NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights potx

NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements Volume 27, Number 3 March 8–10, 2010 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Office of the Director About the NIH Consensus Development Program National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus and State-of-the- Science Statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of (1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, (3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and (4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and the morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. The statement reflects the panel’s assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a “snapshot in time” of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research, and that the information provided is not a substitute for professional medical care or advice. Reference Information Individuals who wish to cite this statement should use the following format: Cunningham FG, Bangdiwala S, Brown SS, Dean TM, Frederiksen M, Rowland Hogue CJ, King T, Spencer Lukacz E, McCullough LB, Nicholson W, Petit N, Probstfield JL, Viguera AC, Wong CA, Zimmet SC. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. March 8—10, 2010. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2010; 115(6):1279–1295. Publications Ordering Information NIH Consensus Statements, State-of-the-Science Statements, and related materials are available by visiting http://consensus.nih.gov; by calling toll free 888–644–2667; or by emailing consensus@mail.nih.gov. Written requests can be mailed to the NIH Consensus Development Program Information Center, P.O. Box 2577, Kensington, MD 20891. When ordering copies of this statement, please reference item number 2010-00122-STMT. The evidence report prepared for this conference through AHRQ is available on the web via http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/vbacuptp.htm. Printed copies may be ordered from the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse by calling 800–358–9295. Requesters should ask for AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. i NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements Volume 27, Number 3 March 8–10, 2010 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Office of the Director ii Disclosure Statement All of the panelists who participated in this conference and contributed to the writing of this statement were identified as having no financial or scientific conflict of interest, and all signed forms attesting to this fact. Unlike the expert speakers who present scientific data at the conference, the individuals invited to participate on NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Panels are reviewed prior to selection to ensure that they are not proponents of an advocacy position with regard to the topic and are not identified with research that could be used to answer the conference questions. For more information about conference procedures, please see http://consensus.nih.gov/aboutcdp.htm. Archived Conference Webcast The NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights was webcast live March 8–10, 2010. The webcast is archived and available for viewing free of charge at http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbac.htm. Abstract Objective To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Participants A non-Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, urogynecology, maternal and fetal medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, clinical pharmacology, medical ethics, internal medicine, family medicine, perinatal and reproductive psychiatry, anesthesiology, nursing, biostatistics, epidemiology, healthcare regulation, risk management, and a public representative. In addition, 20 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Evidence Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. Conference Process The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Federal Government. 1 Conclusions Given the available evidence, trial of labor is a reasonable option for many pregnant women with one prior low transverse uterine incision. The data reviewed in this report show that both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery for a pregnant woman with one prior transverse uterine incision have important risks and benefits and that these risks and benefits differ for the woman and her fetus. This poses a profound ethical dilemma for the woman, as well as her caregivers, because benefit for the woman may come at the price of increased risk for the fetus and vice versa. This conundrum is worsened by the general paucity of high- level evidence about both medical and nonmedical factors, which prevents the precise quantification of risks and benefits that might help to make an informed decision about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel was mindful of these clinical and ethical uncertainties in making the following conclusions and recommendations. One of the panel’s major goals is to support pregnant women with one prior transverse uterine incision to make informed decisions about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel recommends that clinicians and other maternity care providers use the responses to the six questions, especially questions 3 and 4, to incorporate an evidence-based approach into the decisionmaking process. Information, including risk assessment, should be shared with the woman at a level and pace that she can understand. When trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery are medically equivalent options, a shared decisionmaking process should be adopted and, whenever possible, the woman’s preference should be honored. 2 The panel is concerned about the barriers that women face in gaining access to clinicians and facilities that are able and willing to offer trial of labor. Given the low level of evidence for the requirement for “immediately available” surgical and anesthesia personnel in current guidelines, the panel recommends that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Anesthesiologists reassess this requirement with specific reference to other obstetric complications of comparable risk, risk stratification, and in light of limited physician and nursing resources. Healthcare organizations, physicians, and other clinicians should consider making public their trial of labor policies and VBAC rates, as well as their plans for responding to obstetric emergencies. The panel recommends that hospitals, maternity care providers, healthcare and professional liability insurers, consumers, and policymakers collaborate on the development of integrated services that could mitigate or even eliminate current barriers to trial of labor. The panel is concerned that medical-legal considerations add to, and in many instances exacerbate, these barriers to trial of labor. Policymakers, providers, and other stakeholders must collaborate in developing and implementing appropriate strategies to mitigate the chilling effect the medical-legal environment has on access to care. High-quality research is needed in many areas. The panel has identified areas that need attention in response to question 6. Research in these areas should be given appropriate priority and should be adequately funded— especially studies that would help to characterize more precisely the short-term and long-term maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. 3 Introduction Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) describes vaginal delivery by a woman who has had a previous cesarean delivery. For most of the 20th century, once a woman had undergone a cesarean delivery, clinicians believed that her future pregnancies required cesarean delivery. Studies from the 1960s suggested that this practice may not always be necessary. In 1980, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference Panel questioned the necessity of routine repeat cesarean deliveries and outlined situations in which VBAC could be considered. The option for a woman with a previous cesarean delivery to have a trial of labor was offered and exercised more often in the 1980s through 1996. Since 1996, however, the number of VBACs has declined, contributing to the overall increase in cesarean delivery (Figure 1). Although we recognize that primary cesarean deliveries are the driving force behind the total cesarean delivery rates, the focus of this report is on trial of labor and repeat cesarean deliveries. Figure 1. Rates of Total Cesarean Deliveries, Primary Cesarean Deliveries, and VBAC, 1989–2007 VBAC 1989 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Total cesarean delivery Primary cesarean delivery Year Rate per 100 live births Data from the National Center for Health Statistics. 4 A number of medical and nonmedical factors have contributed to this decline in the VBAC rate since the mid-1990s, although many of these factors are not well understood. A significant medical factor that is frequently cited as a reason to avoid trial of labor is concern about the possibility of uterine rupture—because an unsuccessful trial of labor, in which a woman undergoes a repeat cesarean delivery instead of a vaginal delivery, has a a higher rate of complications compared to VBAC or elective repeat cesarean delivery. Nonmedical factors include, among other things, restrictions on access to a trial of labor and the effect of the current medical-legal climate on relevant practice patterns. To advance understanding of these important issues, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Medical Applications of Research of NIH convened a Consensus Development Conference on March 8–10, 2010. The conference was grounded in the view that a thorough evaluation of the relevant research would help pregnant women and their maternity care providers when making decisions about the mode of delivery after a previous cesarean delivery. Improved understanding of the clinical risks and benefits and how they interact with nonmedical factors also may have important implications for informed decisionmaking and health services planning. The following key questions were addressed by the Consensus Development Conference: 1. What are the rates and patterns of utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, and repeat cesarean delivery in the United States? 2. Among women who attempt a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery, what is the vaginal delivery rate and the factors that influence it? 5 3. What are the short- and long-term benefits and harms to the mother of attempting trial of labor after prior cesarean versus elective repeat cesarean delivery, and what factors influence benefits and harms? 4. What are the short- and long-term benefits and harms to the baby of maternal attempt at trial of labor after prior cesarean versus elective repeat cesarean delivery, and what factors influence benefits and harms? 5. What are the nonmedical factors that influence the patterns and utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery? 6. What are the critical gaps in the evidence for decisionmaking, and what are the priority investigations needed to address these gaps? Invited experts presented information pertinent to the posed questions and a systematic literature review prepared under contract with AHRQ, available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/vbacuptp.htm, was summarized. Conference attendees asked questions and provided comments. After weighing the scientific evidence, an unbiased, independent panel prepared this consensus statement. Pregnant women, clinicians, and investigators use terms in conflicting and confusing ways. For consistency throughout this document, the following definitions are provided: • Trial of labor: A planned attempt to labor by a woman who has had a previous cesarean delivery, also known as trial of labor after cesarean. • Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC): Vaginal delivery after a trial of labor; that is, a successful trial of labor. 6 [...]... the Patterns and Utilization of Trial of Labor After Prior Cesarean? We considered the influence of the following nonmedical factors on practice and utilization patterns related to trial of labor: • Professional association practice guidelines • Professional liability concerns among physicians and hospitals • The nature and extent of informed decisionmaking • Provider and birth- setting issues 25 •... complications: clinically significant adhesions, perioperative complications at time of subsequent repeat cesarean delivery, bowel and ureteral injuries, and perioperative complications at time of non-pregnancy-related hysterectomy LONG-TERM HARMS OF TRIAL OF LABOR High or Moderate Grades of Evidence None Low Grade of Evidence None Insufficient Evidence for Long-Term Harm No studies on long-term pelvic... Regardless, one reason given for reduced VBAC is concern about uterine rupture during trial of labor Little is known about population-based rates and patterns of utilization of trial of labor after previous cesarean deliveries A potential source of information about this issue is the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), an ongoing surveillance program conducted by the Centers for Disease Control... births That said, it is considered one of the most catastrophic outcomes and is one contributor to long-term neurological impairment in infants Such neurological damage is one of the most serious adverse consequences of uterine rupture and a major reason why women and clinicians are concerned about electing trial of labor The systematic evidence review reported insufficient data on the incidence of hypoxic... women at term only; thus, this review includes data on outcomes related to trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery for all women who give birth at all gestational ages When data are available for term gestations only, these data are presented separately Limitations to these findings include differing definitions for the outcomes, heterogeneity among studies, and variation in study... complications if she has completed 37 weeks of gestation with one fetus whose head is in the vertex position in the womb and has no obstetric or medical complications Among low-risk women, the repeat cesarean delivery rate had increased to 89 percent by 2003 Since 2003, U.S Standard Birth Certificates have included information on VBAC and trial of labor Among the 19 states that had adopted the standard certificate,... increased likelihood of VBAC 10 A prior history of vaginal delivery, either before or after a prior cesarean delivery, is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of VBAC For example, in one retrospective cohort study, the vaginal birth rate after trial of labor was 63 percent in women with no prior vaginal delivery, 83 percent in women with a prior vaginal delivery before cesarean delivery, and... harms for both mother and fetus In contrast to the data on maternal outcomes, there is little or no evidence on short- or longterm neonatal outcomes after trial of labor compared to elective repeat cesarean delivery Much of the evidence is of low quality, characterized by inconsistencies in outcomes across studies and differences in outcome definitions, and variations in study design However, there... VBAC are inconsistent A major area of interest is whether antepartum or intrapartum management strategies—for example, methods of labor induction—influence the rate of VBAC The overall estimated rate of vaginal birth after any method of labor induction is 63 percent Studies demonstrate that the 11 rate of VBAC ranges from 54 percent for induction of labor with mechanical (transcervical balloon catheter)... A previous NIH State-of-the-Science Conference (http:/ /consensus .nih. gov/2006/cesarean.htm) partially addressed the global issues related to benefits and harms of cesarean compared to vaginal delivery, which 12 is out of the scope of this review Ideally, for the purposes of counseling women with a prior cesarean delivery about their options for mode of delivery, data from women who gave birth at term . NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements Volume 27, Number 3 March 8–10, 2010 NATIONAL. for AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. i NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements Volume. procedures, please see http:/ /consensus .nih. gov/aboutcdp.htm. Archived Conference Webcast The NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights was webcast live