Elective repeat cesarean delivery compared with spontaneous trial of labor after a prior cesarean delivery: A propensity score analysis

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 206, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 311.e1-311.e9

  Gilbert, Sharon A ^a   Grobman, William A ^b   Landon, Mark B ^c   Spong, Catherine Y ^p   Rouse, Dwight J ^d   Leveno, Kenneth J ^e   Varner, Michael W ^f   Caritis, Steve N ^g   Meis, Paul J ^h   Sorokin, Yoram ⁱ   Carpenter, Marshall ^j   O'Sullivan, Mary J ^k   Sibai, Baha M ^l   Thorp, John M ^m   Ramin, Susan M ⁿ   Mercer, Brian M ^o  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^h WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

ⁱ WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^o CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

elective repeat cesarean delivery; propensity score; trial of labor

Indexed keywords

ACIDEMIA; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOTOMY; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; ENDOMETRITIS; FEMALE; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; HYPOXIC ISCHEMIC ENCEPHALOPATHY; HYSTERECTOMY; LUNG EMBOLISM; NEONATAL RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME; NEWBORN INFECTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SEROMA; SURGICAL INJURY; TRANSIENT TACHYPNEA OF THE NEWBORN; TRIAL OF LABOR; URETER INJURY; UTERUS RUPTURE; WOUND COMPLICATION;

EID: 84859352108     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.002     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights; evidence/report technology assessment no. 191 (prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10057-I; AHRQ publication no. 10-E003). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
2. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1373-9. (Pubitemid 27028925)
3. Guise J-M, McDonagh M, Hashima J, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC); evidence report/technology assessment no. 71 (prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no 290-97-0018; AHRQ publication no. 03-E018). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003.
4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41-55.
5. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 2004;13:855-7. (Pubitemid 40003820)
6. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods. Am Stat 1985;39:33-8.
7. Williamson E, Morley R, Lucas A, Carpenter J. Propensity scores: from naïve enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res 2011. Epub ahead of print.
8. Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:693-5. (Pubitemid 35176104)
9. D'Agostino RB. Tutorial in biostatistics propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265-81.
10. Guo S, Fraser MW. Propensity score analysis, statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2010.
11. Rosenbaum PR. Observational studies. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
12. Lewis BG, Halm EA, Marcus SM, Korenstein D, Federman AD. Preventive services use among women seen by gynecologists, general medical physicians, or both. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:945-52. (Pubitemid 351482628)
13. Musselwhite KL, Faris P, Moore K, Berci D, King KM. Use of epidural anesthesia and the risk of acute postpartum urinary retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:472.e1-5.
14. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2581-9. (Pubitemid 39628579)
15. Spong CY, Landon MB, Gilbert S, et al. Risk of uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcome at term after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:801-7. (Pubitemid 47508743)
16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery; ACOG committee opinion no. 342. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:465-7.
17. Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:262-9. (Pubitemid 46197414)
18. Delaney T, Young DC. Spontaneous versus induced labor after a previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:39-44. (Pubitemid 36792121)
19. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001;345:3-8. (Pubitemid 32640179)
20. Kiefer J. K-sample analogues of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramer-V: Mises tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1959;30:420-47.
21. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008;27:2037-49. (Pubitemid 351772300)
22. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:387-98. (Pubitemid 32303462)
23. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947;12:153-7.
24. Bender R. Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. Control Clin Trials 2001;22:102-10. (Pubitemid 32289446)
25. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990;1:43-6. (Pubitemid 20255621)
26. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996;335:689-95. (Pubitemid 26287354)
27. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1373-9. (Pubitemid 27028925)
28. Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, Te C, Karrison T. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I, Maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1365-71.
29. Blanchette H, Blanchette M, McCabe J, Vincent S. Is vaginal birth after cesarean safe? Experience at a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1478-84.
30. Grobman WA, Lai YL, Landon MB, et al. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:56.e1-6.
31. Delaney T, Young DC. Spontaneous versus induced labor after a previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:39-44. (Pubitemid 36792121)
32. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001;345:3-8. (Pubitemid 32640179)