24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Cesarean Birth’ Category

Exclusive Q&A with Rebecca Dekker – What Does the Evidence Say about Induction for Going Past your Due Date?

April 15th, 2015 by avatar

What does the evidence say about dueToday on Evidence Based Birth, occasional contributor Rebecca Dekker, Phd, RN, APRN, provides a comprehensive research review –  Induction for Going Past your Due Date: What does the Evidence Say?  I had an opportunity to preview the article and ask Rebecca some questions about her most recent project on due dates. I would like to share our conversation here on Science & Sensibility with all of you. Rebecca’s website has become a very useful tool for both professionals and consumers to read about current best practice.Consumers can gather information on the common issues that they maybe dealing with during their pregnancies. Professionals can find resources and information to share with students and clients.  How do you cover the topic of inductions at term for due date?  After reading today’s S&S post and Rebecca’s research post, do you think you might share additional information or change what you discuss?  Let us know in the comments section.- Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

Note: if the Evidence Based Birth post is not up yet, try again in a bit, it should be momentarily.

Sharon Muza: Why did you decide to tackle the topic of due dates as your next research project and blog post?

Rebecca Dekker: Last year, I polled my audience as to what they would like me to write about next. They overwhelmingly said that they wanted an Evidence Based Birth article about Advanced Maternal Age (AMA), or pregnancy over the age of 35. As I started reviewing the research on AMA, it became abundantly clear to me that I had to first publish an article all about the evidence on due dates. This article on induction for due dates creates a solid foundation on which my readers can learn about induction versus waiting for spontaneous labor in pregnant women who are over the age of 35.

SM: When you started to dig into the research, were there any findings that surprised you, or that you didn’t expect?

RD: There were two topics that I really had to dig into in order to thoroughly understand.

The first is the topic on stillbirth rates. I began to understand that it’s really important to know which mathematical formula researchers used to calculate stillbirth rates by gestational age. It was interesting to read through the old research studies and letters to the editors where researchers argued about which math formulas were best. In the end, I had to draw up diagrams of the different formulas (you can see those diagrams in the article) for the formulas to make sense in my head, and once I did, the issue made perfect sense!

Before 1987 (and even after 1987, in some cases) researchers really DID use the wrong formulas, and it’s kind of funny to think that for so many years, they used the wrong math! In general, I thought the research studies on stillbirth rates by gestational age were really interesting…it raised questions for me that I couldn’t answer, like why are the stillbirth rates so different at different times and in different countries? Also, it was really clear from the research that stillbirth rates are drastically different depending on whether you are looking at samples that include or don’t include babies who are growth-restricted.

The other big breakthrough or “ah ha” moment I had was when I finally realized the true meaning of the Hannah (1992) Post-Term study. There was such a huge paradox in their findings… why did they find that the expectant management group had HIGHER Cesarean rates, when clinicians instinctively know that inductions have higher Cesarean rates compared to spontaneous labor? Since all of the meta-analyses rely heavily on the Hannah study, I knew I needed to figure this problem out.

There are a couple different theories in the literature as to why there were higher C-section rates in the expectant management group in Hannah’s study. One theory is that the induction group had Prostaglandins to ripen the cervix, while the expectant management group did not. However, in a secondary data analysis published by Hannah et al. in 1996, they found that this probably played just a minor role.

Another theory is that as women go further along in their pregnancy, physicians get more nervous about the risk of stillbirth, and so they may be quicker to recommend a Cesarean in a woman who is past 42 or 43 weeks, compared to one who is just at 41 weeks. This theory has been proposed by several different researchers in the literature, and there is probably some merit to it.

But in the end, I found out exactly why the C-section rates are higher in the expectant management group in the Hannah Post Term study (and thus in every meta-analysis that has ever been done on this topic). Don’t you want to know why? I finally found the evidence in Hannah’s 1996 article called “Putting the merits of a policy of induction of labor into perspective.” The data that I was looking for were not in the original Hannah study… they were in this commentary that was published several years later.

dekker headshotThe reason that Cesarean rates were higher in the expectant management group in the Hannah study is because the women who were randomly assigned to wait for spontaneous labor, but actually ended up with inductions, had Cesarean rates that were nearly double of those among women who had spontaneous labor. Some of these inductions were medically indicated, and some of them were requested by the mother. In any case, this explains the paradox. It’s not spontaneous labor that leads to higher Cesarean rates with expectant management… the higher Cesarean rates come from women who wait for spontaneous labor but end up having inductions instead. 

So the good news is that if you choose “expectant management” at 41-42 weeks (which is a term that I really dislike, because it implies that you’re “managing” women, but I digress), your chances of a Cesarean are pretty low if you go into spontaneous labor. But if you end up being one of the women who waits and then later on chooses to have an induction, or ends up with a medically indicated induction, then your chances of a Cesarean are much higher than if you had just had an elective induction at 41 weeks.

SM: What information do you recommend that childbirth educators share to help families make informed decisions about inductions and actions to take as a due date comes and then even goes, and they are still pregnant.

RD: First of all, I think it’s important for all of us to dispel the myth of the 40 week due date. There really is no such thing as a due date. There is a range of time in which most women will go into labor on their own. About half of women will go into labor by 40 weeks and 5 days if you’re a first-time mom (or 40 weeks and 3 days if you’ve given birth before), and the other half will go into labor after that.

The other thing that it is important for childbirth educators to do is to encourage families—early in pregnancy—to talk with their health care provider about when they recommend induction, and why.

There are some health care providers who believe strongly that induction at 39, 40, 41, or 42 weeks reduces the risk of stillbirth and other poor outcomes. There are parents who have the same preference. Then there are other health care providers who believe strongly that induction for going past your due date is a bad thing, and shouldn’t be attempted unless there are clear medical reasons for the induction. And there are parents who will tend to share that same preference. Either way, parents need accurate information about the benefits and risks of waiting versus elective induction at 41-42 weeks—because both are valid options.

But it’s probably best to avoid a mismatch between parents and providers. If parents believes strongly that they want to wait for spontaneous labor, and they understand the risks, but they have a care provider who believes strongly in elective induction at 41 weeks, then they will run into problems when they reach 41 or 42 weeks and their care provider disagrees with their decision.

Clearly, there are benefits to experiencing spontaneous labor and avoiding unnecessary interventions. But at the same time there is a rise in the relative risk of stillbirth starting at about 39 weeks, depending on which study you are looking at. However, the overall risk is still low up until 42 weeks. At 42 weeks, the risk of stillbirth rises to about 1 in 1,000 in babies who are not growth-restricted. The risk may be higher in some women who have additional risk factors for stillbirth. Women who experience post-term pregnancy (past 42 weeks) are more likely to experience infections and Cesareans, and their infants are more likely to experience meconium aspiration syndrome, NICU admissions, and low Apgar scores.

SM: Would you recommend that families have conversations about how their due date is being calculated, at the first prenatal with their health care providers. What should that conversation include?

RD: I would recommend asking these questions:

  • What is the estimated date range that I might expect to give birth—not based on Naegele’s rule, but based on more current research about the average length of a pregnancy?
  • Did you use my Last Menstrual Period or an early ultrasound to determine my baby’s gestational age?
  • Has my due date been changed in my chart at any point in my pregnancy? If so, why?

SM: The concept of being “overdue” if still pregnant at the due date is firmly ingrained in our culture. What do you think needs to happen both socially and practically to change the way we think about the “due date?”

RD: We need to start telling everyone, “There is no such thing as a due date.” To help women deal with the social pressure they may experience at the end of pregnancy, I’ve created several Facebook profile photos that they can use as their Facebook profile when they get close to their traditional “due date.” To download those photos, visit www.evidendebasedbirth.com/duedates

SM: How available and widely used are first trimester ultrasounds? If first trimester ultrasounds were done as the standard of care in all pregnancies, would it result in more accurate due dates and better outcomes? Do you think there should be a shift to that method of EDD estimation?

RD: I think the option of having a first trimester ultrasound definitely needs to be part of the conversation between a woman and her care provider, especially because it has implications for the number of women who will be induced for “post-term.” I could not find any data on the percentage of women who have an ultrasound before 20 weeks, but in my geographic area it seems to be nearly 100%, anecdotally.

If your estimated due date is based on your LMP, you have a 10% chance of reaching the post-term period, but if it’s based on an early ultrasound, you only have a 3% chance of reaching 42 weeks.

One strange thing that I noted is that ACOG still prefers the LMP date over an early ultrasound date. They have specific guidelines in their practice bulletin about when you need to switch from the LMP date to an ultrasound date, but the default date is still the LMP. I found that rather odd, since research is very clear that ultrasound data is more accurate than the LMP, for a host of reasons!

Before I published the due dates article, I reached out to Tara Elrod, a Certified Direct Entry Midwife in Alaska, to get her expert feedback as a home birth midwife. She raised an excellent point:

“It is of significant interest to me as a licensed midwife practicing solely in the Out-of-Hospital setting that ultrasounds done in early pregnancy are more accurate than using LMP. If early ultrasound dating was achieved, it’s thought that this would ultimately equate to less women being induced for post-term pregnancy. This is significant to midwives such as myself due to the scope-of-care regulation of not providing care beyond 42 weeks. While an initial- and perhaps arguably by some ‘elective’ ultrasound-  may not be a popular choice in the midwife clientele population, a thoughtful risk versus benefit consideration should occur, as to assess the circumstance of “risking out” of care for suspected post-dates. [In my licensing state, my scope of care is limited to 37+0 weeks to 42+0 weeks, with the occasional patient reaching 42 weeks and therefore subsequently “risking out,” necessitating a transfer of care.]” ~Tara Elrod, CDM

SM: What do you think the economic cost of inductions for due dates is? The social costs? What benefits might we see if we relied on a better system for determining due dates and when to take action based on being postdates?

RD: There are economic costs to both elective inductions and waiting for labor to start on its own. The Hannah Post-Term trial investigators actually published a paper that looked at the cost effectiveness of their intervention, and they found that induction was cheaper than expectant management. This was primarily because with expectant management, there were extra costs related to fetal monitoring (non stress tests, amniotic fluid measurements, etc.) and the increased number of Cesareans in the expectant management group.

But there are many unanswered questions about the cost-effectiveness of elective induction of labor versus waiting for labor to begin (with fetal monitoring), so I’m afraid I can’t make any definitive statements or projections about the economic and social costs of elective inductions. Here is a study that may be of interest to some with further information on this topic.

I do know that in a healthy, low-risk population, birth centers in the National Birth Center Study II provided excellent care at a very low cost with women who had spontaneous births all the way up to 42 weeks. I would love to see researchers analyze maternal and neonatal outcomes in women stratified by gestational age in the Perinatal Data Registry with the American Association of Birth Centers.

 SM: I very much look forward to all your research posts and appreciate the work  and effort you put into doing them. What is on your radar for your next piece?

RD: The next piece will be Advanced Maternal Age!! After that, I will probably be polling my audience to see what they want, but I’m interested in tackling some topics related to pain control (epidurals and nitrous oxide) or maybe episiotomies.

SM: Is there anything else that you want to share about this post or other topics?

RD: No, I would just like to give a big thank you to everyone who helped in some way or another on this article!! There was a great interdisciplinary team who helped ensure that the due dates article passed scrutiny—we had an obstetrician, family physician, nurse midwife, several PhD-prepared researchers, and a certified direct entry midwife all provide expert review before the article was published. I am so thankful to all of them.

References

Hannah, M. E., C. Huh, et al. (1996). “Postterm pregnancy: putting the merits of a policy of induction of labor into perspective.” Birth 23(1): 13-19.

Hannah, M. E., W. J. Hannah, et al. (1992). “Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group.” N Engl J Med 326(24): 1587-1592.

 

 

 

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, informed Consent, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, New Research, Research , , , , ,

Because… A Poem Honoring Cesarean Awareness Month

April 9th, 2015 by avatar

CAM 2015 GBWCGiving Birth with Confidence is the sister blog to Science & Sensibility, Lamaze International and is geared for parents and new families.  Cara Terreri, ( you may remember Cara, we followed her journey to becoming an LCCE) has been the Community Manager there since the blog was first established in 2008.  I always point the families in my classes to Giving Birth with Confidence because I know that they will find evidence based information along with great inspiration to push for a safe and healthy birth.

Cara recently wrote and published a poem on Giving Birth With Confidence to commemorate Cesarean Awareness Month (April), and it really spoke to me.  Since April is also National Poetry Month, I wanted to share her poem with you, in hopes that you might pass on and share with the families you work with.  Because 1 in 3 is too many.

Because…

1 in 3 is too many

Recovery is hard

My birth was still a birth

I want to have a VBAC

My scar still hurts

I was separated from my baby

My doula supported me in the OR

I didn’t have a choice

I got to experience skin to skin with my baby right away

I made the choice this time

I wish I would have known

I feel cheated

My doctor never told me this could happen

It’s going to be OK

My sister said this was easier anyway

My midwife made the right decision to transfer to the hospital

Friends told me at least I had a healthy baby

I have postpartum depression

It was the best decision for my birth

My husband has scars too

I’m embarrassed

My doula wasn’t allowed back into the OR

I failed the one thing I’m supposed to be able to do as a woman

My mom had one too; I guess it was meant to happen

I know my doctor helped me make the best decision

I want more for my daughter

I am a source of courage and support for others who have gone before me and those who will go after me

I did the best that I could with the knowledge I had at the time

I’m doing better now

My baby is beautiful

My body is strong

I am resilient

My birth matters

By Cara Terreri

cara headshot

 

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Depression, Giving Birth with Confidence, Guest Posts, Infant Attachment, Newborns , , , , , ,

Too Bad We Can’t Just “Ban” Accreta – The Downstream Consequences of VBAC Bans

April 2nd, 2015 by avatar

April is Cesarean Awareness Month (CAM), and throughout the month, Science & Sensibility will be covering issues that are directly related to the number of cesareans (1,284,339 in 2013) performed every year in the United States.  To start our CAM series off, Jen Kamel, founder of VBACFacts.com, shares important information about placenta accreta.  Tomorrow, April 3rd, is the Hope for Accreta Awareness National Blood Drive, as part of the 30 Day Hope for Accreta Challenge sponsored by the Hope for Accreta nonprofit that provides consumer information and offers support to families affected by placenta accreta. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

cam lamaze 2015Even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have described vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) as a safe, reasonable, and appropriate option for most women, VBAC bans (hospital or practice wide mandates that requires repeat cesareans for all women with a prior cesarean) remain in force in almost half of American hospitals. It’s true that scheduled repeat cesareans almost always successfully circumvent the most publicized risk of VBAC (uterine rupture) by virtually eliminating its incidence and for this reason, many people celebrate and credit the repeat cesarean section for resulting in a good outcome for mother and baby. But what most people do not consider is that VBAC bans translate into mandatory repeat cesareans, and those surgeries expose women and babies to a condition far more life-threatening and difficult to treat than uterine rupture: placenta accreta.

Photo Credit: http://fetalsono.com/teachfiles/PlacAcc.lasso

Photo Credit: http://fetalsono.com/teachfiles/PlacAcc.lasso

Placenta accreta occurs when a placenta abnormally attaches to (accreta), in (increta), or through (percreta) the uterine wall. No one knows exactly why some women develop accreta other than there is some abnormality in the area where the fertilized egg implants (Heller, 2013). Anyone who has had a prior surgery on her uterus is at a substantially increased risk of accreta and, as it happens, cesarean section is the most common surgery in the United States (Guise, 2010). In fact, the rate of accreta has grown along with the rate of cesarean surgery: from 1 in 4,027 pregnancies in the 1970s, to 1 in 2,510 pregnancies in the 1980s, to 1 in 533 from 1982-2002 (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], 2012). That rate escalates to 1 in 323 among women with a prior uterine surgery and the risk rises at a statistically significant rate with each additional cesarean section (Silver, Landon, Rouse, & Leveno, 2006).

Up to seven percent of women with accreta will die from it (ACOG, 2012). After the baby is born, the placenta does not detach normally, causing bleeding, which can’t be stopped before the doctors are able to either surgically remove the placenta or perform an emergency cesarean hysterectomy. Babies die from accreta due to the very high rate of preterm delivery associated with accreta. In fact, 43% of accreta babies weigh less than 5.5 lbs (2,500 gm.) upon delivery (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013). Accreta is not a routine complication. Accreta is serious.

As Silver (2006) points out, the risk of accreta after two cesareans (0.57%) is greater than the risk of uterine rupture after one prior low transverse cesarean during a non-induced/augmented planned VBAC (0.4%) (Landon, Hauth, & Leveno, 2004). In other words, women are literally exchanging the risk of uterine rupture in a current pregnancy for the more serious risk of accreta in future pregnancies. This poses a striking public health issue when you combine what the CDC (2012) has reported for numbers of unintended pregnancies–49%–and the lack of access to vaginal birth after cesarean: over half a million repeat cesareans every year, resulting in higher rates of accreta.

Yet due to the nonmedical factors that inhibit access to VBAC and influence how the risks and benefits of post-cesarean birth options are communicated to the public, women are rarely informed of these risks in a transparent and straightforward way. Additionally, it can be very difficult for the woman to obtain social support when confusion and fear about giving birth after cesarean remains the norm.

Given all this, providers are ethically obligated to inform patients of the future implications of their current mode of delivery. However, it can be especially difficult for providers working within the political climate of a hospital where VBAC is banned to frankly inform their patients of this reality. How can providers clearly explain to women the risks and benefits of their options, with VBAC as a viable option, when they do not offer that option at the facility? Such a situation could even result in professional ramifications for the provider, like revocation of hospital privileges. Additionally, some providers do not offer VBAC, “not because of an explicit hospital policy against it, but because [they] were unwilling to stay in the hospital with a woman attempting [a planned VBAC]” (Barger, Dunn, Bearman, DeLain, & Gates, 2013).

It is for this reason that some argue that VBAC bans create a conflict of interest among providers (ACOG, 2011; Charles, 2012). On one hand, they are bound by ethical obligations to the patient’s well-being, respect for patient autonomy, and support of an informed decision-making process. But these obligations are threatened by financial and professional ties to the hospital.

ACOG stresses throughout their guidelines and committee opinions that informed consent and patient autonomy are paramount (ACOG, 2011). They share how obstetrics should be moving from a paternalistic system to a more collaborative model (ACOG, 2013). They acknowledge that women should be allowed to accept increased levels of risk (ACOG, 2010). They assert how there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, only what is right or wrong for a specific woman (ACOG, 2010). And they are clear that restrictive VBAC policies cannot be used to force women to have a repeat cesarean or to deny a woman care during active labor (ACOG, 2010).

Yet, with 48% of women interested in the option of VBAC, 46% of them cannot find a provider or facility to attend their VBAC (Declercq, Sakala, Corry, Applebaum, & Herrlick, 2013). Only 10% of U.S. women have a vaginal birth after cesarean, as opposed to another cesarean (National Center for Health Statistics, 2013). Barriers to VBAC remain firm.

Those barriers often include one-sided counseling to women of the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC. Rarely are they told of the complication rates of accreta, which are higher across several measures. This is true when we look at maternal mortality (7% vs. 0%) (ACOG, 2012; Guise, et al., 2010), blood transfusion (54% vs. 12%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012), cesarean hysterectomy (20-70% vs. 6%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012), and maternal ventilation (14% vs. 3%) (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013; Barger, et al., 2012). Further, 5.8% of accreta babies will die within the first week of life (Eshkoli, Weintraub, Sergienko, & Sheiner, 2013) in comparison to 2.8 – 6.2% of uterine rupture babies (Guise, et al., 2010).

Accreta results in higher rates of mortality and morbidity because it requires a complex response which most hospitals are not equipped to provide. A 2012 study advises, “Treatment of placenta accreta is best accomplished in centers that have the expertise to handle the management, which involves multiple disciplines, including blood bank, interventional radiology, anesthesia, and surgical expertise, gynecologic oncology, urology, or obstetric subspecialty expertise” (Heller, 2013).

It ís worth noting that uterine rupture does not require this level of response in order to generate a good outcome. As Aaron Caughey, OB-GYN and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland explains, “From an obstetrician standpoint, there are no particular special skills to managing a VBAC. Even in an emergency situation, we all have the surgical skills to deal with it” (Reddy, 2014).

Because some hospitals are not equipped to manage an accreta, some women who are diagnosed prenatally find themselves traveling hundreds of miles away from their family in order to deliver with accreta specialists.

At 19 weeks pregnant, Dawn was diagnosed with percreta, the most severe form of accreta where the placenta goes through the uterine wall and attaches to other structures in the abdominal cavity. She had nine prior pregnancies. Dawn was among the 93% of women who were never informed of the risks of accreta when she was pregnant after her first, second, or third cesarean (Kamel, 2014). All she heard were the dangers of VBAC. Thus, she had three cesareans.

Mother after cesarean hysterectomy in ICU. © Dawn Johnson-Baranski

When she got pregnant again, she heard the word accreta for the first time upon her diagnosis as is the case in 59% of women diagnosed with accreta (Kamel, 2014). Dawn ultimately traveled from her home in rural Virginia to Houston, Texas, at 27 weeks pregnant, to the Fox-Texas Children’s Pavilion for Women, an accreta specialty center. Due to complications related to her precreta, her son was delivered by cesarean hysterectomy at 33 weeks. Her son spent 19 days in the NICU before they could return back home to Virginia (personal communication, March 30, 2014).

It’s because accreta is so dangerous, complex to treat, and unknown to the general public, that professionals and researchers are sounding the alarm about the risk exchange that happens when repeat cesarean is chosen (or forced) over VBAC. As Dr. Elliot Main, Medical Director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, cautions, “In California, we are seeing a lot of hysterectomies, accretas, and significant blood loss due to multiple prior cesareans. Probably the biggest risk of the first cesarean is the repeat cesarean” (Main, 2013). (The state of California has a 9% VBAC rate, just a point below the national rate) (State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2013). A 2009 study from the Netherlands advises, “Ultimately, the best prevention [of uterine rupture] is primary prevention, i.e. reducing the primary caesarean delivery rate. The obstetrician who decides to perform a caesarean has a joint responsibility for the late consequences of that decision, including uterine rupture” (Zwart, et al., 2009). And a 2012 study warns, “Because cesarean delivery now accounts for about one-third of all deliveries in the United States, rates of abnormal placentation and subsequent hysterectomy will likely continue to rise” (Bateman, Mhyre, Callaghan, & Kuklina, 2012). By reducing the primary cesarean rate and increasing access to VBAC, we could also reduce the incidence of accreta, cesarean hysterectomy, and hemorrhage.

Following multiple uterine rupture lawsuits in the 1990s, some hospitals crafted their restrictive VBAC policies around litigation fears. However, the concern over lawsuits resulting from “VBAC gone wrong” may soon be overshadowed by the worry of being sued when women or babies die from accreta, after failing to adequately respond to this dangerous condition and/or denying access to VBAC (Associated Press, 2013; Children to sue hospital over death of mother, n.d.). This will certainly become the case as the public becomes more aware of the connection between VBAC bans, cesareans, and accreta.

It could also become a public relations nightmare as Americans begin to realize that litigation fears–not patient safety, drive hospital policy. This becomes more likely as more women are diagnosed with accreta.

As mothers are the ones who carry the risk of either uterine rupture or accreta, shouldn’t they be the ones deciding which set of risks are tolerable to them? As ACOG (2010) says, “the ultimate decision to undergo [planned VBAC] or a repeat cesarean delivery should be made by the patient in consultation with her health care provider” –  not by hospital administrators, malpractice insurance companies, or providers who simply don’t want to deal with VBAC.

As Dr. Howard Minkoff (2010) shared at the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference, “We should be starting with a sense of what’s the best interest of the mother. Unfortunately, the decision here is not always who are better equipped, it’s more like who are willing. There are a lot of hospitals that are quite capable of providing VBACs but exercise an option not to do it particularly if there’s someone nearby that will take that on for them.”

Hospitals around the country, and particularly those that are located in areas where VBAC bans mean that all women have repeat cesareans, are seeing and will continue to see increasing numbers of accreta. They have no choice but to manage it – which can be especially problematic for smaller facilities in rural areas that don’t offer the sophisticated response accreta requires.

But motivation remains the driving factor in hospital VBAC policy even in rural hospitals. Take the five small community hospitals in New Mexico that serve the Navajo Nation. As Dr. Jean Howe (2010), their Chief Clinical Consultant for Obstetrics, shared at the 2010 NIH Conference, these rural facilities collectively deliver 3,000 babies each year and maintain a 15% cesarean rate and a 38% VBAC rate. Numbers like that just don’t happen. They are the result of motivated administrators, providers, and patients who want VBAC to be an option at their facility.

The bottom line is, VBAC bans simply delay risk. The sooner hospital administrators and the American public realize this, the sooner we can mobilize–reducing future risks of accreta by making VBAC a viable option in more hospitals. It is one thing for a woman to knowingly plan a repeat cesarean understanding this risk. That is her choice as both VBAC and repeat cesarean come with risk. However, it is unconscionable when a woman is not presented with her options and she develops accreta in a subsequent pregnancy.

As the American public becomes more aware of the serious risks associated with repeat cesarean, will more providers and facilities be sued as a result of accreta-related complications and death? Will it have to come to fear of litigation, again, in order for hospitals to throw aside their current VBAC bans, listen to what the NIH, ACOG, and the medical research has to say; to create an environment that is supportive of VBAC, respect a mother’s right to make her own medical decisions, and prepare accreta-response protocols?

Women are entitled to understand what that first cesarean means in terms of their future birth options and their long term health. Consumers and providers should work with hospital administration to reverse VBAC bans, review current VBAC policies to insure they are aligned with national guidelines and evidence, and improve response times for obstetrical emergencies through team training and drills (Cornthwaite, Edwards, & Siassakos, 2013). Providers should have frank conversations with patients about the immediate and long-term risks and benefits of their options within the context of intended family size, acknowledging that sometimes the stork delivers when you’re not expecting it. This is about administrators, providers, professionals, and consumers working together for better processes and healthier outcomes. Let’s get to work.

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010, August). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116(2), 450-463. Retrieved from http://dhmh.maryland.gov/midwives/Documents/ACOG%20VBAC.pdf

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2011). Code of Professional Ethics. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from ACOG: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/~/media/Departments/National%20Officer%20Nominations%20Process/ACOGcode.pdf

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2012, July). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 529: Placenta accreta. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 201-11. Retrieved from http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Obstetric%20Practice/Placenta%20Accreta.aspx

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2013). Elective surgery and patient choice. Committee Opinion No. 578. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 122, 1134-8. Retrieved from http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Ethics/Elective_Surgery_and_Patient_Choice

Associated Press. (2013, Nov 25). $15 million awarded in Illinois childbirth death lawsuit. Retrieved from Insurance Journal: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2013/11/25/312169.htm

Barger, M. K., Dunn, T. J., Bearman, S., DeLain, M., & Gates, E. (2013). A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636061/pdf/1471-2393-13-83.pdf

Barger, M. K., Nannini, A., Weiss, J., Declercq, E. R., Stubblefield, P., Werler, M., & Ringer, S. (2012, November). Severe maternal and perinatal outcomes from uterine rupture among women at term with a trial of labor. Journal of Perinatology, 32, 837-843. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v32/n11/full/jp20122a.html

Bateman, M. T., Mhyre, J. M., Callaghan, W. M., & Kuklina, E. V. (2012). Peripartum hysterectomy in the United States: nationwide 14 year experience. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 206(63), e1-8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982025

Charles, S. (2012, Jul-Aug). The Ethics of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. The Hastings Center Report, 42(4), 24-27. Retrieved from Medscape: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.52/abstract

Cornthwaite, K., Edwards, S., & Siassakos, D. (2013). Reducing risk in maternity by optimising teamwork and leadership: an evidence-based approach to save mothers and babies. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27, 571-581. Retrieved from http://www.bestpracticeobgyn.com/article/S1521-6934(13)00051-5/abstract

Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlick, A. (2013). Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection. Retrieved from http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10450

Eshkoli, T., Weintraub, A., Sergienko, R., & Sheiner, E. (2013). Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 208, 219.e1-7. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23313722

Guise, J.-M., Eden, K., Emeis, C., Denman, M., Marshall, N., Fu, R., . . . McDonagh, M. (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44571/

Hale, B. (n.d.). Children to sue hospital over death of mother. Retrieved from Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-129801/Children-sue-hospital-death-mother.html

Heller, D. S. (2013). Placenta accreta and percreta. Surgical Pathology, 6, 181-197. Retrieved from http://www.surgpath.theclinics.com/article/S1875-9181(12)00183-3/abstract

Howe, J. (2010). National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference, Day 2, #04: Public Comments. 14:45-17:08. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/10898005

Kamel, J. (2014, Dec 14). Online poll of 227 women with prior cesareans.

Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., & Leveno, K. J. (2004). Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2581-2589. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040405

Main, E. (2013). HQI Regional Quality Leader Network December Meeting. San Diego.

Minkoff, H. (2010). National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference, Day 2, #04: Public Comments. 11:16. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/10898005

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. (2012, Apr 4). Unintended Pregnancy Prevention. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/index.htm

National Center for Health Statistics. (2013). User Guide to the 2012 Natality Public Use File. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/DVS/natality/UserGuide2012.pdf

Reddy, S. (2014, Dec 8). A type of childbirth some women will fight for. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-type-of-childbirth-some-women-will-fight-for-1418081344

Silver, R. M., Landon, M. B., Rouse, D. J., & Leveno, K. J. (2006). Maternal Morbidity Associated With Multiple Repeat Cesarean Deliveries. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 107(6), pp. 1226-1232. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2006/06000/maternal_morbidity_associated_with_multiple_repeat.4.aspx

State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. (2013, December 17). Utilization Rates for Selected Medical Procedures in California Hospitals, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/PatDischargeData/ResearchReports/Hospipqualind/vol-util_indicatorsrpt/

Zwart, J. J., Richters, J. M., Ory, F., de Vries, J., Bloemenkamp, K., & van Roosmalen, J. (2009, July). Uterine rupture in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116(8), pp. 1069-1080. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x/full

About Jen Kamel

Jen kamel head shot 2015Jen Kamel is a consumer advocate and a leading national speaker on the medical facts and political, historical climate surrounding vaginal birth after cesarean.  She is the founder of VBACFacts.com and has brought her workshop “The Truth about VBAC: Politics, History and Stats” to over 900 people around the country, giving accurate, current information about post-cesarean birth options directly to families, practitioners, and professionals.

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Pregnancy Complications, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) , , , , , , ,

Birth By The Numbers Releases New Video – Myth and Reality Concerning US Cesareans

March 19th, 2015 by avatar

birth by numbers header

I have been a huge fan of Dr. Eugene Declercq and his team over at Birth by the Numbers ever since I watched the original Birth by the Numbers bonus segment that was found on the Orgasmic Birth DVD I purchased back in 2008.  I was on the board of REACHE when we brought Dr. Declercq to Seattle to speak at our regional childbirth conference in 2010 and since then have heard him present at various conferences around the country, including most recently at the 2014 Lamaze International/DONA International Confluence, where Dr. Declercq was a keynote speaker.  I enjoy listening to him just as much now as I did back in 2008.  You  may also be familiar with Dr. Declercq’s work as part of the Listening to Mothers research team that has brought us three very valuable studies.

Birth by the Numbers has grown into a valuable and up to date website for the birth professional and the consumer, filled to the brim with useful information, videos, slide presentations and blog posts.  This past Tuesday, the newest video was released on the website: Birth By The Numbers: Part II – Myth and Reality Concerning US Cesareans and is embedded here for you to watch.  We shared Part I in a blog post last fall.


Also available for public use is a slide presentation located in the the “Teaching Tools” section of the Birth by the Numbers website designed to provide additional information, maps, data and resources for this new Myths and Reality Concerning Cesareans video. Included in this slideshow are notes and updates to help you understand the slides and share with others.  This material is freely given for your use.

© Birth by the Numbers

© Birth by the Numbers

This video explores how cesareans impact maternity care systems in the USA.  After watching the video and reviewing the slides, here are some of my top takeaways.

1.  The common reasons given for the nearly 33% cesarean rate in the USA (bigger babies, older mothers, more mothers with obesity, diabetes and hypertension, more multiples and maternal request) just don’t hold water when examined closer.

2. Many women feel pressure from their healthcare provider to have a cesarean, either prenatally or in labor.

3. The leading indicators for cesareans are labor arrest (34%) and nonreassuring fetal heart tracings (23%).

4. The rise in cesareans is not a result of a different indications.  Dr. Declercq quotes a 20 year old article’s title that could still grace the front pages today. “The Rise in Cesarean Section Rate: the same indications – but a lower threshold.”

5. When examining the distribution of cesarean births by states over time, it is clear that those states with the highest cesarean birth rate decades ago, still remain in those spots today.

6. “We are talking about cultural phenomena when we are talking about cesareans, not just medical phenomena.”

7. First time, low risk mothers who birthed at term and experienced labor had a 5% cesarean rate if they went into spontaneous labor and did not receive an epidural.  If they were induced and received an epidural, the cesarean rate was 31%.

8. The United States has the lowest VBAC rate of any industrialized country in the world.

© Birth by the Numbers

© Birth by the Numbers

While the video is rich (and heavy) in data laden charts and diagrams, the message, though not new, is clear.  The US maternity care system is in crisis.  We have to right the ship, and get back on course for healthier and safer births for pregnant people and babies. Take a look at this new video, and think about what messages you can share with the families you work with and in the classes you teach, to help consumers make informed choices about the care they receive during the childbearing year.

Please watch the video, visit the website to view the slides and let me know here in the comments section what you are going to use from this information to improve birth.

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, informed Consent, Maternal Obesity, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research , , , ,

Epidurals: Do They or Don’t They Increase Cesareans?

January 27th, 2015 by avatar

By Henci Goer

In October, Author Henci Goer wrote an article for Science & Sensibility, Epidural Anesthesia: To Delay or Not To Delay – That is the Question – examining the impact of the timing of an epidural on labor and birth.  Today Henci looks at some new research, Epidural analgesia in labour and risk of caesarean delivery which seeks to determine whether receiving an epidural at all impacts the likelihood of a cesarean delivery.  Lamaze International has a great infographic on epidurals that you also may find very helpful. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

© J. Wasikowski, provided by Birthtastic

© J. Wasikowski, provided by Birthtastic

Let’s start with a bit of background for those of you who didn’t personally live through the early controversy over whether epidurals increased the cesarean rate. As epidurals began to achieve popularity in the late 1970s and 1980s, one researcher sounded the alarm when he and his group published a study of 714 first-time mothers showing that even after excluding women with big babies and women whose labor pattern was abnormal prior to having an epidural, epidurals remained a potent factor in cesarean rates for delayed progress (Thorp 1989). Everyone pooh-poohed his finding on grounds that observational studies can’t truly determine whether epidurals lead to more cesareans or women experiencing more prolonged, painful labors, and therefore at higher risk for cesarean, were more likely to want epidurals. The “chicken versus egg” question, they argued, couldn’t be resolved without a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and it wasn’t likely that women would agree to be assigned by chance to have an epidural or not. In point of fact, that same year saw publication of a small Danish RCT (107 women, 104 of them first-time mothers) (Philipsen 1989). It reported that having an epidural nearly tripled the cesarean rate (16% vs. 6%) for “cephalopelvic disproportion” despite no clinical evidence of CPD being a requirement for inclusion. The investigators ignored this, however, concluding only that instrumental vaginal delivery rates were similar, and epidurals provided better pain relief. In any case, the anesthetic dose was much higher than was already becoming the norm, so it could be reasonably argued that the trial’s findings wouldn’t apply to modern-day practice.

Thorp, meanwhile, took up the RCT challenge. He and his colleagues carried out an epidural versus no epidural trial in 93 first-time mothers and found that epidurals did, in fact, lead to cesareans (25% vs. 2%), not vice versa (Thorp 1993). That bit of unwelcome news precipitated a stampede to perform more RCTs, and when enough of those had accumulated, to a series of systematic reviews pooling their data (meta-analysis), of which the Cochrane review, Anim-Somuah et al. (2011), is the latest. These reached the more comfortable conclusion that epidurals didn’t increase likelihood of cesarean, and pro-epiduralists breathed a collective sigh of relief and went back, if they had ever stopped, to unreservedly recommending epidurals. (This rather sweeps under the rug the other problems epidurals can cause, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Weaknesses of the “Epidural” vs. “No Epidural” Trials

Epidural

By User:Ravedave (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

The finding that epidurals don’t increase cesareans is puzzling because they increase likelihood of factors associated with them (Anim-Somuah 2011). For one thing, they increase use of oxytocin to augment labor, which implies they slow labor. For another, more women run fevers, and it stands to reason that a woman progressing slowly who starts running a fever is a likely candidate for cesarean. For a third, the difference in fetal malposition (occiput posterior) rates at delivery comes close to achieving statistical significance, meaning the difference is unlikely to be due to chance. Persistent OP is strongly associated with cesarean delivery (Cheng 2006; Fitzpatrick 2001; Phipps 2014; Ponkey 2003; Senecal 2005; Sizer 2000). Epidurals even increase cesareans for fetal distress by 40%, although the absolute difference didn’t amount to much (1 more per 100 women). Could a difference exist and meta-analysis of RCTs fail to detect it?

A string of well-conducted observational studies over the years have suggested that they could (Eriksen 2011; Kjaergaard 2008; Lieberman 1996; Nguyen 2010), the most recent of which is a very large, very convincing study published last fall (Bannister-Tyrrell 2014). Its authors point out, as have others before them, the weaknesses of the RCTs, weaknesses serious enough to nullify their results or make them inapplicable to typical community practice (external validity).

To begin with, in most trials, substantial percentages of women allocated to the non-epidural group ended up having epidurals, and some women allocated to the epidural group ended up not having one. Since RCTs analyze results according to group assignment (to do otherwise would negate the point of random assignment, which is to avoid bias), not what actually happened, this diminishes differences between groups. In addition, trials were mostly confined to women with no medical or obstetric complications who were treated according to strict protocols for labor management and indications for cesarean delivery. Neither is the case in most hospitals. To these I would add that many trials lumped together first-time mothers and women with prior births when reporting outcomes. First-time mothers are much more susceptible to factors that impede progress, so including women with prior vaginal births can make it appear that epidurals are less problematic for first-time mothers than they really are. In addition, three of the trials were carried out in a hospital where participants were mostly attended by midwives, and cesarean rates were much lower than is common for women attended by obstetricians.

All of this means that any null results in meta-analyses of the trials can be taken with a grain of salt, any findings of significant differences probably represent a minimal value, and first-time moms may be harder hit than appears. To cite one example, Anim-Somuah (2011) reported that 5 more women per 100 having epidurals had a malpositioned baby at delivery (18% vs. 13%) in the 4 trials reporting this outcome, a difference, as I said, that just missed achieving statistical significance. But when I confined results to the two trials in first-time mothers alone in which 10% or fewer of the women in the “no-epidural” group had an epidural, the gap widened to 9 more per 100 (11% vs. 2%).

Summary of the Bannister-Tyrrell (2014) Analysis

Bannister-Tyrrell and colleagues (2014) drew their population from a database of 210,700 Australian women with no prior cesareans who were laboring at term with a singleton, head-down baby. A strength of the database was that, unlike most, it distinguished epidurals for labor from epidurals for delivery. Using a long list of factors, investigators constructed a propensity score for how likely a woman was to have an epidural, matched women according to their score, and compared results according to whether women with the same score had or didn’t have an epidural. Matched controls were found for 52,600 women who had an epidural and were found across the full range of propensity scores. Women having epidurals were 2.5 times more likely to have a cesarean (20% vs. 8%), or put another way, 12 more women per 100 having epidurals had a cesarean (absolute excess), which amounts to 1 additional cesarean for every 8.5 women having an epidural (number needed to harm). Among first-time mothers, women having epidurals were 2.4 times more likely to have a cesarean. Study authors didn’t provide cesarean rates for this subgroup, but the raw cesarean rates overall were 18% in first-time mothers versus 2% in women with prior births, so the effect on this more vulnerable population could be dire.

But there’s still more. Investigators further adjusted for confounding factors not captured in their database. These included differences in health-care settings (same state but not same city), care provider (women without epidurals are more likely to be attended by midwives), and for confounding interventions more likely with epidurals (continuous fetal monitoring). Relative risk of cesarean with an epidural remained at 2.5. Investigators then adjusted for the association between occiput posterior baby and cesarean by setting estimates of the risk ratio to exceed the strongest associations reported in the literature, and they assumed that the prevalence of severe labor pain was 3 to 4 times higher in women having epidurals. Factoring these into their statistical analysis reduced the risk ratio, but women having epidurals still were 50% more likely to have a cesarean. This means that with a baseline cesarean rate of 8% in women without an epidural, 12% of women with an epidural will have one or 4 more women per 100 or 1 more cesarean for every 25 women.

The Take-Home

At the very least we cannot assure women with confidence that epidurals don’t increase the likelihood of cesarean. For this reason and because of their numerous other drawbacks and considering that comfort measures and other strategies have been shown to be both effective for most women and free of adverse effects (Declercq 2006; Jones 2012), women may want to make epidurals Plan B rather than Plan A. That being said, whatever their choice, women can minimize their chance of cesarean—with or without an epidural—by choosing a midwife or doctor whose policies and practices promote spontaneous vaginal birth http://www.lamaze.org/HealthyBirthPractices.

References

Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, R. M., & Jones, L. (2011). Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(12), CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22161362

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Ford, J. B., Morris, J. M., & Roberts, C. L. (2014). Epidural analgesia in labour and risk of caesarean delivery. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 28(5), 400-411. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25040829

Cheng, Y. W., Shaffer, B. L., & Caughey, A. B. (2006). Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 19(9), 563-568. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16966125?dopt=Citation

Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., & Applebaum, S. (2006). Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection. http://childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/LTMII_report.pdf

Eriksen, L. M., Nohr, E. A., & Kjaergaard, H. (2011). Mode of delivery after epidural analgesia in a cohort of low-risk nulliparas. Birth, 38(4), 317-326. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112332

Fitzpatrick, M., McQuillan, K., & O’Herlihy, C. (2001). Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol, 98(6), 1027-1031. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11755548?dopt=Citation

Jones, L., Othman, M., Dowswell, T., Alfirevic, Z., Gates, S., Newburn, M., . . . Neilson, J. P. (2012). Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, CD009234. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419342

Kjaergaard, H., Olsen, J., Ottesen, B., Nyberg, P., & Dykes, A. K. (2008). Obstetric risk indicators for labour dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 8, 45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18837972?dopt=Citation

Lieberman, E., Lang, J. M., Cohen, A., D’Agostino, R., Jr., Datta, S., & Frigoletto, F. D., Jr. (1996). Association of epidural analgesia with cesarean delivery in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 88(6), 993-1000. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942841

Nguyen, U. S., Rothman, K. J., Demissie, S., Jackson, D. J., Lang, J. M., & Ecker, J. L. (2010). Epidural analgesia and risks of cesarean and operative vaginal deliveries in nulliparous and multiparous women. Matern Child Health J, 14(5), 705-712. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19760498?dopt=Citation

Philipsen, T., & Jensen, N. H. (1989). Epidural block or parenteral pethidine as analgesic in labour; a randomized study concerning progress in labour and instrumental deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 30(1), 27-33. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2924990

Phipps, H., Hyett, J. A., Graham, K., Carseldine, W. J., Tooher, J., & de Vries, B. (2014). Is there an association between sonographically determined occipito-transverse position in the second stage of labor and operative delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 93(10), 1018-1024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25060716

Ponkey, S. E., Cohen, A. P., Heffner, L. J., & Lieberman, E. (2003). Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol, 101(5 Pt 1), 915-920. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12738150?dopt=Citation

Senecal, J., Xiong, X., Fraser, W. D., & Pushing Early Or Pushing Late with Epidural study, group. (2005). Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 763-772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15802403

Sizer, A. R., & Nirmal, D. M. (2000). Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 96(5 Pt 1), 749-752. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11042312?dopt=Citation

Thorp, J. A., Hu, D. H., Albin, R. M., McNitt, J., Meyer, B. A., Cohen, G. R., & Yeast, J. D. (1993). The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 169(4), 851-858. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8238138?dopt=Citation

Thorp, J. A., Parisi, V. M., Boylan, P. C., & Johnston, D. A. (1989). The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 161(3), 670-675. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2782350

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.  

 

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Epidural Analgesia, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Medical Interventions, New Research, Pain Management, Research , , , , , , ,