Ann Ledbetter, Tracy Wandtke Herrmann, Karen Lupa, Menachem Graupe
{"title":"社区医疗中心患者剖腹产后阴道分娩的观察结果与预测结果对比","authors":"Ann Ledbetter, Tracy Wandtke Herrmann, Karen Lupa, Menachem Graupe","doi":"10.1111/jmwh.13687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe Maternal‐Fetal Medicine Units Network calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) probability was updated to exclude a race and ethnicity variable, but its impact on marginalized groups is unknown. We assessed the tool with attention to birth history and body mass index (BMI) in a predominately Hispanic cohort and examined the possible effect of discouraging labor after cesarean (LAC) with a low score.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of LACs by patients who entered spontaneous or induced labor with a live, nonanomalous fetus in cephalic presentation between 2012 and 2022. Observed VBAC rates were compared with the mean predicted VBAC probability derived from the calculator. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for the entire cohort and for individuals with LAC with and without prior vaginal birth. A z‐test was used to determine the significance between VBAC rates in 4 BMI categories. The impact of discouraging LAC with VBAC probability below 70% was examined.ResultsA total of 400 people experienced 507 LACs, with 417 (82.2%) resulting in VBAC compared with a mean predicted probability of 71.2%. The AUC for all LACs was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71‐0.81), whereas the AUC for LACs with prior vaginal birth was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56‐0.85) and without was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.67). Observed VBAC rates exceeded predicted rates for individuals with overweight and obese BMIs: <25 (79.6% vs 75.6%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .520), 25 to 30 (83.2% vs 71.9%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .007), 30 to 40 (82.7% vs 70.0%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .004), and ≥40 (82.8% vs 58.3%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .040). Discouraging LAC below 70% probability might have prevented 71 unsuccessful LACs, 160 initial VBACs, and 57 subsequent VBACs, decreasing the VBAC rate to 39.4% (200/507).DiscussionIn a predominately Hispanic cohort, the updated calculator underestimated VBAC potential for people with no vaginal birth history and/or an elevated BMI. Discouraging LAC based on low VBAC probability may prevent both initial and subsequent VBACs.","PeriodicalId":16468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of midwifery & women's health","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observed Versus Predicted Vaginal Birth After Cesarean for Patients of a Community Health Center\",\"authors\":\"Ann Ledbetter, Tracy Wandtke Herrmann, Karen Lupa, Menachem Graupe\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jmwh.13687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionThe Maternal‐Fetal Medicine Units Network calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) probability was updated to exclude a race and ethnicity variable, but its impact on marginalized groups is unknown. We assessed the tool with attention to birth history and body mass index (BMI) in a predominately Hispanic cohort and examined the possible effect of discouraging labor after cesarean (LAC) with a low score.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of LACs by patients who entered spontaneous or induced labor with a live, nonanomalous fetus in cephalic presentation between 2012 and 2022. Observed VBAC rates were compared with the mean predicted VBAC probability derived from the calculator. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for the entire cohort and for individuals with LAC with and without prior vaginal birth. A z‐test was used to determine the significance between VBAC rates in 4 BMI categories. The impact of discouraging LAC with VBAC probability below 70% was examined.ResultsA total of 400 people experienced 507 LACs, with 417 (82.2%) resulting in VBAC compared with a mean predicted probability of 71.2%. The AUC for all LACs was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71‐0.81), whereas the AUC for LACs with prior vaginal birth was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56‐0.85) and without was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.67). Observed VBAC rates exceeded predicted rates for individuals with overweight and obese BMIs: <25 (79.6% vs 75.6%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .520), 25 to 30 (83.2% vs 71.9%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .007), 30 to 40 (82.7% vs 70.0%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .004), and ≥40 (82.8% vs 58.3%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .040). Discouraging LAC below 70% probability might have prevented 71 unsuccessful LACs, 160 initial VBACs, and 57 subsequent VBACs, decreasing the VBAC rate to 39.4% (200/507).DiscussionIn a predominately Hispanic cohort, the updated calculator underestimated VBAC potential for people with no vaginal birth history and/or an elevated BMI. Discouraging LAC based on low VBAC probability may prevent both initial and subsequent VBACs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of midwifery & women's health\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of midwifery & women's health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13687\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of midwifery & women's health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observed Versus Predicted Vaginal Birth After Cesarean for Patients of a Community Health Center
IntroductionThe Maternal‐Fetal Medicine Units Network calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) probability was updated to exclude a race and ethnicity variable, but its impact on marginalized groups is unknown. We assessed the tool with attention to birth history and body mass index (BMI) in a predominately Hispanic cohort and examined the possible effect of discouraging labor after cesarean (LAC) with a low score.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of LACs by patients who entered spontaneous or induced labor with a live, nonanomalous fetus in cephalic presentation between 2012 and 2022. Observed VBAC rates were compared with the mean predicted VBAC probability derived from the calculator. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for the entire cohort and for individuals with LAC with and without prior vaginal birth. A z‐test was used to determine the significance between VBAC rates in 4 BMI categories. The impact of discouraging LAC with VBAC probability below 70% was examined.ResultsA total of 400 people experienced 507 LACs, with 417 (82.2%) resulting in VBAC compared with a mean predicted probability of 71.2%. The AUC for all LACs was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71‐0.81), whereas the AUC for LACs with prior vaginal birth was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56‐0.85) and without was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.67). Observed VBAC rates exceeded predicted rates for individuals with overweight and obese BMIs: <25 (79.6% vs 75.6%; P = .520), 25 to 30 (83.2% vs 71.9%; P = .007), 30 to 40 (82.7% vs 70.0%; P = .004), and ≥40 (82.8% vs 58.3%; P = .040). Discouraging LAC below 70% probability might have prevented 71 unsuccessful LACs, 160 initial VBACs, and 57 subsequent VBACs, decreasing the VBAC rate to 39.4% (200/507).DiscussionIn a predominately Hispanic cohort, the updated calculator underestimated VBAC potential for people with no vaginal birth history and/or an elevated BMI. Discouraging LAC based on low VBAC probability may prevent both initial and subsequent VBACs.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Midwifery & Women''s Health (JMWH) is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research and review articles that focus on midwifery and women''s health. JMWH provides a forum for interdisciplinary exchange across a broad range of women''s health issues. Manuscripts that address midwifery, women''s health, education, evidence-based practice, public health, policy, and research are welcomed