Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Accepted Manuscript
Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after two prior cesareandeliveries
Emily S. Miller, MD MPH, William A. Grobman, MD MBA
PII: S0002-9378(15)00125-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.003
Reference: YMOB 10262
To appear in: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Received Date: 12 November 2014
Revised Date: 8 January 2015
Accepted Date: 9 February 2015
Please cite this article as: Miller ES, Grobman WA, Obstetric outcomes associated with induction oflabor after two prior cesarean deliveries, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2015), doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.003.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT1
Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after two prior cesarean deliveries
Emily S MILLER, MD MPH
William A GROBMAN, MD MBA
Chicago, IL
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine
The authors report no conflict of interest.
To be presented February 5th, 2015 at the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, San
Diego CA
Corresponding author:
Emily S Miller
250 E. Superior St, Suite 05-2191, Chicago, IL 60611
Phone 312-472-4685
Fax 312-472-4687
Reprints not available
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT2
Condensation
Women with two cesareans undergoing induction have similar obstetric outcomes to
women with one cesarean undergoing induction and women with two cesareans
undergoing a repeat cesarean.
Short Title
Induction in women with multiple cesareans
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT3
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether, in the setting of induction, obstetric outcomes differ
based on the number of prior cesarean deliveries (CD) and to determine whether
women with two cesareans undergoing induction face increased risks of adverse
outcomes compared to women undergoing a repeat CD.
Study Design: This is a secondary analysis of a 4-year multi-center prospective cohort.
Women with one or two CD were included. Frequencies of vaginal birth after cesarean
(VBAC) as well as maternal and neonatal complications were compared among women
with one CD undergoing induction, women with two CD undergoing induction, and
women undergoing repeat CD with two cesareans.
Results: Of the 10,262 women included in this study, 4100 (40.0%) underwent an
induction after one CD, 152 (1.5%) underwent an induction after two CD, and 6010
(58.6%) had a repeat CD after two CD. In women undergoing induction, the chance of
VBAC was no different in women with two compared to one prior CD (65% vs 69%,
p=0.28). Similarly, composite maternal (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.3) and neonatal (aOR
1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7) outcomes were not different between the two groups. In women
who had two prior CD, undergoing an induction carried similar composite adverse
maternal and neonatal outcomes compared to having a repeat CD (aOR 0.7, 95% CI
0.3-2.0; aOR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.2).
Conclusions: Labor induction outcomes are similar regardless of whether women have
had one or two CD. After two CD, undergoing an induction carries similar maternal and
neonatal risks as having a repeat CD.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT4
Key Words: vaginal birth after cesarean, trial of labor after cesarean, induction of labor,
multiple cesarean, repeat cesarean
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT5
Introduction
There is significantly increased maternal morbidity associated with each additional
cesarean delivery. For example, the risks of blood transfusion, hysterectomy, operative
injury, and intensive care admission all increase with each cesarean performed.1 The
alternative to having a repeat cesarean is a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), which
is associated with its own maternal and perinatal risks.2 As such, ACOG recommends
that women be counseled about the risks and benefits of each approach to delivery and
decide with their care provider which approach is most preferred.3
Due to the overall rise in cesarean frequency in the United States, an increasing
number of women have had two cesarean deliveries. When rates of maternal
complications for women with two prior cesareans undergoing TOLAC are compared to
those associated with having a repeat cesarean, transfusion, hysterectomy, and febrile
morbidity rates have been reported to be similar.4 Accordingly, ACOG considers women
with two prior low transverse cesareans to be reasonable candidates for TOLAC.3
Nevertheless, in women motivated for TOLAC with two prior cesarean deliveries,
spontaneous labor does not always occur. In this setting, if delivery is required, a
physician is faced with the decision of whether to induce labor or perform a third
cesarean delivery. To our knowledge, there are no existing studies that examine
obstetric outcomes specifically for women with two prior cesarean deliveries who
undergo an induction of labor. Therefore, we sought to estimate the chance of achieving
a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) as well as the maternal and neonatal risks
associated with induction of labor in women with two prior cesarean deliveries.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT6
Materials and Methods
This is a secondary analysis of an observational study of women at 19 academic
medical centers between 1999 and 2002. The methodology of the primary study has
been described elsewhere.2 Women were included in the present analysis if they had
one or two prior cesarean deliveries, a singleton gestation, and no contraindication to a
vaginal delivery (e.g., placenta previa, breech presentation). Women with anomalous
fetuses or antenatal stillbirths were excluded. Women with prior classical, T or J, or low
vertical incisions also were excluded. Women with an unknown scar were included as it
was assumed they were most likely to have had a low transverse cesarean. Women
were divided into three groups: those with one prior cesarean delivery undergoing
induction of labor, those with two prior cesarean deliveries undergoing induction of
labor, and those with two prior cesarean deliveries undergoing a repeat cesarean
without a TOLAC.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the population were examined. Student’s t
or chi squared tests were performed for these bivariable comparisons, as appropriate.
Maternal and perinatal outcomes, including the frequency of VBAC and maternal
complications were compared among the three study groups as well. A post-hoc power
calculation demonstrated that this study had 80% power to detect a 10% difference in
the chance of VBAC.
Maternal complications included endometritis, any blood product transfusion,
thromboembolic disease (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolus), operative
injury (broad ligament hematoma, cystotomy, bowel injury, or ureteral injury), uterine
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT7
rupture, uterine dehiscence, hysterectomy, intensive care unit admission, or postpartum
readmission. Uterine rupture was defined as either a disruption of both the myometrium
and serosa or a disruption of only the myometrium but with extension into the bladder or
broad ligament. Uterine dehiscence was defined as disruption of the myometrium alone
without any extension. A composite adverse maternal outcome was created and
documented to be present if any one of the aforementioned complications were present.
Neonatal complications also were analyzed and similar bivariable comparisons made.
Specific neonatal complications examined included a five minute Apgar of less than 7,
neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE),
intrapartum stillbirth, and neonatal death. A composite adverse neonatal outcome was
created and documented to be present if any one of the aforementioned complications
were present.
Three multivariable logistic regressions were then performed to compare outcomes of
induction of labor in women with one versus two prior cesareans: one for the dependent
variable of VBAC, one for the dependent variable of the composite maternal outcome,
and one for the dependent variable of the composite neonatal outcome. Independent
variables were added to the equation if they were found to be significant in the
bivariable analysis with a p < 0.05. The presence of two prior cesarean deliveries was
forced into the equation and an adjusted odds ratio calculated to estimate whether the
number of prior cesareans remained associated with the chance of VBAC or adverse
maternal or neonatal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regressions also were used to
determine whether labor induction in the presence of two prior cesarean deliveries was
associated with differences in outcomes compared to scheduled cesarean delivery.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT8
Analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp College Station, TX). All
tests were two tailed and a p < 0.05 was used to define statistical significance. As all
data were de-identified prior to analysis, this study was considered IRB exempt.
Results
There were 10,262 women included in this analysis. Of these, 4252 underwent an
induction of labor. One hundred and fifty-two (3.6%) of those undergoing induction had
two prior cesarean deliveries and 6010 (58.6%) had a repeat CD after two prior CD.
Comparisons between women undergoing induction with one or two prior cesareans as
well as comparisons between women with two prior cesareans undergoing induction
versus repeat cesarean without a trial of labor are shown in Table 1. Most notably,
women with two prior cesareans undergoing induction were significantly more likely to
have had a prior VBAC compared to either women with one prior cesarean undergoing
induction or women undergoing a repeat cesarean.
The frequency of VBAC was similar between women undergoing induction of labor with
one versus two prior cesareans. 2840 (69.3%) of women with one prior cesarean
achieved a VBAC compared to 99 (65.1%) of women with two prior cesareans (p=0.28).
Similarly, there were no significant differences in maternal complications for women
undergoing labor induction regardless of the number of prior cesarean deliveries or
approach to delivery (Table 2).
In terms of neonatal outcomes, there were no significant differences in any of the
neonatal outcomes, although the incidence of a five minute Apgar < 7, HIE, intrapartum
stillbirth, or neonatal death was low in all groups (Table 3).
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT9
In the multivariable regressions comparing outcomes in women undergoing induction of
labor, after controlling for potential confounders, having had two prior cesareans did not
affect the odds of achieving a VBAC (Table 4). Similarly, in the multivariable regressions
for composite adverse outcomes, having two prior cesarean deliveries was not
significantly associated with an increased risk of either maternal or neonatal outcomes
(Table 4). In the multivariable regressions comparing outcomes in women with two prior
cesareans, women undergoing induction were no more likely than those undergoing
repeat cesarean to experience composite adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes
(Table 5).
Comment
Compared to women without a prior cesarean, women with two prior cesarean
deliveries are at an increased risk of pregnancy complications regardless of the
intended mode of delivery. Further compounding this issue is the fact that spontaneous
labor does not always occur and induction of labor carries potential additional risks. For
example, in women with one prior cesarean delivery, induction of labor (compared to
spontaneous labor) is associated with a decreased chance of VBAC.5-8 While ACOG
still considers induction of labor a reasonable option in the setting of TOLAC, they
recommend patients be counseled on the decreased chance of achieving VBAC.3
In addition to a decreased chance of VBAC (compared to spontaneous labor), the risk
of complications, such as uterine rupture with its attendant maternal and neonatal risks,
is increased with induction of labor in women with one prior cesarean and no prior
vaginal delivery.7,9-12 Whether the risks of failed TOLAC or other morbidity is further
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT10
increased in women with two prior cesareans undergoing induction has not previously
been studied. Accordingly, ACOG offers no specific recommendations on induction of
labor for women with two prior cesareans.
Women who achieve a VBAC experience less morbidity than women who undergo a
repeat cesarean. Indeed, the majority of the morbidity associated with TOLAC occurs
among women with a failed trial of labor. Accordingly, women who have a 60-70%
chance of TOLAC success have no greater morbidity if they undergo a TOLAC than if
they undergo an elective repeat cesarean delivery.13 Our data suggest that women who
undergo induction with two prior cesareans have a 65% chance of achieving VBAC,
which is similar to that of women with one prior cesarean.
ACOG recommends that the risk of rupture be discussed with women with one prior
cesarean undergoing induction of labor, but that induction of labor is a reasonable
option in the properly selected patient.3 Our data suggest that women undergoing an
induction with two prior cesareans are no more likely to experience either maternal or
neonatal complications compared to women undergoing induction with one prior
cesarean. Thus while discussion about an increased risk compared to spontaneous
labor may be warranted, our data do not indicate that the risks are significantly different
than those experienced by women with one prior cesarean undergoing an induction of
labor. Furthermore, maternal and neonatal risks among women with two prior
cesareans were no different in women undergoing induction compared to women
undergoing a repeat cesarean.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT11
This study is subject to limitations. While these data are from a large cohort, the number
of women with two prior cesareans undergoing induction of labor was relatively small.
Small but clinically significant differences, particularly for more rare outcomes such as
uterine rupture, may not have been able to be identified. For example, given the
observed incidence of composite morbidities in women with two prior cesareans, the
study had 80% power to detect a two-fold increased risk in maternal morbidity and a
1.7-fold increased risk in neonatal morbidity associated with an induction of labor as
opposed to a repeat cesarean.
Another limitation of this study is its observational design. The women with two prior
cesareans who underwent an induction of labor were significantly different than those
with one prior cesarean who underwent a labor induction and those who underwent a
repeat cesarean. Of particular importance, nearly half of the women with two prior
cesareans had a prior VBAC. However, potential confounding factors were included in
the multivariable regression and did not alter the results obtained from bivariable
analysis.
In this study, we have demonstrated that the chance of a VBAC, as well as maternal
and neonatal morbidities, are similar for women with one or two prior cesarean
deliveries who undergo labor induction. In addition, in women with two prior cesarean
deliveries, induction of labor was not associated with increased maternal or neonatal
risks compared to a repeat cesarean. These data can be used to guide shared decision-
making surrounding intended approach to delivery in women with two prior cesarean
deliveries, and support the notion that induction of labor, when necessary, is an
acceptable option.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT12
References
1. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with
multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and gynecology 2006;107:1226-32.
2. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes
associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. The New England journal of
medicine 2004;351:2581-9.
3. American College of O, Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal
birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2010;116:450-63.
4. Tahseen S, Griffiths M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)-a
systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2
versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG : an international journal
of obstetrics and gynaecology 2010;117:5-19.
5. Delaney T, Young DC. Spontaneous versus induced labor after a previous
cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology 2003;102:39-44.
6. Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry:
factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. American
journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2005;193:1016-23.
7. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK. Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor
among women with previous cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and
gynecology 2000;183:1176-9.
8. Sims EJ, Newman RB, Hulsey TC. Vaginal birth after cesarean: to induce or not
to induce. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2001;184:1122-4.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT13
9. Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Outcomes of induction of labor after
one prior cesarean. Obstetrics and gynecology 2007;109:262-9.
10. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor
in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology
2006;108:12-20.
11. Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, et al. Maternal complications with vaginal
birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. American journal of obstetrics and
gynecology 2005;193:1656-62.
12. 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. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1999;181:882-6.
13. Grobman WA, Lai Y, 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?
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2009;200:56 e1-6.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
Table 1: Patient characteristics stratified by number of prior cesareans and approach to delivery
IOL after one
prior
cesarean
n=4100 p
IOL after two
prior
cesareans
n=152 p
Repeat
cesarean
after two prior
cesareans
n=6010
Age at delivery (y) 29.6 ± 5.7 0.008 30.8 ± 5.4 0.046 29.9 ± 5.5
Race 0.039 <0.001
White 2009 (49.0%) 60 (39.5%) 2147 (35.7%)
Black 1365 (33.3%) 65 (42.8%) 1398 (23.3%)
Hispanic 537 (13.1%) 23 (15.1%) 2184 (36.3%)
Other/unknown 189 (4.6%) 4 (2.6%) 281 (4.7%)
Married 2563 (62.5%) 0.021 81 (53.3%) 0.033 3715 (61.8%)
Public insurance 1537 (37.5%) <0.001 79 (52.0%) 0.036 2174 (37.9%)
BMI at delivery (kg/m2) 33.1 ± 7.3 0.044 34.4 ± 6.5 <0.001 33.7 ± 7.1
Tobacco use 621 (15.2%) 0.015 34 (22.4%) 0.001 803 (13.4%)
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
Prior vaginal delivery 2036 (49.9%) 0.329 82 (54.0%) <0.001 809 (13.6%)
Prior VBAC 1373 (34.8%) 0.003 67 (46.9%) <0.001 346 (5.9%)
Interval since last cesarean (years) 5.6 ± 3.8 0.175 6.1 ± 4.0 <0.001 4.3 ± 3.1
Gestational age at delivery (weeks) 39.1 ± 2.6 0.056 38.7 ± 4.3 0.33 38.5 ± 2.3
Epidural anesthesia 3395 (86.6%) 0.177 119 (82.6%) --- ---
Cervical dilation on admission (cm) 1.7 ± 1.2 0.188 1.6 ± 1.3 --- ---
Birth weight (grams) 3306 ± 645 0.081 3211 ± 754 0.008 3344 ± 598
IOL = induction of labor; VBAC = vaginal birth after cesarean; BMI = body mass index
Data presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%).
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
Table 2: Maternal complications stratified by number of prior cesareans and approach to delivery
IOL after one
prior
cesarean OR (95% CI)*
IOL after
two prior
cesareans OR (95% CI)**
Cesarean
after two
prior
cesareans
Endometritis 119 (2.9%) 0.90 (0.33-2.48) 4 (2.6%) 1.11 (0.41-3.03) 143 (2.4%)
Transfusion 69 (1.7%) 1.18 (0.36-3.78) 3 (2.0%) 1.13 (0.36-3.61) 105 (1.8%)
Thromboembolic disease 12 (0.3%) 2.26 (0.29-17.46) 1 (0.7%) 5.68 (0.69-46.45) 7 (0.1%)
Operative injury 11 (0.3%) --- 0 (0.0%) --- 28 (0.5%)
Uterine rupture 39 (1.0%) 0.69 (0.09-5.05) 1 (0.7%) 5.68 (0.69-46.45) 7 (0.1%)
Uterine dehiscence 28 (0.7%) --- 0 (0.0%) --- 44 (0.7%)
Hysterectomy 12 (2.4%) --- 0 (0.0%) --- 22 (0.4%)
ICU admission 15 (0.4%) 3.63 (0.82-16.02) 2 (1.3%) 3.80 (0.88-16.36) 21 (0.4%)
Postpartum readmission 56 (1.4%) 0.96 (0.23-3.98) 2 (1.3%) 1.12 (0.24-4.59) 71 (1.2%)
Maternal composite outcome 288 (7.0%) 1.03 (0.55-1.93) 11 (7.2%) 1.03 (0.54-1.96) 386 (6.4%)
IOL = induction of labor; ICU = intensive care unit; OR = odds ratio
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
*IOL with two prior cesareans versus with one prior cesarean
**IOL with two prior cesareans versus cesarean delivery after two prior cesareans
Data presented as n (%)
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
Table 3: Neonatal complications stratified by number of prior cesareans and intended route of delivery
IOL after
one prior
cesarean OR (95% CI)*
IOL after
two prior
cesareans OR (95% CI)**
Repeat
cesarean
after two prior
cesareans
5 minute Apgar < 7 74 (1.8%) 1.09 (0.34-3.51) 3 (2.0%) 2.35 (0.73-7.62) 51 (0.9%)
NICU admission 580 (15.7%) 1.23 (0.79-1.91) 25 (18.7%) 1.25 (0.81-1.93) 817 (13.6%)
Intrapartum stillbirth 2 (0.1%) --- 0 (0.0%) --- 2 (0.0%)
Neonatal death 11 (0.3%) 2.52 (0.32-19.66) 1 (0.8%) 3.06 (0.40-23.50) 13 (0.2%)
HIE 4 (0.1%) --- 0 (0.0%) --- 2 (0.0%)
Neonatal composite outcome 599 (14.6%) 1.13 (0.78-1.62) 25 (16.5%) 1.20 (0.83-1.72) 826 (13.7%)
IOL = induction of labor; NICU = neonatal intensive care unit; HIE = hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy
Data presented as n (%)
* IOL with two prior cesareans versus with one prior cesarean
**IOL with two prior cesareans versus cesarean delivery after two prior cesareans
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
Table 4: Multivariable analyses for women undergoing induction of labor
VBAC
Composite maternal
morbidity
Composite neonatal
morbidity
aOR 95% CI aOR 95% CI aOR 95% CI
Two prior cesareans 0.71 0.48-1.05 1.22 0.64-2.33 1.08 0.68-1.73
Age at delivery (years) 0.98 0.96-0.99 1.01 0.98-1.03 1.03 1.02-1.05
Race
White 1.00 ref 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Black 0.54 0.44-0.66 3.19 2.20-4.62 1.41 1.09-1.81
Hispanic 0.53 0.42-0.68 2.69 1.75-4.12 1.57 1.16-2.10
Other 0.62 0.43-0.88 3.64 2.14-6.22 1.62 1.06-2.46
Married 1.22 1.00-1.49 0.86 0.62-1.20 0.67 0.53-0.86
Public insurance 0.96 0.78-1.16 1.14 0.84-1.55 1.42 1.13-1.78
BMI at delivery (kg/m2) 0.95 0.94-0.96 1.02 1.00-1.03 1.01 1.00-1.02
Tobacco use 0.86 0.69-1.06 0.73 0.49-1.09 1.02 0.79-1.31
Prior VBAC 5.58 4.62-6.74 0.38 0.28-0.53 0.65 0.53-0.79
VBAC = vaginal birth after cesarean; BMI = body mass index; aOR = adjusted odds ratio
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
Table 5: Multivariable analyses for women with two prior cesarean deliveries
Composite maternal
morbidity
Composite neonatal
morbidity
aOR 95% CI aOR 95% CI
Induction of labor 0.72 0.26-2.04 1.14 0.60-2.16
Age at delivery (years) 1.00 0.97-1.02 1.03 1.01-1.04
Race
White 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Black 0.45 0.32-0.62 1.05 0.82-1.33
Hispanic 0.62 0.46-0.82 0.70 0.55-0.88
Other 0.59 0.33-1.06 0.93 0.61-1.42
Married 0.90 0.69-1.18 0.91 0.74-1.12
Public insurance 0.99 0.99-1.02 1.04 0.86-1.26
BMI at delivery (kg/m2) 1.01 0.80-1.55 1.03 1.02-1.04
Tobacco use 1.12 0.58-1.43 0.81 0.63-1.04
Prior VBAC 0.91 0.93-1.01 1.12 0.82-1.53
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
Interval since last cesarean (years) 0.97 0.93-1.01 0.98 0.95-1.00
Birth weight (grams) 1.00 1.00-1.00 1.00 1.00-1.00
VBAC = vaginal birth after cesarean; BMI = body mass index; aOR = adjusted odds ratio