Guideline:
Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery
Bibliographic Source(s)
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 2004 Jul. 10 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 54). [105 references]
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 1999 Jul. 8 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 5).
Guideline Category
Counseling
Management
Prevention
Risk Assessment
Intended Users
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
- To aid practitioners in making decisions about appropriate obstetric and gynecologic care
- To review the current risks and benefits of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in various situations and provide practical management guidelines
Target Population
Pregnant women attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery
Interventions and Practices Considered
- Patient's obstetric history
- Patient counseling regarding benefits and risks of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC)
- Labor management including external cephalic version for breech presentation adequate pain relief (epidural analgesia or other types of pain relief) continuous electronic monitoring and presence of personnel familiar with the potential complications of VBAC
- Close patient monitoring if oxytocin is used for augmentation of contractions
- Prompt and complete assessment of the previous scar and the entire genital tract in cases of excessive vaginal bleeding or signs of hypovolemia
Major Outcomes Considered
- Success rate for trials of labor after previous cesarean delivery
- The risks and benefits associated with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery
- Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery
Methods Used to Collect/Select Evidence
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods used to Collect/Select the Evidence
The MEDLINE database the Cochrane Library and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG's) own internal resources and documents were used to conduct a literature search to locate relevant articles published between January 1985 and March 2004. The search was restricted to articles published in the English language. Priority was given to the articles reporting results of original research although review articles and commentaries also were consulted. Abstracts of research presented at symposiums and scientific conferences were not considered adequate for inclusion in this document.
Guidelines published by organizations or institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and ACOG were reviewed and additional studies were located by reviewing bibliographies of identified articles.
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Studies were reviewed and evaluated for quality according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
I Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial
II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization
II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies preferably from more than one center or research group
II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments also could be regarded as this type of evidence.
III Opinions of respected authorities based on clinical experience descriptive studies or reports of expert committees
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Analysis of available evidence was given priority in formulating recommendations. When reliable research was not available expert opinions from obstetrician-gynecologists were used. See also the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of Recommendations" field regarding Grade C recommendations.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Based on the highest level of evidence found in the data recommendations are provided and graded according to the following categories:
Level A - Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.
Level B - Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.
Level C - Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.
Cost Analysis
The guideline developers reviewed published cost analyses: Evidence suggests that cost savings are not achieved unless at least 70% of women who attempt a trial of labor are successful.
Method of Guideline Validation
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
Practice Bulletins are validated by two internal clinical review panels composed of practicing obstetrician-gynecologists generalists and sub-specialists. The final guidelines are also reviewed and approved by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Executive Board.
Major Recommendations
The grades of evidence (I-III) and levels of recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of "Major Recommendations" field.
The following recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence (Level A):
- Most women with one previous cesarean delivery with a low-transverse incision are candidates for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) and should be counseled about VBAC and offered a trial of labor.
- Epidural anesthesia may be used for VBAC.
The following recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence (Level B):
- Women with a vertical incision within the lower uterine segment that does not extend into the fundus are candidates for VBAC.
- The use of prostaglandins for cervical ripening or induction of labor in most women with a previous cesarean delivery should be discouraged.
The following recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C):
- Because uterine rupture may be catastrophic VBAC should be attempted in institutions equipped to respond to emergencies with physicians immediately available to provide emergency care.
- After thorough counseling that weighs the individual benefits and risks of VBAC the ultimate decision to attempt this procedure or undergo a repeat cesarean delivery should be made by the patient and her physician. This discussion should be documented in the medical record.
- Vaginal birth after a previous cesarean delivery is contraindicated in women with a previous classical uterine incision or extensive transfundal uterine surgery.
Definitions
Grades of Evidence
I Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial
II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization
II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies preferably from more than one center or research group
II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be regarded as this type of evidence.
III Opinions of respected authorities based on clinical experience descriptive studies or reports of expert committees
Levels of Recommendations
Level A - The recommendation is based on good and consistent scientific evidence.
Level B - The recommendation is based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.
Level C - The recommendation is based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Type of Evidence supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations").
Potential Benefits
The vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is associated with shorter maternal hospitalizations less blood loss and fewer transfusions fewer infections and fewer thromboembolic events than cesarean delivery.
Potential Harms
- A failed trial of labor may be associated with major maternal complications such as uterine rupture hysterectomy and operative injury as well as increased maternal infection and the need for transfusion.
- Neonatal morbidity also is increased with failed trial of labor as evidenced by the increased incidence of arterial umbilical cord blood gas pH levels below 7 5-minute Apgar scores below 7 and infection.
- Although the incidence of perinatal death is low (generally less than 1%) it is more likely to occur during a trial of labor than elective repeat cesarean delivery.
Contraindications
Contraindications for Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery
- Previous classical or T-shaped incision or extensive transfundal uterine surgery
- Previous uterine rupture
- Medical or obstetric complication that precludes vaginal delivery
- Inability to perform emergency cesarean delivery because of unavailable surgeon anesthesia sufficient staff or facility
- Two prior uterine scars and no vaginal deliveries
Qualifying Statements
- These guidelines should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure. Variations in practice may be warranted based on the needs of the individual patient resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice.
- Despite thousands of citations in the world's literature there are currently no randomized trials comparing maternal or neonatal outcomes for both repeat cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery (VBAC).
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
IOM Care Need
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Bibliographic Source(s)
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 2004 Jul. 10 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 54). [105 references]
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Source(s) of Funding
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
Guideline Committee
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics
Composition of Group that Authored the Guideline
Not stated
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Not stated
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 1999 Jul. 8 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 5).
Guideline Availability
Electronic copies: Not available at this time.
Print copies: Available for purchase from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Distribution Center PO Box 4500 Kearneysville WV 25430-4500; telephone 800-762-2264 ext. 192; e-mail: sales@acog.org. The ACOG Bookstore is available online at the ACOG Web site.
Availability of Companion Documents
None available
Patient Resources
None available
NGC STATUS
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI on January 14 2004. This NGC summary was updated by ECRI on February 9 2005.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This NGC summary is based on the original guideline which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop produce approve or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies relevant professional associations public or private organizations other government agencies health care organizations or plans and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .
NGC AHRQ and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC AHRQ or its contractor ECRI Institute and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.
Tools
No Quick Reference tools have been developed.