National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean PDF

Author: Department of Human Services

Publisher: CreateSpace

Published: 2014-05-11

Total Pages: 48

ISBN-13: 9781499520194

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

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. 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? 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?

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights PDF

Author: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services

Publisher: CreateSpace

Published: 2013-04-19

Total Pages: 414

ISBN-13: 9781484162323

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

Despite the Healthy People 2010 national goal to reduce the cesarean delivery rate to 15 percent of births each year, this century has set record rates of cesarean deliveries. When the national rate of cesarean delivery was first measured in 1965, it was 4.5 percent, in 2007, almost one in three women in the United States (U.S.) delivered by cesarean (32.8 percent cesarean delivery rate in 2007). With almost 1.5 million cesarean surgeries performed every year, cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) emerged from the 1980 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference on Cesarean as a mechanism to safely reduce the cesarean delivery rate. VBAC proved to be an effective contributor to reduce the use of cesarean through the early 1990s. From 1990 through 1996, the VBAC rate rose from 19.9 to 28.3 percent and the cesarean rate declined from 22.7 to 20.7 percent. Since 1996, VBAC rates have declined sharply, to the point where over 90 percent of women with a prior cesarean will deliver by repeat cesarean. While primary cesarean accounts for the largest number of cesarean deliveries, the largest single indication for cesarean is prior cesarean accounting for 534,180 cesareans each year, thus the safety of VBAC remains important. The degree to which cesarean deliveries and VBACs are improving or adversely affecting health remains a subject of continued controversy and uncertainty. This systematic review was conducted to inform the 2010 NIH Consensus Development Conference to evaluate emerging issues relating to VBAC. An evidence report focuses attention on the strengths and limits of evidence from published studies about the effectiveness and/or harms of a clinical intervention. The development of an evidence report begins with a careful formulation of the problem. The Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) systematically reviewed the relevant scientific literature on key questions relating to VBAC assigned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Planning Committee for the NIH Consensus Development Conference on VBAC: New Insights, the National Institutes of Health's Office of Medical Applications of Research (OMAR), and further refined by a technical expert panel (TEP). Ultimately, two background questions and four key questions were reviewed for this report: What are the rates and patterns of utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean, vaginal birth after cesarean, and repeat cesarean deliveries in the United States? What are the nonmedical factors (provider type, hospital type, etc.) that influence the patterns and utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean? Background questions will be addressed in the introduction of the report with information from reputable sources; however, these data are not part of the systematic review process. Key Questions include: 1. Among women who attempt a trial of labor after prior cesarean, what is the vaginal delivery rate and the factors that influence it? 2. 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? 3.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? 4. What are the critical gaps in the evidence for decision-making, and what are the priority investigations needed to address these gaps?

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Developing and Prioritizing a Future Research Agenda

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Developing and Prioritizing a Future Research Agenda PDF

Author: U. S. Department Human Services

Publisher: CreateSpace

Published: 2014-05-11

Total Pages: 70

ISBN-13: 9781499519822

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

The rate of cesarean delivery in the United States increased dramatically over the past two decades, from 20.7 percent in 1996 to 32.8 percent in 2010. Part of the reason for the increase is a decline in the rate of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Although the dictum "once a cesarean, always a cesarean" guided clinical practice for a good part of the 20th century, a 1980 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference Panel recognized trial of labor (TOL) after prior cesarean as a viable option for certain low-risk women.3 An increase in VBAC ensued; by 1996, more than 28 percent of women with a prior cesarean delivered vaginally. However, a number of medical and nonmedical factors, including reports in the 1990s of an increased risk of maternal complications with TOL compared with elective repeat cesarean, pushed the pendulum in the opposite direction. The percentage of women with a previous cesarean delivering vaginally fell from a peak of 28 percent in 1996 to 8.5 percent in 2007. In 2010, NIH again convened a Consensus Development Conference Panel to evaluate the growing body of evidence on the clinical risks and benefits of TOL after cesarean. In preparation for the 2010 conference, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) commissioned the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to conduct a review of the evidence on a number of emerging issues related to VBAC, which was released as AHRQ Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191. The evidence review addressed the following six Key Questions. 1. What are the rates and patterns of utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean, vaginal birth after cesarean, and repeat cesarean delivery in the United States? 2. What are the nonmedical factors (e.g., provider type, hospital type) that influence the patterns and utilization of trial of labor after prior cesarean? 3. Among women who attempt a trial of labor after prior cesarean, what are the vaginal delivery rate and the factors that influence it? 4. What are the short- and long-term benefits and harms to the mother of attempting trial of labor after prior cesarean compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery, and what factors influence benefits and harms? 5. What are the short- and long-term benefits and harms to the baby of maternal attempt at trial of labor after prior cesarean compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery, and what factors influence benefits and harms? 6. What are the critical gaps in the evidence for decisionmaking, and what are priority investigations needed to address these gaps?

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean PDF

Author: Erika K. Barth Cottrell

Publisher:

Published: 2012

Total Pages:

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this Future Research Needs project is to develop a future research agenda in the area of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) that builds on the research gaps identified in the 2010 evidence review conducted for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference. DATA SOURCES: In phase 1, stakeholders participated in semistructured interviews to identify and describe evidence gaps and future research needs. In phase 2, stakeholders participated in a modified Delphi process to rank the top 10 research priorities. Ongoing studies and recently completed research between March 2010 and August 2011 were identified by searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE(r), Scopus, the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site, Google Scholar, clinical trial registries, grant databases, and individual funders' Web sites. RESULTS: Sixteen of the 30 stakeholders invited to participate in the semistructured interviews agreed. Overall, 6 of the 6 legal/liability or hospital administrators (100 percent), 2 of the 6 patient/consumer advocates (33 percent), 5 of the 13 clinicians (30 percent), 1 of the 2 researchers (50 percent), and 2 of the 3 research funders (66 percent) were interviewed. We invited 11 stakeholders to participate in the phase 2 Delphi process. In compliance with Federal guidelines, only nine of the stakeholders were not Federal employees. All stakeholders invited to participate in the Delphi prioritization process completed the first questionnaire, and 10 of the 11 completed the second questionnaire (81 percent). A list of the top 10 research priorities was developed. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 future research needs as prioritized by stakeholders fall into three overarching categories: health systems and contextual issues (category A), standardized measurement and collection of data on maternal and infant outcomes (category B), and understanding how patients perceive risk and how best to communicate risk of mode of delivery after prior cesarean (category C). Within category A, stakeholders highlighted the need for research on institutional and systems-level barriers and facilitators to providing and delivering safe trials of labor after cesarean, including how the "immediately available" requirement is understood and implemented and concerns about legal liability. Within category B, stakeholders emphasized measurement of both short- and long-term outcomes and the importance of agreement on clear and precise definitions and methods of ascertainment both within and across hospitals. With regard to category C, stakeholders prioritized research about how patients perceive the risks of trial of labor (TOL) compared with repeat cesarean delivery, how best to frame and communicate the risks of each option, and the most effective way to present information so that women can make an informed choice that incorporates their preferences. Overall, stakeholders felt that defining what constitutes a "safe" TOL after cesarean and safe birth in general, at the level of the individual, the provider, and the institution or setting of care was important across all top priority research needs.