TY - JOUR
T1 - Simplifying the prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery
T2 - role of the cervical exam
AU - Oakes, Megan C.
AU - Hensel, Drew M.
AU - Kelly, Jeannie C.
AU - Rampersad, Roxane
AU - Carter, Ebony B.
AU - Cahill, Alison G.
AU - Raghuraman, Nandini
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the NICHD under Grant K23HD098315 and the Foundation for SMFM/AAOGF (Nandini Raghuraman, MD MSCI) and the UL1 NIH grant supports the Mentored Training Program in Clinical Investigation at Washington University in St. Louis (Megan C. Oakes, MD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective: Predicting likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is a cornerstone in counseling patients considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). Yet, the simplified Bishop score (SBS), a score comprised cervical dilation, station, and effacement assessment used to predict successful vaginal delivery, has not been applied to the TOLAC population. We evaluated the relationship between admission SBS and likelihood of successful VBAC. We also determined the predictive characteristics of SBS, compared to cervical dilation alone, for successful VBAC. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients with a singleton gestation, ≥37 0/7 weeks gestation, and prior cesarean admitted to Labor & Delivery between 2010 and 2014. The primary outcome of successful VBAC was compared between those with a favorable (score >5) and unfavorable (score ≤5) admission SBS. Secondary outcomes were select maternal and neonatal outcomes. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic curves compared predictive capabilities of cervical dilation alone to SBS for successful VBAC. Results: Of the 656 patients who underwent a TOLAC during the study period, 421 (64%) had a successful VBAC. 203 (31%) and 453 (69%) had a favorable and an unfavorable admission SBS, respectively. After adjusting for body mass index and prior vaginal delivery, patients with a favorable admission SBS had a 30% greater likelihood of successful VBAC compared to those with an unfavorable SBS (aRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16–1.40). Admission cervical dilation alone performed similarly to SBS as a predictor of successful VBAC, with a receiver-operator characteristic curve area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.64–0.72) versus an AUC 0.66 (95% CI 0.62–0.70), respectively (p =.07). There were no differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between those with an unfavorable and favorable SBS. Conclusions: A favorable admission SBS is associated with an increased likelihood of VBAC. Although both admission SBS and cervical dilation alone are only modest predictors of VBAC, admission cervical dilation performs overall similarly to current models for VBAC prediction and is an objective, reproducible, and generalizable measure. Our study highlights the value of waiting until end of pregnancy (rather than the first prenatal visit) to conclude patient counseling on the decision to TOLAC in order to consider admission cervical assessment, particularly cervical dilation.
AB - Objective: Predicting likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is a cornerstone in counseling patients considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). Yet, the simplified Bishop score (SBS), a score comprised cervical dilation, station, and effacement assessment used to predict successful vaginal delivery, has not been applied to the TOLAC population. We evaluated the relationship between admission SBS and likelihood of successful VBAC. We also determined the predictive characteristics of SBS, compared to cervical dilation alone, for successful VBAC. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients with a singleton gestation, ≥37 0/7 weeks gestation, and prior cesarean admitted to Labor & Delivery between 2010 and 2014. The primary outcome of successful VBAC was compared between those with a favorable (score >5) and unfavorable (score ≤5) admission SBS. Secondary outcomes were select maternal and neonatal outcomes. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic curves compared predictive capabilities of cervical dilation alone to SBS for successful VBAC. Results: Of the 656 patients who underwent a TOLAC during the study period, 421 (64%) had a successful VBAC. 203 (31%) and 453 (69%) had a favorable and an unfavorable admission SBS, respectively. After adjusting for body mass index and prior vaginal delivery, patients with a favorable admission SBS had a 30% greater likelihood of successful VBAC compared to those with an unfavorable SBS (aRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16–1.40). Admission cervical dilation alone performed similarly to SBS as a predictor of successful VBAC, with a receiver-operator characteristic curve area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.64–0.72) versus an AUC 0.66 (95% CI 0.62–0.70), respectively (p =.07). There were no differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between those with an unfavorable and favorable SBS. Conclusions: A favorable admission SBS is associated with an increased likelihood of VBAC. Although both admission SBS and cervical dilation alone are only modest predictors of VBAC, admission cervical dilation performs overall similarly to current models for VBAC prediction and is an objective, reproducible, and generalizable measure. Our study highlights the value of waiting until end of pregnancy (rather than the first prenatal visit) to conclude patient counseling on the decision to TOLAC in order to consider admission cervical assessment, particularly cervical dilation.
KW - Bishop score
KW - cesarean section
KW - trial of labor after cesarean section
KW - vaginal birth after cesarean section
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132403669&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14767058.2022.2086795
DO - 10.1080/14767058.2022.2086795
M3 - Article
C2 - 35723653
AN - SCOPUS:85132403669
SN - 1476-7058
VL - 35
SP - 10030
EP - 10035
JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
IS - 25
ER -