| Literature DB >> 32933509 |
Hua-Le Zhang1, Liang-Hui Zheng1, Li-Chun Cheng1, Zhao-Dong Liu1, Lu Yu1,2, Qin Han1, Geng-Yun Miao2, Jian-Ying Yan3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for effective prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and guide future clinical application.Entities:
Keywords: Cesarean section; Mode of delivery decisions; VBAC; Vaginal birth
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32933509 PMCID: PMC7493317 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03233-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1Flowchart of the enrolled patients
Clinical characteristics of the training and validation cohorts
| Characteristics | Whole cohort ( | Training cohorts( | Validation cohorts( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal height (mean (SD)) | 1.60 (0.05) | 159.80 (4.87) | 159.27 (5.00) | 0.180 | |
| Pre-gravid maternal weight (mean (SD)) | 53.27 (7.19) | 53.43 (7.43) | 52.93 (6.64) | 0.383 | |
| Maternal weight at delivery (mean (SD)) | 66.74 (7.84) | 67.07 (8.03) | 66.02 (7.37) | 0.095 | |
| Pre-gravid maternal BMI (median [IQR]) | 20.62 [19.15, 22.42] | 20.57 [19.07, 22.48] | 20.78 [19.33, 22.06] | 0.703 | |
| Maternal BMI at delivery (median [IQR]) | 26.16 [24.36, 27.88] | 26.20 [24.34, 27.96] | 26.02 [24.50, 27.50] | 0.392 | |
| Abdominal circumference (mean (SD)) | 98.37 (5.05) | 98.44 (5.23) | 98.21 (4.62) | 0.582 | |
| Fundal height (mean (SD)) | 33.87 (1.50) | 33.91 (1.57) | 33.78 (1.31) | 0.253 | |
| Cervix Bishop score (median [IQR]) | 7.00 [7.00, 8.00] | 7.00 [7.00, 8.00] | 7.00 [7.00, 8.00] | 0.909 | |
| Maternal age at delivery (mean (SD)) | 31.28 (3.64) | 31.23 (3.58) | 31.39 (3.78) | 0.574 | |
| Gestation (median [IQR]) | 39.00 [38.29, 39.86] | 1.00 [0.00, 1.00] | 1.00 [0.00, 1.00] | 0.334 | |
| Cesarean section interval time (median [IQR]) | 5.00 [3.00, 7.00] | 5.00 [3.00, 6.50] | 4.00 [3.00, 7.00] | 0.942 | |
| History of vaginal delivery (%) | NO | 473 (66.8) | 319 (66.0) | 154 (68.4) | 0.585 |
| YES | 235 (33.2) | 164 (34.0) | 71 (31.6) | ||
| Rupture of membranes (%) | NO | 473 (66.8) | 332 (68.7) | 141 (62.7) | 0.131 |
| YES | 235 (33.2) | 151 (31.3) | 84 (37.3) | ||
| Success of TOLAC (%) | NO | 122 (17.2) | 86 (17.8) | 36 (16.0) | 0.627 |
| YES | 586 (82.8) | 397 (82.2) | 189 (84.0) | ||
*t test or χ2 test; Mann-Whitney U test was applied for Non-normally distributed data
IQR interquartile range, BMI Body Mass Index, SD standard deviation
Sample characteristics based on TOLAC status
| Characteristics | Failure of TOLAC( | Success of TOLAC( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal height (mean (SD)) | 1.58 (0.05) | 1.60 (0.05) | < 0.001 | |
| Pre-gravid maternal weight (mean (SD)) | 53.55 (7.56) | 53.21 (7.11) | 0.635 | |
| Maternal weight at delivery (mean (SD)) | 67.64 (7.98) | 66.55 (7.80) | 0.164 | |
| Pre-gravid maternal BMI (median [IQR]) | 21.23 [19.71, 22.95] | 20.57 [19.04, 22.26] | 0.013 | |
| Maternal BMI at delivery (median [IQR]) | 27.10 [25.24, 28.78] | 26.00 [24.20, 27.60] | < 0.001 | |
| Parity (median [IQR]) | 1.00 [1.00, 2.00] | 1.00 [1.00, 3.00] | < 0.001 | |
| Abdominal circumference (mean (SD)) | 98.56 (5.26) | 98.33 (5.00) | 0.639 | |
| Fundal height (mean (SD)) | 34.32 (1.60) | 33.78 (1.46) | < 0.001 | |
| Cervix Bishop score (median [IQR]) | 6.00 [4.00, 6.00] | 8.00 [7.00, 8.00] | < 0.001 | |
| Duration time of labor (median [IQR]) | 7.00 [4.00, 10.75] | 5.57 [4.10, 8.30] | 0.044 | |
| Maternal age at delivery (mean (SD)) | 31.87 (3.57) | 31.16 (3.64) | 0.049 | |
| Gestation (median [IQR]) | 39.00 [38.00, 40.00] | 39.00 [38.29, 39.86] | 0.177 | |
| Cesarean section interval time (median [IQR]) | 5.00 [3.00, 7.00] | 5.00 [3.00, 7.00] | 0.28 | |
| History of vaginal delivery (%) | NO | 104 (85.2) | 369 (63.0) | < 0.001 |
| YES | 18 (14.8) | 217 (37.0) | ||
| PROM (%) | NO | 96 (78.7) | 377 (64.3) | 0.003 |
| YES | 26 (21.3) | 209 (35.7) | ||
*t test or χ2 test; Mann-Whitney U test was applied for Non-normally distributed data
Fig. 2Feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression model. a LASSO coefficient profiles of the 13 features describing success rate of TOLAC. b Tuning parameter (lamda) selection in the LASSO model used 5-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria for determining success rate of TOLAC
Fig. 3Nomogram for predicting success rate of TOLAC
Predictors of TOLAC success rate based on the nomogram
| β | SE | OR [95%CI] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −5.29723 | 6.280949 | 0.01 [0.00, 1041.20] | 0.399 |
| Maternal height | 0.105889 | 0.035648 | 1.11 [1.04, 1.19] | 0.003 |
| Maternal BMI at delivery | −0.11339 | 0.058858 | 0.89 [0.79, 1.00] | 0.054 |
| Fundal height | −0.33551 | 0.108055 | 0.71 [0.58, 0.88] | 0.002 |
| Cervix Bishop score | 1.183312 | 0.147888 | 3.27 [2.49, 4.45] | < 0.001 |
| Maternal age at delivery | −0.10831 | 0.044441 | 0.90 [0.82, 0.98] | 0.015 |
| Gestational age great than 39 weeks | −1.09738 | 0.323738 | 0.33 [0.17, 0.62] | 0.001 |
| History of vaginal delivery | 1.070891 | 0.385452 | 2.92 [1.42, 6.48] | 0.005 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Fig. 4Calibration curves of the nomogram in training cohort and validation cohorts of TOLAC. a Prediction of success rate of TOLAC in training cohort of TOLAC. b Prediction of success rate of TOLAC using the Grobman’s model for validation (test) cohort of TOLAC. c Calibration curves for predicting success of TOLAC nomogram construction (Bootstrap = 1000 repetitions) in validation (test) cohort of TOLAC. d. Decision curve analysis for two method