A critical review of vaginal birth rates after a primary Caesarean in Queensland hospitals
Jocelyn Toohill A B , Jenny Gamble A and Debra K. Creedy A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Qld 4131, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: j.toohill@griffith.edu.au
Australian Health Review 37(5) 642-648 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13044
Submitted: 16 February 2013 Accepted: 11 August 2013 Published: 28 October 2013
Abstract
Introduction For women with a lower uterine incision without indication for repeat Caesarean section (CS), vaginal birth for their next pregnancy is a safe option. Although these women should be encouraged to consider vaginal birth after a Caesarean section (VBAC) it is not consistently supported in practice. There is relatively little information on the extent to which maternal preference, birthing decisions and outcomes match best available evidence.
Aim To describe current VBAC rates for women in Queensland, Australia and compare this to safe, achievable VBAC rates reported in national and international studies.
Method Perinatal data from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed to determine current VBAC rates following a primary CS for women birthing in Queensland. These were compared with VBAC rates reported in the literature.
Results Queensland has a high overall CS rate and high repeat CS rate compared with the national average. In 2010, Queensland VBAC rates for next birth following primary CS were 14% (range 13–21% public sector, 7–11% private hospitals). This is substantially lower than achievable Australian rates of 24% and international rates.
Conclusion Low VBAC rates reflect low numbers of women commencing labour in a pregnancy subsequent to a primary CS. There is unexplained variation in VBAC rates between maternity facilities. Clinical reviews to support evidence-based practice are warranted.
What is known about the topic? Repeat CS is a major contributor to high CS rates in industrialised countries.
What does this paper add? Following a primary CS, women in Queensland are less likely to commence labour and achieve a vaginal birth compared with rates reported in national and international VBAC studies.
What are the implications for practitioners? Maternity clinicians need to be aware of best practice and contextualise the evidence for individual women to improve VBAC rates.
Additional keywords: clinical review, decision making in next birth after Caesarean, vaginal birth after a Caesarean section.
References
[1] Rossi AC, D’Addario V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 224–31.| Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18511018PubMed |
[2] Guise J, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman M, Marshall N, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191.(Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
[3] Eden KB, Denman MA, Emeis CL, McDonagh MS, Fu R, Janik RK, et al Trial of labor and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2012; 41 583–8.
| Trial of labor and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Gibbons L, Belizán J, Lauer J, Betrán A, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The Global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report Background Paper, No. 30. World Health Organization; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf2010 [verified 10 June 2012]
[5] World Health Organization Appropriate techonology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2 436–7.
| 2863457PubMed |
[6] OECD. Caesarean sections, in OECD, Health at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing; 2009. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2009/caesarean-sections_health_glance-2009-44-en [verified 15 February 2013]
[7] Lancaster P, Huang J, Pedisich E. Australia’s mothers and babies. Perinatal Statistics Series Number 11994. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 1991.
[8] Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, Sullivan E. Australia’s mothers and babies 2010. Perinatal statistics series no. 27. Cat. no. PER 57. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit; 2012.
[9] Department of Health and Ageing. Improving maternity services in Australia – The report of the maternity services review. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
[10] Howell S, Johnston T, Macleod S-L. Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49 606–11.
| Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20070708PubMed |
[11] Li Z, McNally L, Hilder L, Sullivan E. Australia’s mothers and babies 2009. Perinatal statistics series no. 25. Cat. no. PER 52. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit; 2011.
[12] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician–gynecologists vaginal birth after previous Cesarean delivery. Practice Bulletin 2010; 116 450–63.
[13] Landon M, Spong C, Thom E, Hauth J, Bloom S, Varner M, et al Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 12–20.
| Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16816050PubMed |
[14] Silver R, Landon M, Rouse D, Leveno K, Spong C, Thom E, et al Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 1226–32.
| Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16738145PubMed |
[15] Marshall N, Fu R, Guise J-M. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 e1–8.
| 22071057PubMed |
[16] Go M, Emeis C, Guise J, Schelonka R. Fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality following delivery after previous cesarean. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38 311–9.
| Fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality following delivery after previous cesarean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21645798PubMed |
[17] Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, Readman E, Sale F, Permezel M. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40 87–91.
| Vaginal birth after caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2Fht1WhsA%3D%3D&md5=81c9c8d6522ff45d12f38609eab205cbCAS | 10870788PubMed |
[18] Dekker G, Chan A, Luke C, Priest K, Riley M, Halliday J, et al Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG 2010; 117 1358–65.
| Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cfjsFynug%3D%3D&md5=d856009b194dba5fa07d92e06384415aCAS | 20716251PubMed |
[19] Taylor L, Simpson J, Roberts C, Olive E, Henderson-Smart D. Risk of complications in a second pregnancy following caesarean section in the first pregnancy: a population-based study. Med J Aust 2005; 183 515–9.
| 16296964PubMed |
[20] Loebel G, Zelop C, Egan J, Wax J. Maternal and neonatal morbidity after elective repeat Cesarean delivery versus a trial of labor after previous Cesarean delivery in a community teaching hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 15 243–6.
| Maternal and neonatal morbidity after elective repeat Cesarean delivery versus a trial of labor after previous Cesarean delivery in a community teaching hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2cznvFKmtQ%3D%3D&md5=d8cf26193c6e224ec0942560f5337cbaCAS | 15280132PubMed |
[21] Smith G, Pell J, Cameron A, Dobbie R. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 2002; 287 2684–90.
| Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12020304PubMed |
[22] Crowther CA, Dodd J, Hiller JM, Hiller JE,, Haslam R, Robinson J. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med 2012; 9 e1001192
| Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22427749PubMed |
[23] Kotaska A. Quantifying VBAC Risk: Muddying the Waters. Birth 2012; 39 333–7.
| Quantifying VBAC Risk: Muddying the Waters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23281956PubMed |
[24] Landon M, Hauth J, Leveno K, Spong C, Leindecker S, Varner M, et al Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 2581–9.
| Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXhtV2qtbjP&md5=0ca601c09401789f06873d5486e3b6fdCAS | 15598960PubMed |
[25] Law L, Pang M, Chung T, Lao T, Lee D, Leung T, et al Randomised trial of assigned mode of delivery after a previous cesarean section – Impact on maternal psychological dynamics. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 1106–13.
| Randomised trial of assigned mode of delivery after a previous cesarean section – Impact on maternal psychological dynamics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20088723PubMed |
[26] National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean Section Clinical Guideline, RCOG Press 2004 [cited 2011 14th April]; Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10940/29334/29334.pdf
[27] Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth 2005; 32 252–61.
| Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16336366PubMed |
[28] Fenwick J, Gamble J, Hauck Y. Reframing birth: a consequence of cesarean section. J Adv Nurs 2006; 56 121–30.
| Reframing birth: a consequence of cesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17018060PubMed |
[29] Kamal P, Dixon-Woods M, Kurinczuk JJ, Oppenheimer C, Squire P, Waugh J. Factors influencing repeat caesarean section: qualitative exploratory study of obstetricians’ and midwives’ accounts. BJOG 2005; 112 1054–60.
| Factors influencing repeat caesarean section: qualitative exploratory study of obstetricians’ and midwives’ accounts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16045517PubMed |
[30] McGrath P, Ray-Barruel G. The easy option? Australian findings on mothers’ perception of elective Caesarean as a birth choice after a prior Caesarean section. Int J Nurs Pract 2009; 15 271–9.
| The easy option? Australian findings on mothers’ perception of elective Caesarean as a birth choice after a prior Caesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19703043PubMed |
[31] Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, Readman E, Sale F, Permezel M. Knowledge and attitudes about vaginal birth after caesarean section in Australian hospitals. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40 195–9.
| Knowledge and attitudes about vaginal birth after caesarean section in Australian hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7htlWksg%3D%3D&md5=e9e2f092e720e84674608d97c54a0a91CAS | 10925909PubMed |
[32] Statewide Maternity and Neonatal Clinical Guidelines Program. Vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC). MN0911.12–V1-R11. Brisbane: Queensland Health; 2009. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/cpic/documents/mguide_VBACv4.pdf [verified 6 May 2013]
[33] National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean section, NICE clinical guideline. 2nd edn. London: RCOG Press; 2011. Available at http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG132/Guidance/pdf/English [verified 15 December 2011]
[34] Health Q. Health Statistics Centre perinatal statistics 2010. 2012. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/Peri2010/perinatal10.asp [verified 12 December 2012]
[35] Humphrey M. Maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity in Queensland. Queensland Maternal and Perinatal Quality Council Report Brisbane. Queensland Health; 2011. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/maternity/docs/qmpqc-report-2011.pdf [verified 12 December 2012]
[36] Miller YD, Prosser SJ, Thompson R. Going public: do risk and choice explain differences in caesarean birth rates between public and private places of birth in Australia? Midwifery 2012; 28 627–35.
| Going public: do risk and choice explain differences in caesarean birth rates between public and private places of birth in Australia?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22877762PubMed |
[37] Dahlen H, Tracy S, Tracy M, Bisits A, Brown C, Thornton C.. Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study. BMJ 2012; e001723
| Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[38] Queensland Health. Perinatal data collection. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/default.asp#perinatal [verified 19 May 2011]
[39] Queensland Health. Clinical indicators for public and private facilities by facility size. 2004. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/peri2004/RACOGCI.pdf [verified 6 May 2013]
[40] Queensland Health. Clinical indicators for public and private facilities by facility size. 2006. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/peri2006/RACOGCI.pdf [verified 6 May 2013]
[41] Queensland Health. Clinical indicators for public and private facilities by facility size. 2008. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/peri2008/1_Clinical%20Indicators.pdf [verified 6 May 2013]
[42] Queensland Health. Clinical indicators for public and private facilities by facility size. 2010. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hic/Peri2010/2_clinical%20ind_2010.pdf [verified 6 May 2013]
[43] Lowry R. VassarStats website for statistical computation. New York: 1998. Available at http://vassarstats.net/index.html [verified 24 May 2013]
[44] Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15 179–94.
| Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3ntVagsA%3D%3D&md5=c4e6d89fcdbfbc40e2060a4671160febCAS | 11359322PubMed |
[45] MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38 179–92.
| Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21645788PubMed |
[46] Hall A, Hardwick T, Hauck Y. Women’s satisfaction with the next birth after caesarean service. Australian Midwifery News 2012; 12 7–9.
[47] Cunningham FG, Bangdiwala S, Brown SS, Dean TM, Frederiksen M, Rowland Hogue CJ, et al National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 1279–95.
| National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. March 8–10, 2010.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[48] Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Planned vaginal birth after caesarean section (trial of labour) (C-Obs 38). 2010. Available at http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/womens-health/statements-a-guidelines/college-statements/441-planned-vaginal-birth-after-caesarean-section-trial-of-labour-c-obs-38.html [verified 27 November 2011]
[49] Foureur M, Ryan CL, Nicholl M, Homer C. inconsistent evidence: analysis of six national guidelines for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Birth 2010; 37 3–10.
| inconsistent evidence: analysis of six national guidelines for vaginal birth after cesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20402716PubMed |
[50] Halvorsen L, Nerum H, Sorlie T, Oian P. Does counsellor’sattitude influence change in a request for a caesarean in women with fear of birth? Midwifery 2010; 26 45–52.
| Does counsellor’sattitude influence change in a request for a caesarean in women with fear of birth?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18621452PubMed |
[51] Homer C, Johnston R, Foureur M. Birth after caesarean section: changes over a nine-year period in one Australian state. Midwifery 2011; 27 165–169.
| Birth after caesarean section: changes over a nine-year period in one Australian state.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19773099PubMed |
[52] Dodd J, Crowther C. Vaginal birth after Caesarean versus elective repeat Caesarean for women with a single prior Caesarean birth: a systematic review of the literature. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 44 387–91.
| Vaginal birth after Caesarean versus elective repeat Caesarean for women with a single prior Caesarean birth: a systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15387856PubMed |
[53] Gamble J, Creedy D, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S. A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section. Birth 2007; 34 331–40.
| A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18021149PubMed |
[54] Gamble J, Creedy D. A counselling model for postpartum women after distressing birth experiences. Midwifery 2009; 25 e21–30.
| A counselling model for postpartum women after distressing birth experiences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17673341PubMed |
[55] Chen MM, Hancock H. Women’s knowledge of options for birth after Caesarean section. Women Birth 2012; 25 e19–26.
| Women’s knowledge of options for birth after Caesarean section.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21900064PubMed |
[56] Queensland Centre for Mothers and Babies. The having a baby in Queensland book – your choices during pregnancy and birth. University of Queensland; 2010. Available at http://www.qcmb.org.au/the_having_a_baby_in_queensland_book/menu/research_projects [verified 15 February 2013]
[57] Shorten A. My last birth was a caesarean? What are my options. The Royal Women’s Hospital Melbourne. 2007. Available at http://www.thewomens.org.au/uploads/downloads/HealthInformation/Publications/VBAC_2010.pdf [verified 19 August 2012]
