Thursday, April 5, 2012

Is ERCS safer than VBAC?


Is Elective Repeat Cesarean Surgery Truly Safer Than Planned VBAC?




The headline on a recent BBC News health article reads: “Planned repeat C-sections ‘safer.’ The article goes on to report on two studies that appear to support that conclusion, but do they really? Let’s see what the article says and follow with a look at the actual studies.
One of the studies, the BBC News article tells us, is a U.K. study of 159 cases of uterine rupture in which 139 occurred in women with a prior cesarean. The risk of scar rupture in women with a prior scar, it reports, was seven times greater in women having VBAC labors compared with women planning repeat cesareans, and the risk of the baby dying was three times higher.
That would seem to make a clear case for elective (no medical indication) repeat cesarean (ERC), but if we turn to the study itself, we find that the risk of scar rupture in a VBAC labor was 2 per 1000 VBAC labors versus 0.3 per 1000 planned repeat cesareans, or roughly 2 more scar ruptures per 1000 VBAC labors, not the large difference that “seven times greater” suggests. Moreover, the likelihood of scar rupture was influenced by modifiable factors. The use of prostaglandin, oxytocin, or both for initiating or augmenting labor increased the risk without improving the VBAC rate. In fact, misoprostol was the induction agent in 18% of induced women experiencing scar rupture, but none of the women not having scar rupture were given this agent. ACOG’s 2006 induction guidelines for VBAC labors prohibits using misoprostol because of its strong association with scar rupture. Furthermore, study authors theorize that one reason the scar rupture rate was so low in their study compared with some others was because double-layer uterine suturing, another modifiable practice, is the norm in the U.K..
As for VBAC labor tripling the rate of perinatal (intrapartum + neonatal) death compared with ERC, the study doesn’t give us this number (or maternal morbidity or mortality rates either, for that matter). The study actually only reports maternal and perinatal outcomes in the population overall, which included 20 women with rupture of an unscarred uterus, an event that may be more likely to produce severe adverse outcomes than a scar rupture. In addition, some of the neonatal deaths in women with prior cesarean may have been in women having emergent nonlabor cesareans. For example, three women had a scar rupture in conjunction with placenta previa. The extensive NIH systematic review  of VBAC reported that 6% of babies died as a result of scar rupture in a VBAC labor. We can use that number to calculate the odds of a baby dying in a VBAC labor in the U.K. study by multiplying it (0.06) by the U.K. study’s scar rupture rate (0.002). The result equals 0.00012 or 1 perinatal death per 10,000 VBAC labors. To be sure, every death is a tragedy, but we must also put this into perspective: that mortality is equivalent to thematernal mortality rate with ERC, which is 3 per 10,000, and much less than the fetal loss rate as a result of having an amniocentesis, which one modern-day study found to be 60 per 10,000.
The other study, according to the BBC News article, is an Australian study  of more than 2000 women planning their second delivery after a first cesarean. The BBC article states that the planned VBAC group had more stillbirths, and women were more likely to have severe bleeding, but gives no numbers.
Again, let’s turn to the actual study. The two planned VBAC deaths were unexplained fetal demises in infants born at 39 weeks, the implication being that ERC before that gestational age would have averted them. Perhaps they would have, but as the study  I analyzed in another blog post found, ERC at 39 weeks would have prevented only two of the six antepartum deaths.
The excess in severe hemorrhage (defined as > 1500 ml or transfusion) amounted to 1.5 more instances per 1000 VBAC labors, again, a small absolute difference, and a difference, moreover, that probably would have favored planned VBAC had not so few women had vaginal births. Maternal morbidity mostly occurs in labors that end in intrapartum cesareans, and the VBAC rate in this study was a dismal 43%. Withphysiologic care, the rate could have been as high as 81%. Even with typical management, studies have reported rates ranging from 61-72% in women with no prior vaginal births. In any case, however worrisome at the time, no differences were found in permanent sequelae such as hysterectomy.
And there is more: neither these studies nor the BBC news article considers the downstream consequences of accumulating cesarean scars, but they should. Even women who plan no more children may change their minds or continue with an unplanned pregnancy. According to the NIH systematic review, as the number of cesareans rises so does the risk of serious neonatal and maternal morbidity and perinatal mortality. By contrast, once a woman has a VBAC under her belt, so to speak, she is almost certain to go on having uneventful VBACs. Also, the review found that the risk of forming dense adhesions (internal scar tissue) rises with number of cesareans as well, thus increasing the likelihood of chronic pain and making any future abdominal surgery, not just future cesareans, more risky and difficult. Add these considerations into the mix, and the balance tips toward planning VBAC as the safer option for almost all women.
Headlines and articles like the one from the BBC News obstruct informed decision making by obscuring the true degree of comparative risk, and the studies contribute by failing to emphasize that better labor management in the previous delivery and current labor would improve outcomes. Planned VBAC is not without risks, but neither is ERC. Women deserve accurate, complete, and, most importantly, quantified information on which to decide on mode of birth after a cesarean. They also should have care in the primary cesarean that promotes safety in future VBACs and care in VBAC labors that promotes safe, healthy vaginal birth. To do less than that does women and their babies a serious disservice.


http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=4257

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

ACLU intervenes in VBAC ban


Your Body, Your Decisions – This Means You, Moms!

Posted by Mie Lewis, Women's Rights Project at 1:57pm
Recently, a mother in South Carolina reached out to the ACLU for help. She was pregnant, and although she had had two prior cesarean surgeries, she wished to attempt a “trial of labor,” that is, to give birth naturally, rather than having a scheduled cesarean surgery. The mother’s wish made sense in light of her medical history, and according to professional standards set by obstetricians.
Nevertheless, the mother’s doctors – publically employed physicians working in a public hospital –forced her to schedule a C-section, called her “stupid” for wanting to do otherwise, and threathened to withhold medical care if she refused the surgery and went into labor naturally. In short, even after having made her wishes known to her physicians, the mother was being coerced into undergoing a serious and invasive medical procedure against her will.
We and our partner organizations wrote to the doctors explaining that a pregnant woman, like any other person, has the right to receive only medical treatment to which she gives informed consent.   This means that a pregnant woman, like all other persons, has the right to refuse any and all medical interventions that she does not want, even if her doctor disagrees. In a case called In Re A.C., brought by the ACLU 25 years ago on behalf of a woman forced by court order to undergo a life-threatening C-section, the judge explained: “[I]n virtually all cases the question of what is to be done is decided by the patient – the pregnant woman – on behalf of herself and her fetus.”
Almost immediately after receiving our letter, the doctors in South Carolina changed their tune. They cancelled the scheduled cesarean surgery and respected the mother’s wish to go into labor spontaneously. The mother avoided the scheduled cesarean, labored naturally and ultimately gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
What is troubling about this story is that it took the intervention of the ACLU to secure for the mother the basic and fundamental right of every human being to decide what medical interventions she or he does or does not want.  Unfortunately, pregnant women are often subjected to pressure or outright coercion to accept unwanted medical interventions.
In a national survey, a quarter of women who underwent cesarean surgery said they had felt pressured to do so. Many more women were simply not given full information about the benefits and risks of cesarean surgery, in other words, their consent, even when given, was not informed. The story is similar with other common labor interventions: seventeen percent of women whose labor had been induced by the administration of drugs said they had felt pressure, and the great majority of mothers who had received an episiotomy (an incision between the vagina and anus) reported that they had had no choice in the matter at all.
Even worse, as we at the ACLU know only too well, what starts as coercion can turn into court-ordered medical intervention. In each case, the woman’s fundamental right to bodily integrity, as expressed through autonomous decision-making in medical matters, is infringed. Considering that about 4 million births occur in the U.S. each year, that amounts to civil liberties infringement on a massive scale.
Every person has a fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and interventions, which stem from principles of autonomy and self-determination, privacy, liberty and freedom of religion that are so deeply engrained in our society and system of laws. Yet these rights are under attack, with pregnant women as some of the principal targets. It will take courageous people like the South Carolina mother we represented, as well as concerted work by civil libertarians, to ensure a woman does not lose this basic human right simply because she chooses to become or remain pregnant.

Offering access to VBAC


Las Vegas doctors, women try to change C-section approach

  • JEFF SCHEID/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
    Dr. Steven Harter checks on Chelsea Graham while she holds her newborn daughter Olivia, as her husband, Hudson, looks on Nov. 4 at Summerlin Hospital. Although Chelsea Graham had her previous child by cesarean section, she had Olivia by natural birth. » Buy this photo
JEFF SCHEID/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Dr. Steven Harter checks on Chelsea Graham while she holds her newborn daughter Olivia, as her husband, Hudson, looks on Nov. 4 at Summerlin Hospital. Although Chelsea Graham had her previous child by cesarean section, she had Olivia by natural birth. » Buy this photo

More Photos

  • Chelsea Graham holds newborn daughter Olivia, who was born by vaginal birth after her previous daughter came by C-section. In Nevada, just 261 women who had C-sections, 160 of them from Las Vegas, gave birth in 2010 without surgery. JEFF SCHEID/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL» Buy this photo
Chelsea Graham holds newborn daughter Olivia, who was born by vaginal birth after her previous daughter came by C-section. In Nevada, just 261 women who had C-sections, 160 of them from Las Vegas, gave birth in 2010 without surgery.JEFF SCHEID/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL» Buy this photo
  • Chelsea and Hudson Graham with daughters Gianna, top, who was born 21 months ago by C-section, and Olivia, who was born naturally on Nov. 4 at Summerlin Hospital.COURTESY PHOTO
Chelsea and Hudson Graham with daughters Gianna, top, who was born 21 months ago by C-section, and Olivia, who was born naturally on Nov. 4 at Summerlin Hospital.COURTESY PHOTO

Extra Media

BY PAUL HARASIM
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Apr. 1, 2012 | 9:40 p.m.
Updated: Apr. 2, 2012 | 9:12 a.m.
The elevator doors weren't fully open, but Dr. Steven Harter was already off and running.
"Here we go," he said to no one in particular, pushing up the glasses on his nose as he picked up speed.
That Summerlin Hospital scene is so routine that some nurses chant "Run, Forrest, Run" when Harter hustles by on his way to deliver a baby.
In his off time, the 51-year-old obstetrician laughs at the good-natured comparison to Forrest Gump, but right now he's stone-faced. Wearing sneakers, scrubs and a white coat, he sprints down the hallway to Chelsea Graham's room.
Moments before, he had learned that the heart rate of Graham's unborn child had dropped. Two weeks overdue with her second child, Graham, 25, had been in labor about 10 hours on this November day.
Harter, whose office adjoins the hospital, called a coordinator to make sure an operating room was open and an anesthesiologist and surgical team were standing by for an emergency cesarean section, by which Harter could deliver the fetus with a surgical incision through Graham's abdominal wall and uterus.
Her first child had been delivered by C-section, but this time Graham wanted what few Nevada women have an opportunity to experience -- a vaginal birth after a C-section. Obstetricians refer to this as a VBAC, and Harter had agreed to try to help Graham accomplish just that.
It's not without a small risk -- less than 1 percent of the time in such deliveries a life-threatening rupture can occur along the scar left by the previous cesarean, so the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued safety guidelines that Harter carefully follows.
Harter, who slept at the hospital in case Graham ran into serious trouble with her labor, had told her that if there was any evidence of risk to her or the baby, he'd do another C-section.
A COMMON PROCEDURE
C-sections are the most common surgical procedure in American hospitals -- about one in three births come via a surgeon's scalpel -- with more than 1.4 million performed each year. In Nevada the practice is even more common, at 36 percent of births.
While the ideal rate of cesareans is not known, public health officials suggest an appropriate number of no higher than 15 percent, largely because C-sections pose a risk of surgical complications and a greater chance of problems or death for both mother and baby.
Many women who have had C-sections share Graham's desire to give birth without surgery in a subsequent pregnancy. Studies since 2006 found that nearly half of American women are interested in a VBAC, yet nearly 92 percent ended up having another cesarean.
More than 46 percent of the 12,000 C-sections in Nevada in 2010 -- there were 34,000 births -- were repeats. That number reflects the long-held belief of many physicians -- one hotly debated by some women -- that in the interest of safety "once a C-section, always a C-section."
"I just want to have a bonding experience with my baby right away, to hold my child and breast feed," Graham said in the days before her labor. "I want my body to do what it's supposed to do. And I don't want the feeling of hardly being able to walk for weeks after a C-section. I hurt so bad after that surgery."
A woman's chance of having a VBAC has become increasingly slim, despite a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2010 report that suggested that 37 percent of annual deliveries should be VBACs.
In Nevada, just 261 women who had prior C-sections -- 160 of them from Las Vegas -- gave birth in 2010 without surgery. That translates to just 0.77 percent of total deliveries.
Nationwide, the number of VBACs has dropped from a high of 28 percent in 1996 to less than 10 percent today. Meanwhile, repeat C-sections across the country have risen to about 40 percent of all cesareans.
WHAT DO THE STUDIES REALLY SAY?
With women and doctors so interested in safety issues regarding VBACs, researchers from around the world continually conduct studies about their relative safety in comparison to repeat C-sections.
Sometimes they appear contradictory.
The most recent study of 2,232 pregnancies from Australia -- released three weeks ago -- revealed two unexplained stillbirths in the VBAC group but no infant deaths among those who had repeat C-sections. The rate of fetal or infant death or serious health issues was 2.4 percent in the VBAC group, compared to 0.9 percent in the repeat C-section group.
An earlier study found that babies born vaginally after a C-section have less than a 1 percent higher risk of stillbirth than those born by a repeat cesarean.
But a scientific review conducted 20 years ago of 31 published studies, including 11,417 trials of labor, found no difference in death rates for mother and child in VBACs and repeat cesareans.
While mothers in the Australian VBAC group had more bleeding problems, other studies have shown that the risk of maternal death in a VBAC is lower -- 0.02 percent for a VBAC and 0.04 percent for repeat C-sections.
Harter, one of the few doctors in Las Vegas who regularly attends VBACs, said he doubts that the new Australian study will change either the positions of the medical establishment or women on the relative safety of VBACs and repeat C-sections.
Death and serious health issues associated with either delivery method are rare, he said.
"I always spend a lot of time talking to women about the risks involved," he said.
Magdalena Alvarez, a midwife who helps operate Pink Peas, a center that helps women decide what childbirth method is best for them, said the Australian study does not appear to be significant enough to advise women against VBACs. She said she will advise women to do what she always does -- look carefully at studies, "particularly who pays for them."
Dr. Catherine Spong, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, wrote a companion piece to the Australian study that stressed the need to prevent the first cesarean. She said it is critical that women have discussions with obstetricians so they can weigh relative risks.
"I can think of nothing more important," she said.
The main worry with a VBAC remains the risk of uterine rupture during labor, which can severely harm both the mother and the child and requires emergency surgery. Studies have shown that rupture occurs in 0.7 percent of cases where a common low transverse incision, called a bikini cut, has been made. And the number of catastrophic cases is low -- 1 in 2,000 babies die or suffer brain damage as result of oxygen deprivation.
CHANGING GUIDELINES
Dr. Jeffrey Wrightson, chief of obstetrics at University Medical Center, remembers when doctors in Nevada and nationwide began to do more VBACs.
It was after a 1980 conference held by the National Institutes of Health to combat skyrocketing C-section rates. Researchers had the statistics to prove it could be done successfully.
Soon, the VBAC rate, which had been around 5 percent, began to climb. By 1996 they accounted for 28 percent of births from C-section veterans. At the end of the decade, the government issued the Healthy People 2010 report calling for a target VBAC rate of 37 percent.
But then, Wrightson noted, some high-profile ruptures were followed by some major lawsuits, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1999 changed its guidelines, which medical centers generally follow.
The new key stipulation called for surgeons and anesthesiologists be "immediately available" to perform an emergency C-section during a VBAC. Until then, they only had to be "readily available."
It was no longer enough for doctors to be within a half-hour drive.
Hospital officials interpreted "immediately available" to mean a doctor and anesthesiologist had to be on the hospital campus whenever a VBAC labor was under way.
"Changing that one word from 'readily' to 'immediately' made all the difference," Wrightson said.
Insurance companies picked up on the new stipulation's sense of crisis. Some companies stopped offering malpractice coverage to doctors attending the procedures. Other carriers jacked up the price of malpractice coverage. The lack of coverage, coupled with doctors' fear of litigation and the skyrocketing cost of what insurance was available, is estimated to have caused half of the nation's obstetricians to stop attending VBACs.
Obstetricians with a small practice saw no way to remain financially viable if they stayed at a hospital for hours with one patient, Wrightson said, so only a handful of Las Vegas obstetricians took patients that wanted a VBAC.
Hospitals across the country said having staff standing by for whenever a patient might attempt a VBAC was too costly, so many didn't allow them.
In an attempt to increase the number of vaginal deliveries after C-sections, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued guidelines in 2010 saying a VBAC is a safe and appropriate choice for most women who have had a prior C-section, including for some women who have had two.
But because the college did not change its "immediately available" stipulation regarding staffing at hospitals, the number of women attempting VBACs has not risen significantly.
Wrightson said he suspects that for the most part, only hospitals staffed 24/7 with an obstetrician and anesthesiologist will do VBACs.
'HE GOES WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND'
No obstetrician is more dedicated in Las Vegas to giving women the choice of a VBAC than Harter.
Even though he's married with three children, Harter attends about a quarter of the city's VBACs each year, sometimes literally living at Summerlin Hospital for days at a time. He coordinates with an anesthesiologist.
"I think it's important that women have this chance if they want it," Harter said. "Many women tell me how important it is that they have a natural birthing experience. So when they're in labor, I'm at the hospital. I'm very lucky to have an understanding wife."
Almost half of the VBACs take place at UMC, the University of Nevada School of Medicine's teaching hospital, which has ob-gyns and anesthesiologists on staff around the clock.
Wrightson said he believes UMC should start marketing itself as a center of the VBAC birthing experience.
Dr. K. Warren Volker, who has the largest ob-gyn practice in Las Vegas, said he intends to do the same thing at Sunrise.
Sunrise spokeswoman Stacy Acquista put it this way: "At Sunrise Children's Hospital there is 24/7 OB Hospitalist coverage in-house to handle deliveries in the event that a patient's primary obstetrician is not available. In the event that the patient's primary OB cannot be present, the decision to perform a VBAC is done collaboratively between the OB hospitalists and the patient's primary OB, and they remain in constant communication regarding any concerns."
The doctor most often brought up in positive way by women in support groups at either the Well Rounded Mama or Pink Seas pregnancy center is Harter. Most women say they've searched and searched for a doctor who will do a VBAC, and he's often the only one they can find. They realize that his commitment means fewer patients, affecting his bottom line.
"I think what he does for women is just amazing," said Dr. Tammy Reynolds, who received her VBAC care from Harter "He goes way above and beyond to help women get the experience they desire."
No official statistics are available for VBACs attended by midwives or doulas, who provide labor support, but doula Tiffanie Gonzales said "the numbers are increasing all the time. Women are fed up."
Wrightson said it is ironic that the issuance of more stringent guidelines for VBACs -- supposedly done to ensure a higher level of care -- "has apparently driven more and more women into the lowest level of care."
Both Wrightson and Harter say a uterine rupture is frightening and can't be handled by a midwife.
"You've only got a couple of minutes to get it under control," Harter said. The woman hemorrhages and the baby is cut off from both blood and oxygen as the placenta detaches.
"The uterus has a huge blood supply going to it so the bleeding is considerable," said Harter.
Harter said he agrees with guidelines calling for a surgeon and anesthesiologist to be immediately available at the hospital: "You don't have time to get to the hospital if a rupture occurs."
PROOF IT CAN BE DONE
As her pretty 4½-month-old daughter, Elliotte, sat quietly in her lap, Chelsea Robbins told the packed crowd gathered at the Well Rounded Mama how wonderful her home birth was, how much better she thinks a midwife is for childbirth than a physician.
"I was in the birth tub and the pain just melted away," she said. "My husband rubbed my back. It was so different from being in the hospital for my first birth with people who really don't care about you. You're with your child right away."
Michelle Van Norman, who had two earlier C-sections, talks about the delightful home birth experience she had with her third child: "You bond so much better with your child in a natural birth."
Women in the audience, most of them thinking of trying a vaginal delivery after earlier C-sections, listen intently, many of them nodding at their husbands as a speaker describes her VBAC.
The delivery risk is touched on, but only as the speaker says the risk with VBACs is greatly exaggerated, bemoans that more than nine out of 10 births following a C-section are now surgical deliveries, and criticizes doctors and hospitals in Las Vegas for not making VBACs readily available.
"I'm living proof it can be done safely," Robbins said.
OFF TO A RUNNING START
It is early in the morning on Nov. 4 as Cheryl Coccimiglio sits in a Summerlin Hospital waiting room with her husband and prays that her daughter Chelsea won't have to have another C-section.
She is impressed that Harter is devoted to giving a woman a birthing experience as natural as possible.
Coccimiglio had Chelsea by C-section, she noted, but she had successful VBACs with her next three children.
"I wanted this for her so much," she said. "I know she had a sense of failure with her first one, that she believes her body wasn't given an opportunity to do what it was designed to do. I'm just glad Dr. Harter is willing to invest so much time in this."
Out in the hallway, the elevator chimed, and Harter, a devoted long-distance runner, was off at the bell.
When he got to Chelsea's room, he found his patient with her doula, Gonzales. They had grunted the baby's head into the birth canal.
The distress that the nurse noted early on the fetal monitoring equipment didn't indicate a uterine rupture was imminent.
Soon, Harter was using a vacuum extractor to guide the baby out of the birth canal.
At 11:01 a.m., amid happy tears from Chelsea and her husband, Hudson, their little girl, Olivia -- all beautiful 7 pounds, 14 ounces of her -- came into this world without being cut from her mother's belly.
"I did it!" Chelsea Graham cried as she held her baby. "I did it!"
Contact reporter Paul Harasim at pharasim@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2908.


http://www.lvrj.com/health/las-vegas-doctors-women-try-to-change-c-section-approach-145715925.html