Repeated cesarean section and vaginal delivery after cesarean section in São Paulo State in 2012 / Repetição de cesárea e parto vaginal após cesárea, no Estado de São Paulo, em 2012

Abstract Objectives: describe mothers, pregnancies and newborns' characteristics according to the type of childbirth history and to analyze repeated cesarean section (RCS) and vaginal delivery after cesarean section (VBACS), in São Paulo State in 2012. Methods: data are from the Sistema de Informações sobre Nascidos Vivos (Live Birth Information Systems). To find the RCS's group, the current type of childbirth equal to cesarean section was selected and from these all the previous cesareans. To identify the VBACS's group all live birth with current vaginal delivery were selected and from these all previous cesareans. Mothers with a history of RCS and VBACS were analyzed according to the characteristics of the pregnancy, newborn and the childbirth hospital. Results: 273,329 mothers of live birth with at least one previous child were studied. 43% of these were born of RCS and 7.4% of VBACS. Mothers who underwent RCS are older and higher educated and their newborns presented a lower incidence of low birth weight. Early term was the most frequent rating for gestational age born of RCS. Live births were of VBACS and had greater proportions of late term. The RCS was more common in hospitals not affiliated with the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) (Public Health System) (44.1%). Conclusion: the high RCS's rates, especially in the private sector, highlight the necessity of improvements in childbirth care model in São Paulo.

Resumo Objetivos: descrever características das mães, da gestação e do recém-nascido, segundo histórico de tipo de parto, analisando repetição de cesárea (RC) e parto vaginal após cesárea (PVAC), no Estado de São Paulo, em 2012. Métodos: os dados são provenientes do Sistema de Informações sobre Nascidos Vivos. Para encontrar o conjunto RC, selecionou-se o tipo de parto atual igual a cesárea e destes buscou-se todos com cesárea anterior. Para identificar o grupo PVAC, selecionou-se os recém-nascido com parto atual vaginal e destes buscou-se todos com cesárea anterior. Foram analisadas mães com história de RC e PVAC, segundo características da gestação, do recémnascido e hospital do parto. Resultados: estudou-se 273.329 nascidos vivos de mães com pelo menos um filho anterior. Destes, 43% nasceram por RC e 7,4% por PVAC. As mães que realizaram RC são mais velhas e mais escolarizadas, seus recém-nascidos apresentaram menor proporção de baixo peso ao nascer. Termo precoce foi a mais frequente idade gestacional dos que nasceram por RC. Os recém-nascidos por PVAC apresentaram maiores proporções de termo tardio. RC foi mais frequente nos hospitais sem vínculo com o Sistema Único de Saúde (44,1%). Conclusão: as altas taxas de RC, principalmente no setor privado, evidenciam necessidade de melhoras no modelo de atenção ao parto em São Paulo.

Calculators Estimating the Likelihood of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Uses and Perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: A calculator estimating likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) has been promoted by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, but little is known about how it is used and perceived in practice. Cutoffs for prohibiting labor after cesarean are discouraged by the calculator's developers, but such uses may be widespread. The purpose of this study was to determine how calculators predicting VBAC are used and perceived in midwifery practices. METHODS: Certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives currently providing care for labor after cesarean were surveyed between January 17, 2019, and February 7, 2019. Quantitative and text data were collected regarding the uses and perceptions of calculators among midwives and their colleagues. We compared these findings with midwives' perceptions of their ability to accommodate patient wishes for labor after cesarean. We used descriptive content analysis to evaluate themes occurring in text responses. RESULTS: There were 1305 valid responses. A requirement to use calculator scores for patient counseling was reported by 527 (40.4%) of responding midwives. Over 1 in 5 midwives reported that scores were used to discourage or prohibit labor after cesarean. Almost half reported some or strong disagreement with physician colleagues regarding calculator use. Interprofessional agreement and disagreement centered on how scores are used to direct clinical care or restrict patient options. Calculator scores were used in more than twice as many midwives' practices to discourage rather than encourage labor after cesarean. Descriptive analysis of text revealed 4 themes regarding calculators: inconsistent use, information counseling, informed consent, and influence patient management or options. DISCUSSION: Calculators predicting likelihood of VBAC success are widely used in midwifery settings and are more often used to discourage than to encourage labor after cesarean. Midwives reported both directive and nondirective counseling based on calculator scores.

Women's experiences of planning a vaginal birth after caesarean in different models of maternity care in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women's experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women's experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia. METHODS: The Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5 years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor. RESULTS: In total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC. CONCLUSION: This study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC.

The role of the respectful maternity care model in São Paulo, Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The promotion of a positive birth experience has been a main goal of the World Health Organization's (WHO) recent work on improving maternity care. The purpose of this study was to assess the cesarean rates, the prevalence of birth practices, perinatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction, in women involved with the respectful maternity care (RMC) support groups in Sao Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of women with low-risk pregnancies who were assisted by professionals recommended by the RMC groups. An online questionnaire was administered. Variables to assess birth practices were classified as positive, negative, or unspecified according to the WHO guidelines. The Pearson chi-square tests and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to assess differences between the groups. RESULTS: Five-hundred and eighty women completed the questionnaire. The cesarean rate was 14.7%, and the operative vaginal birth rate was 9.5%. The VBAC rate was 87.1%, and there was no significant difference in risk for cesarean between women with or without a prior cesarean. Of all women, 83.1% had a midwife's assistance and 75.5% hired a doula; 81.4% gave birth in a nonlithotomic position. The practices of enema, fasting and episiotomy were all under 2%. All 5-minute Apgar scores were ≥7. Most (83.1%) women reported having a positive birth experience. CONCLUSIONS: Woman's engagement with the birth support groups and a transdisciplinary team focused on RMC are key elements to achieve positive perinatal outcomes and high women's satisfaction.

Is the Birthing Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool valid for diverse groups?

BACKGROUND: Awareness of the impact of the built environment on health care outcomes and experiences has led to efforts to redesign birthing environments. The Birth Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool was developed to inform such improvements, but it has only been validated with caseload midwives and women birthing in caseload models of care. AIM: To assess the content validity of the tool with four new participant groups: Birth unit midwives, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women; women who had anticipated a vaginal birth after a caesarean; and women from refugee or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. METHODS: Participants completed a Likert-scale survey to rate the relevance of The Birth Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool's 69 items. Item-level content validity and Survey-level validity indices were calculated, with the achievement of validity set at >0.78 and >0.9 respectively. RESULTS: Item-level content validity was achieved on 37 items for birth unit midwives (n=10); 35 items for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women (n=6); 33 items for women who had anticipated a vaginal birth after a caesarean (n=6); and 28 items for women from refugee or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (n=20). Survey-level content validity was not demonstrated in any group. CONCLUSION: Birth environment design remains significant to women and midwives, but the Birth Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool was not validated for these participant groups. Further research is needed, using innovative methodologies to address the subconscious level on which environment may influence experience and to disentangle the influence of confounding factors.

Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rates of cesarean deliveries have been increasing, and contributes to the rising number of elective cesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies with associated maternal and neonatal risks. Multiple guidelines recommend that women be offered a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC). The objective of the study is to systematically review the literature on adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any adjunct clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting changes in TOLAC or VBAC rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies of overall moderate to good methodological quality examined adjunct clinical interventions affecting TOLAC and/or VBAC rates: system-level interventions (three studies), provider-level interventions (three studies), guidelines or information for providers (seven studies), provider characteristics (four studies), and patient-level interventions (six studies). Provider-level interventions (opinion leader education, laborist, and obstetrician second opinion for cesarean sections) and provider characteristics (midwifery antenatal care, physicians on night float call schedules, and deliveries by family physicians) were associated with increased rates of VBAC. Few studies employing heterogeneous designs, sample sizes, interventions and comparators limited confidence in the effects. Studies of system-level and patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for providers reported mixed findings. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence indicates some provider-level interventions and provider characteristics may increase rates of attempted and successful TOLACs and/or VBACs, whereas other adjunct clinical interventions such as system-level interventions, patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for healthcare providers show mixed findings.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Evaluating a Midwife-Led Model of Antenatal Care for Women with a Previous Cesarean Section: A Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Research is yet to identify effective and safe interventions to increase the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rate. This research aimed to compare intended and actual VBAC rates before and after implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean birth and no other risk factors in a large, tertiary maternity hospital in England. METHODS: This was a retrospective, comparative cohort study. Data were collected from the medical records of women with one previous lower segment cesarean delivery and no other obstetric, medical, or psychological complications who gave birth at the hospital before (2008) and after (2011) the implementation of midwife-led antenatal care. Chi-squared analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio, and logistic regression to account for confounders. RESULTS: Intended and actual VBAC rates were higher in 2011 compared with 2008: 90 percent vs. 77 percent, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.69 (1.48-4.87); and 61 percent vs. 47 percent, aOR 1.79 (1.17-2.75), respectively. Mean rates of unscheduled antenatal care sought via the delivery suite and inpatient admissions were lower in 2011 than 2008. Postnatal maternal and neonatal safety outcomes were similar between the two groups, except mean postnatal length of stay, which was shorter in 2011 compared with 2008 (2.67 vs. 3.15 days). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean offers a safe and effective alternative to traditional obstetrician-led antenatal care, and is associated with increased rates of intended and actual VBAC.

The Association of Expanded Access to a Collaborative Midwifery and Laborist Model With Cesarean Delivery Rates.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between expanded access to collaborative midwifery and laborist services and cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study at a community hospital between 2005 and 2014. In 2011, privately insured women changed from a private practice model to one that included 24-hour midwifery and laborist coverage. Primary cesarean delivery rates among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex women and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) rates among women with prior cesarean delivery were compared before and after the change. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the effects of the change on the odds of primary cesarean delivery and VBAC; an interrupted time-series analysis estimated the annual rates before and after the expansion. RESULTS: There were 3,560 nulliparous term singleton vertex deliveries and 1,324 deliveries with prior cesarean delivery during the study period; 45% were among privately insured women whose care model changed. The primary cesarean delivery rate among these privately insured women decreased after the change, from 31.7% to 25.0% (P=.005, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.81). The interrupted time-series analysis estimated a 7% drop in the primary cesarean delivery rate in the year after the expansion and a decrease of 1.7% per year thereafter. The VBAC rate increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% afterward (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.08-3.80). CONCLUSION: The change from a private practice to a collaborative midwifery-laborist model was associated with a decrease in primary cesarean rates and an increase in VBAC rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Women's reasons for, and experiences of, choosing a homebirth following a caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section is rising in the developed world and vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is declining. There are increased reports of women seeking a homebirth following a caesarean section (HBAC) in Australia but little is known about the reasons for this study aimed to explore women's reasons for and experiences of choosing a HBAC. METHODS: Twelve women participated in a semi-structured one-to-one interview. The interviews were digitally recorded, then transcribed verbatim. These data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The overarching theme that emerged was 'It's never happening again'. Women clearly articulated why it [caesarean section] was never happening again under the following sub themes: 'treated like a piece of meat', 'I was traumatised by it for years', 'you can smell the fear in the room', 're-traumatised by the system'. They also described how it [caesarean section] was never happening again under the sub themes: 'getting informed and gaining confidence', 'avoiding judgment through selective telling', 'preparing for birth', 'gathering support' and 'all about safety but I came first'. The women then identified the impact of their HBAC under the subthemes 'I felt like superwoman' and 'there is just no comparison'. CONCLUSIONS: Birth intervention may cause physical and emotional trauma that can have a significant impact on some women. Inflexible hospital systems and inflexible attitudes around policy and care led some women to seek other options. Women report that achieving a HBAC has benefits for the relationship with their baby. VBAC policies and practices in hospitals need to be flexible to enable women to negotiate the care that they wish to have.

Prior cesarean section--an acceptable risk for vaginal delivery at free-standing midwife-led birth centers? Results of the analysis of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) in German birth centers.

OBJECTIVES: Is out-of-hospital vaginal birth at a birth center safe for women with a previous cesarean section? Do their maternal or neonatal outcomes vary significantly from those of a "non-cesarean" control group? STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data on documented singleton births (cephalic presentation, >34/0 weeks of gestation), all of which were second births, occurring between 2000 and 2004 in 1 of 80 German birth centers. Births that occurred in the birth center or when labor had started in the birth center prior to transfer were included for analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty four women (5.3%) had a previous cesarean. The control group included 6448 parae II with no previous cesarean. Significant differences (p<0.05) between these two groups included: the transfer rate of mothers from a birth center to a hospital clinic during labor, the number of emergency transfers, the method of delivery (repeat cesarean), and the Apgar score at 5 min

Cesarean births in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of cesarean delivery in Taiwan by comparing local clinical indications with those in international cohorts. METHODS: In-patient claims from the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan were analyzed. Indications for cesarean delivery were evaluated with primary diagnosis codes and procedure codes from the NHI dataset. To produce a stable numerator for cesarean section, 3 years (1998-2000) of claims for cesarean delivery were abstracted and annualized. RESULTS: Rates ranged between 27.3% and 28.7% for primary cesarean delivery and were below 5% for vaginal birth after a cesarean section (VBAC). Compared with rates in other countries, rates for overall and primary cesarean section as well as for VBAC were significantly higher in medical centers in Taiwan (P<0.001). However, the clinics contributed the most to the difference in both overall and primary cesarean rates. The most common indication for cesarean section was prior cesarean section (43.3%-45.5%), followed by malpresentation (19.6%-23.4%). The proportion of fetuses with malpresentation delivered by cesarean section in Taiwan was 7.9%, almost twice the upper limit expected for all pregnancies as indicated in international studies. CONCLUSION: It is important to use appropriately documented data and to compare them with international data when monitoring local obstetric practices. The disproportionately high cesarean delivery rates in Taiwan may hold major lessons for the many countries contemplating or having universal health insurance coverage with a similar mix of providers.

Vaginal births after C-section are not necessarily riskier in a birth center than in the hospital.

Recent research concluded that VBACs are riskier in a birth center than in the hospital. This conclusion is only true if the woman is sure she will not have any more pregnancies and if she does not suffer from "Fear of Hospitals." Since childbirth centers offered a VBAC rate of 87%, whereas US hospitals currently offer a VBAC rate of less than 10%, the woman has a much higher risk of a repeat cesarean if she delivers in hospital, which increases her risk on subsequent pregnancies.

A description of the management and outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean birth in the homebirth setting.

Our objective was to describe the outcomes of intended home birth among 57 women with a previous cesarean birth. Data were drawn from a larger prospective study of intended homebirth in nurse-midwifery practice. Available data included demographics, perinatal risk information, and outcomes of prenatal, intrapartum, postpartum, and neonatal care. The hospital course was reviewed for those transferred to the hospital setting. Fifty-three of 57 women (93%) had a spontaneous vaginal birth, 1 had a vacuum-assisted birth, and 3 (5.3%) had a repeat cesarean birth. Thirty-one of 32 (97%) women who had a previous vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC) had a successful VBAC; 22 of 25 (88%) women without a history of VBAC successfully delivered vaginally. Fifty (87.7%) of these women delivered in the home setting, whereas 7 (12.3%) delivered in the hospital setting. None of the women experienced uterine rupture or dehiscence. One infant was stillborn. This event was attributed to a postdates pregnancy with meconium. Certified nurse-midwives with homebirth practices must be knowledgeable about the risks for mother and baby, screen clientele appropriately, and be able to counsel patients with regard to potential adverse outcomes. Given what is presently known, VBAC is not recommended in the homebirth setting. It is imperative in the light of current evidence and practice climate to advocate for the availability of certified nurse-midwife services and woman-centered care in the hospital setting.

Vaginal birth after cesarean section: a pilot study of outcomes in women receiving midwifery care.

A recent trend discouraging or not offering women a choice to labor after a cesarean birth has resulted in higher cesarean birth rates and lower rates of vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC). The few studies describing midwifery practice have demonstrated favorable outcomes; however, the studies are too small to thoroughly evaluate critical outcomes. In this retrospective descriptive study, clinical outcome data were obtained from eight midwifery practices. The aims were to collect, aggregate, and analyze data from multiple midwifery practices and then describe outcomes. Usable data representing 649 trials of labor were submitted. Overall, 72% (range 64%-100%) of women gave birth vaginally. Mean infant birth weight was 3,501 (SD = 534) g, and the mean Apgar scores were 7.99 (SD = 1.4; median 8) at 1 minute and 8.84 (SD = 0.8; median 9) at 5 minutes. Only 5.3% (n = 14) of infants were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. This small retrospective study demonstrates similar outcomes to those reported in the current literature. A larger prospective study to carefully describe midwifery care outcomes using a common data collection method is needed to provide evidence for determining the continuation of VBAC as part of midwifery care.

Vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a national survey of U.S. midwifery practice.

Midwives have been providing care for women choosing vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC) for over 20 years. The 1999 American College of Obstetrician Gynecologist (ACOG) guidelines and recent studies questioning the relative safety of VBAC have raised concerns about continuing to offer this option. As part of an effort to understand VBAC care provided by midwives, this study used a national survey sample to examine practices, scope, and recent changes in the provision of VBAC care. The survey, which included demographic and practice items was mailed in late 2000 to a purposeful sample of 325 midwifery practices. The return rate was 62%. Nearly all (94%) of the responding practices were providing VBAC care, and almost half of them (43%) stated that their ability to do so had changed within the past 2 years secondary to recent studies in the obstetric literature, the 1999 ACOG statement, and concerns from third-party payers. Criteria for offering VBAC are stricter, and consent forms are more extensive. Other changes included the need for additional or more intensive support services, in-house anesthesia, and surgery backup. Midwives continue to provide VBAC care, although with some increased restrictions. This study provides background for future research that will determine how midwifery care affects the rate of successful VBACs.

Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: The steadily increasing global rates of cesarean section has become one of the most debated topics in maternity care. This paper reviews and reports on the success of strategies that have been developed in response to this continuing challenge. METHODS: A literature search identified studies conducted between 1985 and 2001 from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Sociofile, Current Contents, Psyclit, Cinahl, and EconLit databases. An additional search of electronic databases for Level 1 evidence (systematic reviews), Level 2 (randomized controlled trials), Level 3 (quasi-experimental studies), or Level 4 (observational studies) was performed. Selection criteria used to identify studies for review included types of study participant, intervention, outcome measure, and study. RESULTS: Interventions that have been used in an attempt to reduce cesarean section rates were identified; they are categorized as psychosocial, clinical, and structural strategies. Two clinical interventions, (external cephalic version, vaginal birth after a previous cesarean) and one psychosocial intervention (one-to-one trained support during labor) demonstrated Level 1 evidence for reducing cesarean section rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence for one-to-one care and external cephalic version came from both developed and developing settings, the systematic review for vaginal birth after a cesarean was restricted to studies conducted in the United States. The effective implementation of the preceding strategies to reduce cesarean rates may depend on the social and cultural milieu and on associated beliefs and practices.

Trends in stimulation and induction of labor 1989-1995.

Between 1989 and 1995 the rates for stimulation and induction of labor rose every year, representing a 48 and 77 percent, respectively, total rise over the time period. In 1995 the rate of stimulation was 161 per 1,000 live births and of induction 160. Two percent, or 74,167, of the 3,899,589 births in 1995 had both procedures performed. While rates of stimulation decline with advancing maternal age, the induction rates tend to be higher for older women. Rates for both procedures increased between 1989 and 1995 for both black and white women in all age categories. Women whose pregnancies have extended beyond the expected gestation of 37 weeks consistently had much higher rates of both stimulation and induction. Rates for both procedures rose for doctors of medicine (MD's), doctors of osteopathy (DO's) and certified nurse-midwives (CNM's). DO's had the greatest increases in both stimulation and induction rates. Declines in the cesarean section rate were greater for births that were stimulated or induced than for those without either of these procedures. The rates for stimulated or induced vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) were double those of VBACs without such procedures.