Seminars in Perinatology
Volume 34, Issue 4 , Pages 237-243 , August 2010

Trends and Patterns of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Availability in the United States

  • Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Burns Allen Research Center, Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine and UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd., Suite 160 West, Los Angeles, CA 90048
    • ,
  • Moshe Fridman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • AMF Consulting, Los Angeles, CA
    • ,
  • Lisa Korst, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • USC Women's Hospital, Department Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Burns Allen Research Center, Los Angeles, CA

References 

  1. Cragin E. Conservatism in obstetrics. NY Med J. 1916;104:1
  2. Flamm B. Once a Cesarean, always a controversy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:312–315
  3. Case BD, Corcoran R, Jeffcoate N, et al. Cesarean section and its place in modern obstetric practice. J Obstet Gyneaecol Br Commonw. 1971;78:203–214
  4. Cohen B, Atkins M. Brief history of vaginal birth after Cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;44:604–608
  5. Schmitz HE, Gajewski CH. Vaginal delivery following Cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1951;61:1232–1242
  6. Cosgrove RA. Management of pregnancy and delivery following Cesarean delivery. J Am Med Assoc. 1951;145:884–888
  7. Riva HL, Teich JC. Vaginal delivery after Cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961;81:501–510
  8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Washington, DC: ACOG; July 1999;Practice Bulletin No. 5
  9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery (Practice Bulletin No. 54). Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:203–212
  10. National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference on Cesarean Childbirth. (Pub. Number 82:2067) Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 1981;
  11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Committee Statement. In: Guidelines for Vaginal Delivery After a Cesarean Childbirth. Washington, DC: ACOG; Jan 1982;
  12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Committee Statement. Guidelines. for vaginal delivery after a Cesarean birth. Washington, DC: ACOG; November 1984;
  13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for vaginal delivery after a Cesarean birth. Washington, DC: ACOG; October, 1988;Committee Opinion Number, p 64
  14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal Delivery After a Cesarean Birth. Washington, DC: ACOG; October 1994;
  15. Zinberg S. Vaginal delivery after previous Cesarean delivery: A continuing controversy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;44:561–570
  16. Russillo B, Sewitch MJ, Cardinal L, et al. Comparing rates of trial of labour attempts, VBAC success, and fetal and maternal complications among family physicians and obstetricians. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:123–128
  17. Lieberman E, Ernst EK, Rooks JP, et al. Results of the national study of vaginal birth after Cesarean in birth centers. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:993-942
  18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal Delivery After a Cesarean Birth. Washington, DC: ACOG; August 1995;Practice Patterns Number 1
  19. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, et al. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: Delivery after previous cesarean section. J Am Med Assoc. 1991;265:2202–2207
  20. Sandmire H, Dermott R. The Green bay Cesarean section study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;17:1790–1802
  21. Lagrew DC, Morgan MA. Decreasing the Cesarean rate in a private hospital: Success without mandated clinical changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:184–191
  22. Flamm BL, Berwick DM, Kabcenell A. Reducing Cesarean rates safely: Lessons from a “breakthrough series” collaborative. Birth. 1998;25:117–124
  23. Gregory KD, Hackmeyer P, Gold L, et al. Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the Cesarean section rate. J Qual Improv. 1999;25:619–629
  24. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: Final data for 2004. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2006;(1):55
  25. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: Final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;57:
  26. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second Cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:689–695
  27. Shihady IR, Broussard P, Bolton LB, et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean: Do California hospital policies follow national guidelines?. J Reprod Med. 2007;52:349–358
  28. Roberts RG, Deutchman M, King VJ, et al. Changing policies on vaginal birth after Cesarean: Impact on access. Birth. 2007;34:316–322
  29. Taffel SM. State Variation in VBAC Delivery: 1994, vol 77. In: Stat Bull Metrop Insurance, Co; 1996;p. 28–36
  30. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005;
  31. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Gornbein JA, et al. Using administrative data to identify indications for elective Cesarean delivery. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1387–1401
  32. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of section. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:233–239
  33. Stafford RS, Sullivan SD, Gardner LB. Trends in Cesarean section use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1297–1302
  34. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary Cesarean rates. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:1025–1030
  35. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declerq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: Epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatalol. 2008;35:293–307
  36. DeFranco EA, Rampersad R, Atkins KL, et al. Do vaginal birth after Cesarean outcomes differ based on hospital setting?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:e1;400e6
  37. Yeh J, Wactawski-Wende J, Shelton J, et al. Temporal trends in the rates of trail of labor in low risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:e1;144e12
  38. Coleman VH, Erickson K, Shulkin J, et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: Practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:261–266
  39. Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Sammel MD, et al. Vaginal birth after Caesarean delivery: Does maternal age affect safety and success?. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:114–120
  40. Cahill AG, Samilio DM, Odibo AO, et al. Racial disparity in the success and complications of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:654–658
  41. Hollard AL, Wing DA, Chung J. Ethnic disparity in the success of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;19:483–487
  42. Misra A. Impact of the Healthchoice program on Cesarean section and vaginal birth after C-section deliveries: A retrospective analysis. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12:266–274
  43. Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. (NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network): Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:285–291
  44. Macones GA, Cahill A, Pare E, et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior Cesarean deliveries: Is vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery a viable option. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1223–1228
  45. Ford AA, Bateman BT, Simpson LL. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery in twin gestations: A large nationwide sample of deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1138–1142
  46. Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Pare E, et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean (VBAC) attempt in twin pregnancies: Is it safe?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1050–1055
  47. Varner MW, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network: The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit cesarean registry: Trial of labor with a twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:135–140
  48. Bujord E, Hmmound A, Schild C, et al. The role of maternal body mass index in outcomes of vaginal births after Cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1517–1521
  49. Hibbard JU, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network: Trial of labor or repeat Cesarean delivery in women with morbid obesity and previous Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:125–133
  50. Quiinones JN, Stamilio DM, Pare E, et al. The effect of prematurity on vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: Success and maternal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:519–524
  51. Durnwal CP, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, et al. (NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network): The maternal-fetal medicine units Cesarean registry: Safety and efficacy of a trial of labor in preterm pregnancy after a prior Cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1119–1126
  52. Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Stevens EJ, et al. Safety and success of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery in patients with preeclampsia. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23:145–152
  53. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Fridman M, et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean: Clinical risk factors associated with adverse outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:e1–e10
  54. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:796–797
  55. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after Cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:e1–e6
  56. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:31–35
  57. Hashima JN, Guise JM. Vaginal birth after Cesarean: A prenatal scoring tool. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:e22–e23
  58. Macones GA, Cahill AG, Samilio DM. Can uterine rupture inpatients attempting vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery be predicted?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;195:1148–1152
  59. Harper LM, Macones GA. Predicting success and reducing the risks when attempting vaginal birth after Cesarean. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63:538–545
  60. Selo-Ojeme D, Abulhassan N, Mandal R, et al. Preferred and actual delivery mode after a Cesarean in London, UK. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;102:156–159
  61. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, et al. Uterine rupture in the Netherlands: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;116:1069–1078
  62. Turner MJ, Agnew G, Langan H. Uterine rupture and labour after a previous low transverse Caesarian section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:729–732
  63. Udayasankar V, Padmagirison R, Majoko F. National survey of obstetricians in Wales regarding induction of labour in women with a previous Caesarian section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28:48–50
  64. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, et al. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of Caesarian section in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;132:171–176
  65. Grossetti E, Vardon D, Creveuil C, et al. Rupture of the scarred uterus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:572–578
  66. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada: SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous Caesarean birth. Number 155 Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89:319–331
  67. The Source: Women's Health Data Directory (Cesarean section). http://www.womenshealthdata.ca/category.aspx?catid=108&rt=3Accessed April 6, 2010
  68. California Hospital Assessment and Reporting Taskforce. Orientation and Training for Hospitals. http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/∼bessho/he/docs/0710/CHCF/0611assess.pdfAccessed April 6, 2010
  69. Zweifler J, Garza A, Hughes H. Vaginal birth after Cesarean in California: Before and after a change in guidelines. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:228–234
  70. Gochnour G, Ratcliffe S, Stone MB. The Utah VBAC Study. Matern Child Health J. 2005;9:1–8
  71. Anonymous National Institutes of Health state of the science conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386–1397
  72. Lyerly A, Mitchel LM, Armstrong EM, et al. Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:979–984
  73. Meddings F, Phipps FM, Haith-Cooper M, et al. Vaginal birth after Caesarian section (VBAC): Exploring women's perceptions. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16:160–167
  74. Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, et al. DIAMOND Study Group Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous Caesarian section: The role of health professionals and information about health risks. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:1438–1445
  75. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Hiller JE. Birth after Cesarean study—Planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat Cesarean for women at term with a single previous Cesarean birth: Protocol for a patient preference study and randomized trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:17
  76. Stafford RS. Alternative strategies for controlling rising Cesarean section rates. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:683–687
  77. Lee TH. Eulogy of a quality measure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1175–1177

PII: S0146-0005(10)00026-1

doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2010.03.002

Seminars in Perinatology
Volume 34, Issue 4 , Pages 237-243 , August 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution