External validation of a prediction model on vaginal birth after caesarean in a The Netherlands: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Discussing the individual probability of a successful vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) can support decision making. The aim of this study is to externally validate a prediction model for the probability of a VBAC in a Dutch population. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study in 12 Dutch hospitals, 586 women intending VBAC were included. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies with a cephalic foetal presentation, delivery after 37 weeks and one previous caesarean section (CS) and preference for intending VBAC. The studied prediction model included six predictors: pre-pregnancy body mass index, previous vaginal delivery, previous CS because of non-progressive labour, Caucasian ethnicity, induction of current labour, and estimated foetal weight ≥90th percentile. The discriminative and predictive performance of the model was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and calibration plots. RESULTS: The area under the curve was 0.73 (CI 0.69-0.78). The average predicted probability of a VBAC according to the prediction model was 70.3% (range 33-92%). The actual VBAC rate was 71.7%. The calibration plot shows some overestimation for low probabilities of VBAC and an underestimation of high probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model showed good performance and was externally validated in a Dutch population. Hence it can be implemented as part of counselling for mode of delivery in women choosing between intended VBAC or planned CS after previous CS.

The effect of the use of a decision aid with individual risk estimation on the mode of delivery after a caesarean section: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: After one previous caesarean section (CS), pregnant women can deliver by elective repeat CS or have a trial of labor which can end in a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) or an unplanned CS. Despite guidelines describing women's rights to make an informed choice, trial of labor and VBAC rates vary greatly worldwide. Many women are inadequately informed due to caregivers' fear of an increase in CS rates in a high VBAC rate setting. We compared counseling with a decision aid (DA) including a prediction model on VBAC to care as usual. We hypothesize that counselling with the DA does not decrease VBAC rates. In addition, we aimed to study the effects on unplanned CS rate, patient involvement in decision-making and elective repeat CS rates. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study. From 2012 to 2014, 483 women in six hospitals, where the DA was used (intervention group), were compared with 441 women in six matched hospitals (control group). Women with one previous CS, pregnant of a singleton in cephalic presentation, delivering after 37 weeks 0 days were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in VBAC rates between the intervention (45%) and control group (46%) (adjusted odds ratio 0,92 (95% Confidence interval 0.69-1.23)). In the intervention group more women (42%) chose an elective repeat CS compared to the control group (31%) (adjusted odds ratio 1.6 (95% Confidence interval 1.18-2.17)). Of women choosing trial of labor, in the intervention group 77% delivered vaginally compared to 67% in the control group, resulting in an unplanned CS adjusted odds ratio of 0,57 (0.40-0.82) in the intervention group. In the intervention group, more women reported to be involved in decision-making (98% vs. 68%, P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a decision aid with a prediction model for risk selection suggests unchanged VBAC rates, but 40% reduction in unplanned CS rates, increase in elective repeat CS and improved patient involvement in decision-making.

Practice variation of vaginal birth after cesarean and the influence of risk factors at patient level: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Large practice variation exists in mode of delivery after cesarean section, suggesting variation in implementation of contemporary guidelines. We aim to evaluate this practice variation and to what extent this can be explained by risk factors at patient level. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed among 17 Dutch hospitals in 2010. Women with one prior cesarean section without a contraindication for a trial of labor were included. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to develop models for risk factor adjustments. One model was derived to adjust the elective repeat cesarean section rates; a second model to adjust vaginal birth after cesarean rates. Standardized rates of elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean per hospital were compared. Pseudo-R2 measures were calculated to estimate the percentage of practice variation explained by the models. Secondary outcomes were differences in practice variation between hospital types and the correlation between standardized elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates. RESULTS: In all, 1068 women had a history of cesarean section, of whom 71% were eligible for inclusion. A total of 515 women (67%) had a trial of labor, of whom 72% delivered vaginally. The elective repeat cesarean section rate at hospital level ranged from 6 to 54% (mean 29.8, standard deviation 11.8%). Vaginal birth after cesarean rates ranged from 50 to 90% (mean 71.8%, standard deviation 11.1%). More than 85% of this practice variation could not be explained by risk factors at patient level. CONCLUSION: A large practice variation exists in elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates that can only partially be explained by risk factors at patient level.

Development and Measurement of Guidelines-Based Quality Indicators of Caesarean Section Care in the Netherlands: A RAND-Modified Delphi Procedure and Retrospective Medical Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion on the rising CS rate worldwide. Suboptimal guideline adherence may be an important contributor to this rise. Before improvement of care can be established, optimal CS care in different settings has to be defined. This study aimed to develop and measure quality indicators to determine guideline adherence and identify target groups for improvement of care with direct effect on caesarean section (CS) rates. METHOD: Eighteen obstetricians and midwives participated in an expert panel for systematic CS quality indicator development according to the RAND-modified Delphi method. A multi-center study was performed and medical charts of 1024 women with a CS and a stratified and weighted randomly selected group of 1036 women with a vaginal delivery were analysed. Quality indicator frequency and adherence were scored in 2060 women with a CS or vaginal delivery. RESULTS: The expert panel developed 16 indicators on planned CS and 11 indicators on unplanned CS. Indicator adherence was calculated, defined as the number of women in a specific obstetrical situation in which care was performed as recommended in both planned and unplanned CS settings. The most frequently occurring obstetrical situations with low indicator adherence were: 1) suspected fetal distress (frequency 17%, adherence 46%), 2) non-progressive labour (frequency 12%, CS performed too early in over 75%), 3) continuous support during labour (frequency 88%, adherence 37%) and 4) previous CS (frequency 12%), with adequate counselling in 15%. CONCLUSIONS: We identified four concrete target groups for improvement of obstetrical care, which can be used as a starting point to reduce CS rates worldwide.

SIMPLE: implementation of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines on caesarean sections in the Netherlands. Protocol for a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section (CS) rates are rising worldwide. In the Netherlands, the most significant rise is observed in healthy women with a singleton in vertex position between 37 and 42 weeks gestation, whereas it is doubtful whether an improved outcome for the mother or her child was obtained. It can be hypothesized that evidence-based guidelines on CS are not implemented sufficiently. Therefore, the present study has the following objectives: to develop quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS based on key recommendations from national and international guidelines; to use the quality indicators in order to gain insight into actual adherence of Dutch gynaecologists to guideline recommendations on the performance of a CS; to explore barriers and facilitators that have a direct effect on guideline application regarding CS; and to develop, execute, and evaluate a strategy in order to reduce the CS incidence for a similar neonatal outcome (based on the information gathered in the second and third objectives). METHODS: An independent expert panel of Dutch gynaecologists and midwives will develop a set of quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS. These indicators will be used to measure current care in 20 hospitals with a population of 1,000 women who delivered by CS, and a random selection of 1,000 women who delivered vaginally in the same period. Furthermore, by interviewing healthcare professionals and patients, the barriers and facilitators that may influence the decision to perform a CS will be measured. Based on the results, a tailor-made implementation strategy will be developed and tested in a controlled before-and-after study in 12 hospitals (six intervention, six control hospitals) with regard to effectiveness, experiences, and costs. DISCUSSION: This study will offer insight into the current CS care and into the hindering and facilitating factors influencing obstetrical policy on CS. Furthermore, it will allow definition of patient categories or situations in which a tailor-made implementation strategy will most likely be meaningful and cost effective, without negatively affecting the outcome for mother and child. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01261676.