Maternal outcomes of term breech presentation delivery: impact of successful external cephalic version in a nationwide sample of delivery admissions in the United States

Carolyn F Weiniger, Deirdre J Lyell, Lawrence C Tsen, Alexander J Butwick, BatZion Shachar, William M Callaghan, Andreea A Creanga, Brian T Bateman, Carolyn F Weiniger, Deirdre J Lyell, Lawrence C Tsen, Alexander J Butwick, BatZion Shachar, William M Callaghan, Andreea A Creanga, Brian T Bateman

Abstract

Background: We aimed to define the frequency and predictors of successful external cephalic version in a nationally-representative cohort of women with breech presentations and to compare maternal outcomes associated with successful external cephalic version versus persistent breech presentation.

Methods: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a United States healthcare utilization database, we identified delivery admissions between 1998 and 2011 for women who had successful external cephalic version or persistent breech presentation (including unsuccessful or no external cephalic version attempt) at term. Multivariable logistic regression identified patient and hospital-level factors associated with successful external cephalic version. Maternal outcomes were compared between women who had successful external cephalic version versus persistent breech.

Results: Our study cohort comprised 1,079,576 delivery admissions with breech presentation; 56,409 (5.2 %) women underwent successful external cephalic version and 1,023,167 (94.8 %) women had persistent breech presentation at the time of delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was lower among women who had successful external cephalic version compared to those with persistent breech (20.2 % vs. 94.9 %; p < 0.001). Compared to women with persistent breech at the time of delivery, women with successful external cephalic version were also less likely to experience several measures of significant maternal morbidity including endometritis (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 0.36, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.24-0.52), sepsis (aOR = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.24-0.51) and length of stay > 7 days (aOR = 0.53, 95 % CI 0.40-0.70), but had a higher risk of chorioamnionitis (aOR = 1.83, 95 % CI 1.54-2.17).

Conclusions: Overall a low proportion of women with breech presentation undergo successful external cephalic version, and it is associated with significant reduction in the frequency of cesarean delivery and a number of measures of maternal morbidity. Increased external cephalic version use may be an important approach to mitigate the high rate of cesarean delivery observed in the United States.

Keywords: Breech; Cesarean delivery; External cephalic version; Maternal morbidity.

References

    1. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026.
    1. Solheim KN, Esakoff TF, Little SE, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(11):1341–6. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.553695.
    1. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6 Suppl):S2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.028.
    1. Bateman BT, Mhyre JM, Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV. Peripartum hysterectomy in the United States: nationwide 14 year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):63. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.030.
    1. Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, et al. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2010;341:c5065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5065.
    1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340 Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(1):235–7. doi: 10.1097/00006250-200607000-00058.
    1. Nalliah S, Loh KY, Japaraj RP, Mukudan K. Is there a place for selective vaginal breech delivery in Malaysian hospitals: experiences from the Ipoh Hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(2):129–36. doi: 10.1080/14767050802509520.
    1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000;356(9239):1375–83. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3.
    1. Macfarlane A, Blondel B, Mohangoo A, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2016;123(4):559–68. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13284.
    1. Phipps H, Roberts CL, Nassar N, Raynes-Greenow CH, Peat B, Hutton EK. The management of breech pregnancies in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(4):294–7. doi: 10.1046/j.0004-8666.2003.00078.x.
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:Cd000083.
    1. de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1327–34. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000295.
    1. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation Guideline No. 20a: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2006 [updated 2010; Accessed 4th July 2016]. Available from: .
    1. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176(4):455–60. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060870.
    1. Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH. Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol. 2009;29(2):96–100. doi: 10.1038/jp.2008.227.
    1. Aisenbrey GA, Catanzarite VA, Nelson C. External cephalic version: predictors of success. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5 Pt 1):783–6.
    1. Bryant A, Mhyre JM, Leffert LR, Hoban RA, Yakoob MY, Bateman BT. The association of maternal race and ethnicity and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(5):1127–36. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182691e62.
    1. Kuklina EV, Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, Meikle SF, Posner SF, et al. An enhanced method for identifying obstetric deliveries: implications for estimating maternal morbidity. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12(4):469–77. doi: 10.1007/s10995-007-0256-6.
    1. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BW, Kok M. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(2):137–42. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12011.
    1. Ezra Y, Elram T, Plotkin V, Elchalal U. Significance of success rate of external cephalic versions and vaginal breech deliveries in counseling women with breech presentation at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000;90(1):63–6. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00222-5.
    1. Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Handler S, Tager IB, Hubbard A, Caughey AB. Clinicians' practice environment is associated with a higher likelihood of recommending cesarean deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(12):1220–7. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.860440.
    1. Rosenstein MG, Kuppermann M, Gregorich SE, Cottrell EK, Caughey AB, Cheng YW. Association between vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1010–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a91e0f.
    1. Recommendations of the FIGO Committee on Perinatal Health on guidelines for the management of breech delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;58(1):89-92
    1. Hemelaar J, Lim LN, Impey LW. The impact of an ECV service is limited by antenatal breech detection: a retrospective cohort study. Birth. 2015;42(2):165–72. doi: 10.1111/birt.12162.
    1. Mukaindo AM, Wanyonyi SZ, Stones WR. External cephalic version in East, Central, and Southern Africa. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;116(3):228–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.10.025.
    1. Freeth D, Mac VJ. The value of external cephalic version under anaesthesia. Br Med J. 1951;2(4736):881–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4736.881.
    1. Neely MR. External cephalic version under anaesthesia. Results in a series of 102 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961;68:490–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1961.tb02759.x.
    1. Sultan P, Carvalho B. Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: a systematic review. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2011;20(4):299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2011.07.001.
    1. Rosman AN, Vlemmix F, Beuckens A, Rijnders ME, Opmeer BC, Mol BW, et al. Facilitators and barriers to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term among health care providers in the Netherlands: a quantitative analysis. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):e145–50. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.01.002.
    1. Tan JM, Macario A, Carvalho B, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-3.
    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(1):1–70.
    1. Balayla J, Dahdouh EM, Villeneuve S, Boucher M, Gauthier RJ, Audibert F, et al. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes following unsuccessful external cephalic version: a stratified analysis amongst failures, successes, and controls. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(5):605–10. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2014.927429.
    1. Calhoun BC, Edgeworth D, Brehm W. External cephalic version at a military teaching hospital: predictors of success. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;35(3):277–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1995.tb01980.x.
    1. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BWJ, Kok M. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(2):137–42. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12011.
    1. Sela HY, Fiegenberg T, Ben-Meir A, Elchalal U, Ezra Y. Safety and efficacy of external cephalic version for women with a previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;142(2):111–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.08.012.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅