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

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Journal of midwifery & women's health Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1111/jmwh.13687
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: &lt;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: &lt;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:母胎医学单位网络的剖宫产后阴道分娩(VBAC)概率计算器已更新,排除了种族和民族变量,但其对边缘群体的影响尚不清楚。我们对这一工具进行了评估,并关注了以西班牙裔为主的队列中的出生史和体重指数(BMI),同时研究了低分对剖宫产后分娩(LAC)的可能影响。方法我们对 2012 年至 2022 年期间头位胎儿为活产、非畸形的自然分娩或引产患者的 LAC 进行了回顾性队列研究。将观察到的VBAC率与计算器得出的平均预测VBAC概率进行了比较。计算了整个队列的曲线下面积(AUC),以及有阴道分娩史和无阴道分娩史的 LAC 患者的曲线下面积(AUC)。使用 z 检验来确定 4 个 BMI 类别的 VBAC 率之间的显著性。结果 共有 400 人经历了 507 次 LAC,其中 417 人(82.2%)进行了 VBAC,而平均预测概率为 71.2%。所有 LAC 的 AUC 为 0.76(95% CI,0.71-0.81),而有阴道分娩史的 LAC 的 AUC 为 0.70(95% CI,0.56-0.85),无阴道分娩史的 AUC 为 0.60(95% CI,0.52-0.67)。在体重指数超重和肥胖的人群中,观察到的 VBAC 率超过了预测率:<25(79.6% vs 75.6%;P = .520)、25 至 30(83.2% vs 71.9%;P = .007)、30 至 40(82.7% vs 70.0%;P = .004)和≥40(82.8% vs 58.3%;P = .040)。在以西班牙裔为主的队列中,更新的计算器低估了无阴道分娩史和/或体重指数升高者的 VBAC 可能性。基于 VBAC 可能性低而不鼓励 LAC 可能会阻止初次和后续的 VBAC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
103
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Challenges in Antenatal Care (2024-002JMWH) Center M Pilot Trial: Integrating Preventive Mental Health Care in Routine Prenatal Care Challenges for Antepartum Care of the Individual with Perinatal Substance Use: An Empirical Integrative Review of Novel Approaches to Improve Care Family-Centered Antenatal Care With a Life-Limiting Fetal Condition: A Developmental Theory-Guided Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1