4.5 Article

Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean in China

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14801

Keywords

fetal abdominal circumference; prediction; trial of labor after cesarean delivery; ultrasound; vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By comparing ultrasonographic and non-ultrasonographic factors from five hospitals in China, we developed and validated a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). The model includes 8 validated factors and can accurately predict the success rate of trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC).
ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) in China. MethodsA nomogram for effective prediction of VBAC of singleton, cephalic and one previous low-transverse cesarean section deliveries was created by comparing the combinations of ultrasonographic and non-ultrasonographic factors from five hospitals between 2018 and 2019. ResultsA total of 1066 women were included. Of the women who underwent trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), 854 (80.1%) had a VBAC. Ultrasound factors included reached a higher area under the curve (AUC) combined with non-ultrasonographic factors. Of the three ultrasonographic factors analyzed, the best predictive factor for successful TOLAC was fetal abdominal circumference. A nomogram was generated with eight validated factors, including maternal age, gestational week, height, previous vaginal delivery, Bishop score, dilatation of the cervix at the time of admission, body mass index at delivery, and fetal abdominal circumference by ultrasound. The trained and validated AUC were 0.719 (95% confident interval 0.674-0.764) and 0.774 (95% confident interval 0.712-0.837), respectively. ConclusionOur VBAC nomogram based on obstetric factors and fetal abdominal circumference obtained by ultrasound could be used to counsel women who are considering TOLAC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available