Rates and Success Rates of Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery in the United States, 1990–2009
- First Online:
- 641 Downloads
This study compares rates of trial of labor after Cesarean delivery (TOLAC) and rates of successful TOLAC between 1990 and 2009. Serial cross-sectional analyses were performed using the National Hospital Discharge Survey data to compare rates of TOLAC and TOLAC success between 1990 and 2009. Joinpoint regression was used to assess trends over time, and logistic regression with marginal effects was used to examine the unadjusted and adjusted significance and magnitude of trends. The rate of TOLAC reached a high of 51.8 % (95 % CI 47.8–55.8 %) in 1995 and a low of 15.9 % (95 % CI 13.8–18.0 %) in 2006, declined, on average, 4.2 (95 % CI −4.8 to −3.9) percentage points per year between 1996 and 2005. Rates increased significantly from 1990 to 1996 and 2005 to 2009. TOLAC success was at its highest rate in 2000, 69.8 % (95 % CI 65.2–74.3 %) and its lowest in 2008, 38.5 % (95 % CI 28.1–48.8 %). The rate of TOLAC success increased significantly between 1990 and 2000, but declined thereafter an average of 3.4 % points per year (95 % CI −4.3 to −2.5). The rate of TOLAC in the US decreased between 1996 and 2005 and the rate of successful TOLAC has declined from 2000 to 2009.
KeywordsTrial of labor Trial of labor success Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery Cesarean section
- 1.(1980). Cesarean childbirth. Consensus Development Conference Summary National Institutes of Health, 3(6), 39–53.Google Scholar
- 2.(1995). Vaginal delivery after a previous cesarean birth. ACOG Committee opinion. Number 143, October 1994. Committee on Obstetric Practice. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 48(1), 127–129.Google Scholar
- 3.(1999). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG practice bulletin. Number 2, October 1998. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 64(2), 201–208.Google Scholar
- 4.Menacker, F. (2005). Trends in cesarean rates for first births and repeat cesarean rates for low-risk women: United States, 1990–2003. National vital statistics reports (Vol. 54, no 4). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
- 5.Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., Ventura, S. J., Mathews, T. J., Kirmeyer, S., et al. (2010). Births: Final data for 2007. National vital statistics reports (Vol. 58, no 24). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
- 6.(2010). National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights, March 8–10, 2010. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 115(6), 1279–1295.Google Scholar
- 19.Loebel, G., Zelop, C. M., Egan, J. F., & Wax, J. (2004). Maternal and neonatal morbidity after elective repeat Cesarean delivery versus a trial of labor after previous Cesarean delivery in a community teaching hospital. Journal of Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine, 15(4), 243–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Dennison, C. F.,& Pokras, R. (2000) Design and operation of the National Hospital Discharge Survey: 1988 redesign. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 1 39, 1–42. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_039.pdf.
- 33.Pokras, R., Kozak, L. J., McCarthy, E., & Graves, E. J. (1989). Trends in hospital utilization: United States, 1986. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 13(101), 47.Google Scholar
- 34.StataCorp. (2009). Survey data. College Station, TX: StataCorp.Google Scholar
- 35.Joinpoint software. Available at http://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/. Accessed July, 2012.
- 38.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed September 26, 2012.
- 39.Zhang, J., Troendle, J., Reddy, U. M., et al. (2010). For the consortium, on safe labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 203(326), e1–e10.Google Scholar