Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2001 - Volume 97 - Issue 3 > Trial of Labor After 40 Weeks' Gestation in Women With Prior...
Obstetrics & Gynecology:
Original Research

Trial of Labor After 40 Weeks' Gestation in Women With Prior Cesarean

ZELOP, CAROLYN M. MD; SHIPP, THOMAS D. MD; COHEN, AMY; REPKE, JOHN T. MD; LIEBERMAN, ELLICE MD, DrPh

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.

Carolyn M. Zelop, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lenox Hill Hospital, 100 East 77th Street, New York, NY 10021-19883; E-mail: cmzelop555@aol.com

Received June 26, 2000. Received in revised form October 5, 2000. Accepted October 12, 2000.

Collapse Box

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcomes in women with prior cesareans delivering at or before 40 weeks' gestation with those delivering after 40 weeks.

Methods: We reviewed labor outcomes over 12 years at one institution for women with one prior cesarean and no other deliveries who had a trial of labor at term. We analyzed the rates of symptomatic uterine rupture and cesarean for term deliveries before or after 40 weeks and stratified for spontaneous and induced labor. Potential confounding by birth weight was controlled using logistic regression. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results: Of 2775 women with one prior scar and no other deliveries, 1504 delivered at or before 40 weeks and 1271 delivered after 40 weeks. For spontaneous labor, rupture rate at or before 40 weeks was 0.5% compared with 1.0% after 40 weeks (P = .2, adjusted OR 2.1, CI 0.7, 5.7). For induced labor, uterine rupture rates were 2.1% at or before 40 weeks and 2.6% after 40 weeks (P = .7, adjusted OR 1.1, CI 0.4, 3.4). For spontaneous labor, rate of cesareans during subsequent trials of labor at or before 40 weeks was 25% compared with 33.5% after 40 weeks (P = .001, adjusted OR 1.5, CI 1.2, 1.8). For induced labor, rate of cesareans during subsequent trials of labor at or before 40 weeks was 33.8% compared with 43% after 40 weeks (P = .03, adjusted OR 1.5, CI 1.1, 2.2).

Conclusion: The risk of uterine rupture does not increase substantially after 40 weeks but is increased with induction of labor regardless of gestational age. Because spontaneous labor after 40 weeks is associated with a cesarean rate similar to that following induced labor before 40 weeks, awaiting spontaneous labor after 40 weeks does not decrease the likelihood of successful vaginal delivery.

The most recent ACOG practice bulletin that examined vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC)1 did not address guidelines for treatment of women after 40 weeks' gestation. Literature regarding the safety and efficacy of attempted trial of labor after 40 weeks is limited. Callahan et al2 examined 90 women attempting VBAC who were at or beyond 40 weeks' gestation and reported a 65% rate of vaginal birth. They concluded that, in the absence of other factors, there is no indication for altering VBAC in women past term.

Even the most committed patient–physician team might question their resolve to proceed with a trial of labor.2 This uncertainty may stem in part from lack of sufficient data to make informed treatment decisions. We conducted this study to examine the outcomes of trial of labor in women after previous cesarean delivery who delivered beyond 40 weeks compared with gravidas laboring at or before 40 weeks' gestation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Materials and Methods

Between July 1984 and June 1996, we reviewed medical records of gravidas with histories of cesarean delivery who intended a trial of labor at or after 24 weeks' gestation at the Brigham & Women's Hospital. Specific details regarding the identification of the population and review of the charts were reported.3

For the current analysis, the study population was limited to women with term pregnancies who had a single previous cesarean and no other deliveries. We included patients with low transverse (Kerr), low vertical (Kronig), and unknown hysterotomies. We determined the rates of symptomatic uterine rupture and cesarean birth for term deliveries before or at 280 days' gestation (40 weeks) compared with those after 40 weeks' gestation. In addition to examining the overall association, we did separate analyses for spontaneous and induced labor because induction was associated with higher rates of uterine rupture and might be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery. Induction was defined as the initiation of regular uterine contractions through use of oxytocin, prostaglandin E2 gel, or both.

Outcomes of interest were symptomatic uterine rupture and rate of cesarean delivery. Uterine rupture was defined as complete disruption of the layers of the uterus in association with intraperitoneal or vaginal hemorrhage, need for hysterectomy, bladder injury caused by uterine scar disruption, extrusion of any portion of the fetal–placental unit, cesarean for nonreassuring fetal heart tracing, or suspected uterine rupture.

Statistical significance for comparisons of categorical data was evaluated using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the association of delivery after term with the rate of uterine rupture and control for confounding factors. A similar model was constructed to analyze the rate of cesarean. Potential confounders incorporated into the model were birth weight greater than 4000 g and indication for prior cesarean delivery. Categories for prior cesarean indication were breech, failure to progress, nonreassuring fetal status, and “other.” In the logistic regression, prior indication was modeled as three indicator variables with prior cesarean for breech as the referent group. The association was examined overall and separate analyses were done for spontaneous and induced labors. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Brigham and Women's Hospital to abstract data from charts of all women attempting a trial of labor after previous cesarean for the analysis of labor outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Our population included 2775 women at term who had one prior scar and no other deliveries. There were 1504 women who delivered between 37 and 40 weeks' gestation and 1271 women who delivered after 40 weeks. Of the 1504 gravidas with deliveries before or at 40 weeks, 1214 (81%) labored spontaneously and 290 (19%) were induced. Of the 1271 women beyond 40 weeks, 1001 (79%) had spontaneous labor and 270 (21%) were induced. Characteristics of the study population showed no differences in proportion of women receiving public aid, proportion of white women, and proportion of women laboring with previous Kerr hysterotomies among those delivered at or before 40 weeks compared with those delivered after 40 weeks (Table 1). However, mean age of those undergoing a trial of labor after 40 weeks was younger.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

Symptomatic uterine rupture occurred in 29 women. Overall, uterine ruptures occurred in 0.8% of women delivering between 37 and 40 weeks' gestation and 1.3% of women delivering after 40 weeks (P = .2, Table 2). For spontaneous labor, uterine ruptures occurred in 0.5% of gravidas delivering at or before 40 weeks compared with 1.0% delivering after 40 weeks (P = .2). For induced labor, rates of uterine rupture were 2.1% for gravidas at or before 40 weeks and 2.6% for those after 40 weeks (P = .7).

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

Logistic regression analysis controlling for birth weight and indication for prior cesarean delivery showed that gestational age beyond 40 weeks was not an independent significant predictor of symptomatic uterine rupture for women with spontaneous (adjusted OR 2.1, CI 0.7, 5.7) or induced (adjusted OR 1.1, CI 0.4, 3.4) labor.

Cesarean delivery rates were calculated. Overall, rate of cesarean delivery was higher for women after 40 weeks' gestation (35.4% compared with 26.7%, P < .001, Table 2). This higher rate of cesarean after 40 weeks was present for women with spontaneous labor (25.0% compared with 33.5%, P = .001) and induced labor (33.8% compared with 43.0%, P = .03).

Logistic regression analysis controlling for indication for previous cesarean and birth weight indicated that gestational age after 40 weeks was an independent predictor of cesarean during a subsequent trial of labor for spontaneous (adjusted OR 1.5, CI 1.2, 1.8) and induced (adjusted OR 1.5, CI 1.1, 2.2) labor. In that model, birth weight over 4000 g was a significant predictor of rate of cesarean for spontaneous labor (adjusted OR 1.5, CI 1.1, 2.0) but not for women with induced labor (adjusted OR 1.4, CI 0.8, 2.2). Lack of statistical significance for women with induced labor likely reflected the smaller numbers of women in that group.

As term approaches, clinicians must determine the consequences of waiting for spontaneous labor compared with induction before 40 weeks. To determine the best treatments, we directly compared the rates of cesarean and uterine rupture for women induced at or before 40 weeks with the outcome in women with spontaneous or induced labor after 40 weeks. In our population, induction before 40 weeks associated with a cesarean rate (33.8%) lower than the cesarean rate after 40 weeks (43.0%, P = .03) but similar to the cesarean rate for spontaneous labor after 40 weeks (33.5%, P = .9). In contrast, induction of labor before 40 weeks associated with a rate of uterine rupture (2.1%) similar to that with induction after 40 weeks (2.6%, P = .7) but higher than the rupture rate associated with spontaneous labor after 40 weeks (1.0%, P = .2). The nonsignificant difference might have been caused by lack of power resulting from the rarity of rupture.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

Counseling with respect to patient selection for VBAC evolves during the course of the pregnancy. As Callahan et al2 suggested, even the most committed patient–physician team may waver in their decision to attempt VBAC as the woman passes her due date.

Our study has several clinically relevant implications for that decision in women with one prior cesarean and no other deliveries. As term approaches, a decision must be made whether to induce or allow the pregnancy to progress beyond 40 weeks. Our data suggest that waiting for onset of spontaneous labor might be the more prudent option in the absence of other risk factors mandating delivery because the risk of symptomatic uterine rupture does not increase substantially for women with spontaneous onset of labor after 40 weeks. In contrast, induction of labor was associated with increased rate of uterine rupture.4

In addition, although the success of a trial of labor was lower for women with spontaneous labor after 40 weeks compared with spontaneous labor before or at 40 weeks, awaiting the spontaneous onset of labor rather than inducing does not decrease the chances of successful vaginal delivery. Women induced before or at 40 weeks had a 33.8% cesarean rate, similar to the 33.5% rate for women with spontaneous labor after 40 weeks.

Induced labor before 40 weeks was associated with 2.1% risk of uterine rupture, whereas spontaneous labor after 40 weeks was associated with only 1% risk (P = .2). Although not statistically significant, this difference might be due to type II error. Despite our robust sample size, we had only 25% power of detecting a difference of this magnitude. A sample size of 6200 women would be required to answer this question.

If the gravida does not go into spontaneous labor after 40 weeks, the choices for the woman and her physician become more difficult. In our study, induction beyond 40 weeks was associated with higher cesarean delivery rate (43%) and higher risk of uterine rupture (2.6%). Physicians and their patients must consider the risks and benefits of a trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean.

Our study has several limitations. Patients were managed by many attending physicians who employed a variety of management styles. Obstetric practices might have changed over the 12 years of the study, affecting our results. For example, patients who attempted labor post-term had a different (higher or lower) baseline risk of rupture or cesarean delivery. Although we controlled for confounding factors in our analyses, it is not possible to rule out the presence of residual confounding. A prospective study that collected extensive information on the baseline risk would be useful to sort out these issues. Such a study is currently being done by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, but the results are years away. In the meantime, our study can provide the basis for informed discussions regarding the safety and efficacy of a trial of labor after 40 weeks.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean section. ACOG practice bulletin no. 5. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1998.

2. Callahan C, Chescheir N, Steiner BD. Safety and efficacy of attempted vaginal birth after cesarean beyond the estimated date of delivery. Reprod Med 1999;44:606–10.

3. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:735–40.

4. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Uterine rupture during induced or augmented labor in gravid women with one prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:882–6.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 23 time(s).

Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery
Valentin, L
Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27(2): 285-295.
10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Predictive factors for vaginal birth after cesarean section
Haumonte, JB; Raylet, M; Sabiani, L; Franke, O; Bretelle, F; Boubli, L; d'Ercole, C
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 41(8): 735-752.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.09.032
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Particular maternal or fetal clinical conditions influencing the choice of the mode of delivery in case of previous cesarean
Schmitz, T
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 41(8): 772-781.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.09.029
CrossRef
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
A narrow pelvic outlet increases the risk for emergency cesarean section
Stalberg, K; Bodestedt, A; Lyrenas, S; Axelsson, O
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 85(7): 821-824.
10.1080/00016340600593521
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Management of postterm pregnancies
Beucher, G; Dreyfus, M
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(2): 107-117.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.09.005
CrossRef
Plos Medicine
Does the maxim "Once a Caesarean, always a Caesarean" still hold true?
Ugwumadu, A
Plos Medicine, 2(9): 837-838.
ARTN e305
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
The MFMU Cesarean Registry: Factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery
Landon, MB; Leindecker, S; Spong, CY; Hauth, JC; Bloom, S; Varner, MW; Moawad, AH; Caritis, SN; Harper, M; Wapner, RJ; Sorokin, Y; Miodovnik, M; Carpenter, M; Peaceman, AM; O'Sullivan, MJ; Sibai, BM; Langer, O; Thorp, JM; Ramin, SM; Mercer, BM; Gabbe, SG
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193(3): 1016-1023.
10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Predicting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A review of prognostic factors and screening tools
Hashima, JN; Eden, KB; Osterweil, P; Nygren, P; Guise, JM
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 190(2): 547-555.
10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.045
CrossRef
American Journal of Perinatology
Intrapartum predictors of uterine rupture
Pryor, EC; Mertz, HL; Beaver, BW; Koontz, G; Martinez-Borges, A; Smith, JG; Merrill, D
American Journal of Perinatology, 24(5): 317-321.
10.1055/s-2007-981433
CrossRef
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite
Obstetrical management of women with previous caesarean section
Poulain, P; Seconda, S
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite, 38(1): 48-57.
10.1016/j.gyobfe.2009.11.016
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Extrusion of fetus into the abdominal cavity following complete rupture of uterus: a case report
Segal, D; Marcus-Braun, N; Katz, M
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 109(1): 110-111.
10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00477-3
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Trial of labor in patients with a previous cesarean section: Does maternal age influence the outcome?
Bujold, E; Hammoud, AO; Hendler, I; Berman, S; Blackwell, SC; Duperron, L; Gauthier, RJ
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 190(4): 1113-1118.
10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.055
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Uterine rupture: risk factors, maternal and perinatal complications
Guyot, A; Carbonnel, M; Frey, C; Pharisien, I; Uzan, M; Carbillon, L
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 39(3): 238-245.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2010.03.003
CrossRef
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Acog Practice Bulletin - Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists - Number 55, September 2004
[Anon]
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104(3): 639-645.

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth
[Anon]
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 89(3): 319-331.
10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.015
CrossRef
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Ethnic disparities in repeat caesarean rates at Auckland Hospital
Wise, MR; Anderson, NH; Sadler, L
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 53(5): 443-450.
10.1111/ajo.12078
CrossRef
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Assessing Maternal and Perinatal Risks-Contemporary Management
Fang, YM; Zelop, CM
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(1): 147-153.

PDF (91)
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Uterine Rupture as a Source of Obstetrical Hemorrhage
LANG, CT; LANDON, MB
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 53(1): 237-251.
10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181cc4538
PDF (150) | CrossRef
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Trial of Labor After Cesarean: So, What Are the Risks?
SHIPP, TD
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 47(2): 365-377.

PDF (87)
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Risk Factors for Uterine Rupture During a Trial of Labor After Cesarean
LIEBERMAN, E
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 44(3): 609-621.

PDF (91)
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Prior Cesarean: A Contraindication to Labor Induction?
MAULDIN, JG; NEWMAN, RB
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(3): 684-697.

PDF (130)
Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Management of previous cesarean section
Biswas, A
Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 15(2): 123-129.

PDF (120)
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Safety and Efficacy of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Attempts at or Beyond 40 Weeks of Gestation
Coassolo, KM; Stamilio, DM; Paré, E; Peipert, JF; Stevens, E; Nelson, DB; Macones, GA
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106(4): 700-706.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000179389.82986.50
PDF (204) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2001 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share