcomes not included in the AHRQ review. Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for relevant studies meeting pre-specified eligible criteria, supplemented by searching of reference lists. Forty-seven studies were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria and included in the structured review. The review suggests that while planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with an increased risk of various serious birth-related complications for both the mother and her baby, the absolute risk of these complications is small for either birth approach. The review also found some evidence that planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay and a higher likelihood of breastfeeding. The limited evidence available also suggests that planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section is not associated with the child's subsequent risk of experiencing adverse neurodevelopmental or health problems in childhood. This information can be used to manage and counsel women with previous cesarean section about their subsequent birth choices. Collectively, the evidence supports existing consensus that there are risks and benefits associated with both planned VBAC and ERCS, and therefore women without contraindications to VBAC should be given an informed choice about planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section. However, further studies into the longer-term effects of planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section are needed along with more research to address the other key limitations and gaps that have been highlighted with the existing evidence.

Neonatal and maternal outcomes with trial of labor after two prior cesarean births: stratified by history of vaginal birth

INTRODUCTION

To determine the impact of prior vaginal birth on neonatal and maternal outcomes among individuals undergoing a trial of labor after two cesarean births.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using the U.S. National Vital Statistics 2014-2018 period linked birth and infant death data. Inclusion criteria were term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies with two prior cesarean births. The primary exposure variable was a trial of labor after cesarean vs prelabor repeat cesarean birth. Cohorts were defined by the presence or absence of a prior vaginal birth. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (Apgar score <5 at 5 min, assisted ventilation >6 h, neonatal seizures, or neonatal death within 27 days). Secondary outcomes included a maternal composite and the cesarean birth rate. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences in treatment allocation within each cohort, and conditional logistic regression assessed the association between the exposure and outcomes.

RESULTS

The composite neonatal adverse outcome was significantly higher in those undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean compared to prelabor repeat cesarean birth in both individuals without a prior vaginal birth (8.2 vs 11.6 per 1000 live births, OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.12-1.70) and with a prior vaginal birth (9.6 vs 12.4 per 1000 live births, OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.57). The composite maternal adverse outcome was significantly higher among individuals without a prior vaginal birth undergoing trial of labor after cesarean (6.0 vs 9.5 per 1000 live births, OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.26-2.09), but was similar in those with a prior vaginal birth (7.9 vs 9.3 per 1000 live births, OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.97-1.46).

CONCLUSION

In individuals with two prior cesarean births, trial of labor after cesarean was associated with increased neonatal adverse outcomes when compared to prelabor repeat cesarean birth, irrespective of a history of vaginal birth. In individuals with a prior vaginal birth, the composite maternal adverse outcome was not elevated in the trial of labor cohort.