S Stattmiller1, M Lavecchia1, N Czuzoj-Shulman2, A R Spence2, H A Abenhaim1,2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with trial of labor (TOL) after cesarean during subsequent pregnancies in the low-risk population. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and ICD-9 diagnostic and procedure codes from the years 2003 to 2011. A cohort of low-risk pregnant women with a history of previous cesarean delivery were identified and separated into two groups: TOL and no TOL. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) comparing adverse maternal outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: Out of 7 290 474 registered deliveries, there were 685 137 low-risk women who met inclusion criteria. Of these women, 144 066 (21.0%) underwent a TOL, with rates remaining steady over the course of our study. The TOL group was at increased risk of overall morbidity (OR 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.66-1.79), most notably uterine rupture (OR 22.52, 95% CI, 19.35-26.20, P<0.01). A secondary analysis showed no apparent correlation between TOL and concomitant adverse maternal outcomes in cases of uterine rupture. CONCLUSION: Although these outcomes remain rare, low-risk women undergoing a TOL remain at increased risk of adverse maternal events as compared with those who chose elective repeat cesarean delivery.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with trial of labor (TOL) after cesarean during subsequent pregnancies in the low-risk population. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and ICD-9 diagnostic and procedure codes from the years 2003 to 2011. A cohort of low-risk pregnant women with a history of previous cesarean delivery were identified and separated into two groups: TOL and no TOL. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) comparing adverse maternal outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: Out of 7 290 474 registered deliveries, there were 685 137 low-risk women who met inclusion criteria. Of these women, 144 066 (21.0%) underwent a TOL, with rates remaining steady over the course of our study. The TOL group was at increased risk of overall morbidity (OR 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.66-1.79), most notably uterine rupture (OR 22.52, 95% CI, 19.35-26.20, P<0.01). A secondary analysis showed no apparent correlation between TOL and concomitant adverse maternal outcomes in cases of uterine rupture. CONCLUSION: Although these outcomes remain rare, low-risk women undergoing a TOL remain at increased risk of adverse maternal events as compared with those who chose elective repeat cesarean delivery.
Authors: Andrea Palmer; Andrew Elimian; Jean R Goodman; Eric J Knudtson; Michelle Rodriguez; Elisa Crouse Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2010-12-10
Authors: Jennifer A Tessmer-Tuck; Sherif A El-Nashar; Adrianne R Racek; Christine M Lohse; Abimbola O Famuyide; Myra J Wick Journal: Gynecol Obstet Invest Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Sushrut S Waikar; Ron Wald; Glenn M Chertow; Gary C Curhan; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Orfeas Liangos; Marie-Anne Sosa; Bertrand L Jaber Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Nathan S Fox; Rachel S Gerber; Mirella Mourad; Daniel H Saltzman; Chad K Klauser; Simi Gupta; Andrei Rebarber Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Alison G Cahill; David M Stamilio; Anthony O Odibo; Jeffrey F Peipert; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Erika J Stevens; Mary D Sammel; George A Macones Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-07-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Patryk Rudzinski; Inga Lopuszynska; Katarzyna Pieniak; Daria Stelmach; Joanna Kacperczyk-Bartnik; Ewa Romejko-Wolniewicz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.614