William A Grobman1, Grecio Sandoval2, Madeline Murguia Rice2, Jennifer L Bailit3, Suneet P Chauhan4, Maged M Costantine5, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman6, Torri D Metz7, Samuel Parry8, Dwight J Rouse9, George R Saade10, Hyagriv N Simhan11, John M Thorp12, Alan T N Tita13, Monica Longo14, Mark B Landon5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: w-grobman@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, RI. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 14. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Investigators have attempted to derive tools that could provide clinicians with an easily obtainable estimate of the chance of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery for those who undertake trial of labor after cesarean delivery. One tool that has been validated externally was derived from data from the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Cesarean Registry. However, concern has been raised that this tool includes the socially constructed variables of race and ethnicity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an accurate tool to predict vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, using data easily obtainable early in pregnancy, without the inclusion of race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the Cesarean Registry of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The approach to the current analysis is similar to that of the analysis in which the previous vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction tool was derived. Specifically, individuals were included in this analysis if they were delivered on or after 37 0/7 weeks' gestation with a live singleton cephalic fetus at the time of labor and delivery admission, had a trial of labor after cesarean delivery, and had a history of 1 previous low-transverse cesarean delivery. Information was only considered for inclusion in the model if it was ascertainable at an initial prenatal visit. Model selection and internal validation were performed using a cross-validation procedure, with the dataset randomly and equally divided into a training set and a test set. The training set was used to identify factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and build the logistic regression predictive model using stepwise backward elimination. A final model was generated that included all variables found to be significant (P<.05). The accuracy of the model to predict vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was assessed using the concordance index. The independent test set was used to estimate classification errors and validate the model that had been developed from the training set, and calibration was assessed. The final model was then applied to the overall analytical population. RESULTS: Of the 11,687 individuals who met the inclusion criteria for this secondary analysis, 8636 (74%) experienced vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. The backward elimination variable selection yielded a model from the training set that included maternal age, prepregnancy weight, height, indication for previous cesarean delivery, obstetrical history, and chronic hypertension. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was significantly more likely for women who were taller and had a previous vaginal birth, particularly if that vaginal birth had occurred after a previous cesarean delivery. Conversely, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was significantly less likely for women whose age was older, whose weight was heavier, whose indication for previous cesarean delivery was arrest of dilation or descent, and who had a history of medication-treated chronic hypertension. The model had excellent calibration between predicted and empirical probabilities and, when applied to the overall analytical population, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.77), which is similar to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the previous model (0.75) that included race and ethnicity. CONCLUSION: We successfully derived an accurate model (available at https://mfmunetwork.bsc.gwu.edu/web/mfmunetwork/vaginal-birth-after-cesarean-calculator), which did not include race or ethnicity, for the estimation of the probability of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.
BACKGROUND: Investigators have attempted to derive tools that could provide clinicians with an easily obtainable estimate of the chance of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery for those who undertake trial of labor after cesarean delivery. One tool that has been validated externally was derived from data from the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Cesarean Registry. However, concern has been raised that this tool includes the socially constructed variables of race and ethnicity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an accurate tool to predict vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, using data easily obtainable early in pregnancy, without the inclusion of race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the Cesarean Registry of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The approach to the current analysis is similar to that of the analysis in which the previous vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction tool was derived. Specifically, individuals were included in this analysis if they were delivered on or after 37 0/7 weeks' gestation with a live singleton cephalic fetus at the time of labor and delivery admission, had a trial of labor after cesarean delivery, and had a history of 1 previous low-transverse cesarean delivery. Information was only considered for inclusion in the model if it was ascertainable at an initial prenatal visit. Model selection and internal validation were performed using a cross-validation procedure, with the dataset randomly and equally divided into a training set and a test set. The training set was used to identify factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and build the logistic regression predictive model using stepwise backward elimination. A final model was generated that included all variables found to be significant (P<.05). The accuracy of the model to predict vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was assessed using the concordance index. The independent test set was used to estimate classification errors and validate the model that had been developed from the training set, and calibration was assessed. The final model was then applied to the overall analytical population. RESULTS: Of the 11,687 individuals who met the inclusion criteria for this secondary analysis, 8636 (74%) experienced vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. The backward elimination variable selection yielded a model from the training set that included maternal age, prepregnancy weight, height, indication for previous cesarean delivery, obstetrical history, and chronic hypertension. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was significantly more likely for women who were taller and had a previous vaginal birth, particularly if that vaginal birth had occurred after a previous cesarean delivery. Conversely, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was significantly less likely for women whose age was older, whose weight was heavier, whose indication for previous cesarean delivery was arrest of dilation or descent, and who had a history of medication-treated chronic hypertension. The model had excellent calibration between predicted and empirical probabilities and, when applied to the overall analytical population, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.77), which is similar to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the previous model (0.75) that included race and ethnicity. CONCLUSION: We successfully derived an accurate model (available at https://mfmunetwork.bsc.gwu.edu/web/mfmunetwork/vaginal-birth-after-cesarean-calculator), which did not include race or ethnicity, for the estimation of the probability of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.
Authors: George A Macones; Alison Cahill; Emmanuelle Pare; David M Stamilio; Sarah Ratcliffe; Erika Stevens; Mary Sammel; Jeffrey Peipert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michael J Beninati; Sebastian Z Ramos; Valery A Danilack; Phinnara Has; David A Savitz; Erika F Werner Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: William A Grobman; Yinglei Lai; Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Kenneth J Leveno; Dwight J Rouse; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Marshall Carpenter; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; Oded Langer; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Maged M Costantine; Karin Fox; Benjamin D Byers; Julio Mateus; Labib M Ghulmiyyah; Sean Blackwell; Gary D V Hankins; William A Grobman; George Saade Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Akira Yokoi; Kaoru Ishikawa; Ken Miyazaki; Kana Yoshida; Madoka Furuhashi; Koji Tamakoshi Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Sarah S Osmundson; Alese Halvorson; Kristin N Graves; Clara Wang; Stephen Bruehl; Carlos G Grijalva; Dan France; Katherine Hartmann; Shilpa Mokshagundam; Frank E Harrell Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 7.623