, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 981–990 | Cite as

Vaginal delivery in women with HIV in Italy: results of 5 years of implementation of the national SIGO-HIV protocol

  • Cecilia Tibaldi
  • Giulia MasuelliEmail author
  • Matilde Sansone
  • Beatrice Tassis
  • Irene Cetin
  • Laura Franceschetti
  • Arsenio Spinillo
  • Giuliana Simonazzi
  • Antonella Vimercati
  • Serena Dalzero
  • Alessandra Meloni
  • Maria Bernardon
  • Valentina Frisina
  • Cosimo Polizzi
  • Tullia Todros
  • Pasquale Martinelli
  • Marco Floridia
  • Marina Ravizza
  • for SIGO-HIV Study Group
Original Paper



To evaluate the maternal and neonatal safety of vaginal delivery in women with HIV following the implementation of a national protocol in Italy.


Vaginal delivery was offered to all eligible women who presented antenatally at twelve participating clinical sites. Data collection and definition of outcomes followed the procedures of the National Program on Surveillance on Antiretroviral Treatment in Pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes were compared according to the mode of delivery, classified as vaginal, elective cesarean (ECS) and non-elective cesarean section (NECS).


Among 580 women who delivered between January 2012 and September 2017, 142 (24.5%) had a vaginal delivery, 323 (55.7%) had an ECS and 115 (19.8%) had an NECS. The proportion of vaginal deliveries increased significantly over time, from 18.9% in 2012 to 35.3% in 2017 (p < 0.001). Women who delivered vaginally were younger, more commonly nulliparous, diagnosed with HIV during current pregnancy, and antiretroviral-naïve, but had a slightly longer duration of pregnancy, with significantly higher birthweight of newborns. NECS was associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of HIV transmission was minimal (0.4%). There were no differences between vaginal and ECS about delivery complications, while NECS was more commonly associated with complications compared to ECS.


Vaginal delivery in HIV-infected women with suppressed viral load appears to be safe for mother and children. No cases of HIV transmission were observed. Despite an ongoing significant increase, the rate of vaginal delivery remains relatively low compared to other countries, and further progress is needed to promote this mode of delivery in clinical practice.


HIV Pregnancy Mode of delivery Delivery complications 



We thank all participating clinical sites and Marco Floridia and Cosimo Polizzi of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome, Italy, for providing technical support for this study. No compensation was received for this contribution. SIGO-HIV Study Group: C. Tibaldi, T. Todros, G. Masuelli, V. Frisina (Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Turin University,Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin). L. Trentini (Department of Infectious Diseases, Turin University, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin). B. Tassis, G. Tiso (Obstetric and Gynecology Unit, Milan University, IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Foundation, Milan). I. Cetin, T. Brambilla, V. Savasi, C. Personeni (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Milan University, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan,). G. Zuccotti, V. Giacomet, S. Coletto, F. Di Nello, C. Madia (Pediatric Clinic, Milan University, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan). L. Franceschetti, (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brescia University, ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia), M. A. Forleo, (Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Brescia University, ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia), R. Badolato (Pediatrics Clinic and Institurte for Molecular Medicine A. Nocivelli, Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Uiversity of Brescia, ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia). A. Spinillo, M. Roccio (IRCCS S. Matteo and Department of Obstetrics and Ginaecology, Pavia University), D. Zanaboni (Infectious Diseases IRCCS S. Matteo, Pavia). M. Sansone, P. Martinelli, A. Sirico, G. M. Maruotti, A. Capone (Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Dentistry Science, University Federico II, Naples). G. Simonazzi, B. Guerra, F. Cervi, E. Margarito, (Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna University, Policlinico Sant’Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna). M. G. Capretti, C. Marsico, G. Faldella (Preventive Pediatrics and Neonatology Clinical Institute, Policlinico Sant’Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna). A. Vimercati, F.M. Crupano, D. Calabretti. M. Ravizza, A.M. Marconi, S. Dalzero, V. Galiano, Sara Charlotte Simonetti M. Ierardi, (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Milan University, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital Medical School,Milan). A. Meloni, A. Chiodo (Division of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Cagliari University, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Cagliari), F. Ortu, P. Piano (Clinical Immunology, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Cagliari), I. M. Dedoni (Pathology and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Cagliari). M. Bernardon, G. Maso, C. Belcaro, E. Rizzante, S. Alberico (Institute for Maternal and Child Healh IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste). A. Citernesi, I. Bordoni Vicini, K. Luzi, (USL 4, Prato).

Author contributions

CT conceived the idea for the study and managed the project. CT, PM, MR and MF designed the study. CT, GM, MS, BT, IC, LF, AS, GS, AV, SD, AM, MB, VF, TT, PM and MR substantially contributed to acquisition of data. MF and CP were responsible for statistical analysis. CT and MF drafted and finalised the manuscript. All the authors gave final approval to the final version to be published.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol (“Protocollo di Parto vaginale in pazienti HIV+ in terapia antiretrovirale altamente attiva (HAART) con carica virale non dosabile e CD4+ > 200/mm3 stabili da almeno 4 settimane al momento del parto”) obtained central ethics approval on November 30, 2011 (OIRM/S. Anna—Ordine Mauriziano di Torino Ethics Committee, ref. 54081/C28.2) and was subsequently approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating center (Twelve centers, listed in acknowledgements). Data collection used the forms and procedures of the National Program on Surveillance on Antiretroviral Treatment in Pregnancy (Ethics approval: ref. no. 578/2001 from the Ethics Committee of the I.N.M.I. Lazzaro Spallanzani in Rome).


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Burdge DR, Money DM, Forbes JC, et al. Canadian consensus guidelines for the management of pregnancy, labour and delivery and for postpartum care in HIV-positive pregnant women and their offspring (summary of 2002 guidelines). CMAJ. 2003;168:1671–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Ruiter A, Taylor GP, Clayden P, et al. BHIVA guidelines for the management of HIV infection in pregnant women 2012 (2014 interim review). HIV Med. 2014;15:1–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panel on Treatment of HIV-Infected Pregnant Women and Prevention of Perinatal Transmission. Recommendations for use of antiretroviral drugs in pregnant HIV-1-infected women for maternal health and interventions to reduce perinatal HIV transmission in the United States. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  5. 5.
    European Collaborative Study. Mode of delivery in HIV-infected pregnant women and prevention of mother-to-child transmission: changing practices in Western Europe. HIV Med. 2010;11:368–78. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linee Guida Italiane sull’utilizzo dei farmaci antiretrovirali e sulla gestione diagnostico-clinica delle persone con infezione da HIV-1, Ottobre 2011. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  7. 7.
    Read JS, Tuomala R, Kpamegan E, et al. Mode of delivery and postpartum morbidity among HIV-infected women: the women and infants transmission study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001;26:236–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marcollet A, Goffinet F, Firtion G, et al. Differences in postpartum morbidity in women who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus after elective cesarean delivery, emergency cesarean delivery, or vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:784–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiore S, Newell ML, Thorne C, European HIV in Obstetrics Group. Higher rates of post-partum complications in HIV-infected than in uninfected women irrespective of mode of delivery. AIDS. 2004;18:933–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    HIV/AIDS Italian Expert Panel. Linee Guida Italiane sull’utilizzo dei farmaci antiretrovirali e sulla gestione diagnostico-clinica delle persone con infezione da HIV-1. 2013. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  11. 11.
    Floridia M, Ravizza M, Tamburrini E, et al. Diagnosis of HIV infection in pregnancy: data from a national cohort of pregnant women with HIV in Italy. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134:1120–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bertino E, Spada E, Occhi L, et al. Neonatal anthropometric charts: the Italian neonatal study compared with other European studies. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51:353–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scheuerle A, Tilson H. Birth defect classification by organ system: a novel approach to heighten teratogenic signalling in a pregnancy registry. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aebi-Popp K, Mulcahy F, Rudin C, et al. National guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV across Europe—how do countries differ? Eur J Public Health. 2013;23:1053–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linee Guida Italiane sull’utilizzo dei farmaci antiretrovirali e sulla gestione diagnostico-clinica delle persone con infezione da HIV-1. 2016. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.
  16. 16.
    Giles ML. HIV and pregnancy: how to manage conflicting recommendations from evidence-based guidelines. AIDS. 2013;27:857–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Navér L, Albert J, Carlander C, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of HIV-1 infection in pregnancy. Swedish Recommendations 2017. Infect Dis. 2018;24:1–12 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raffe S, Curtis H, Tookey P, et al. UK national clinical audit: management of pregnancies in women with HIV. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warszawski J, Tubiana R, Le Chenadec J, et al. Mother-to-child HIV transmission despite antiretroviral therapy in the ANRS French Perinatal Cohort. AIDS. 2008;22:289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Livingston EG, Huo Y, Patel K, et al. Complications and route of delivery in a large cohort study of HIV-1-infected Women- IMPAACT P1025. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73:74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reitter A, Stücker AU, Linde R, et al. Pregnancy complications in HIV-positive women: 11-year data from the Frankfurt HIV Cohort. HIV Med. 2014;15:525–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson DR, Momplaisir FM, Adams JW, et al. Mode of delivery among HIV-infected pregnant women in Philadelphia, 2005–2013. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0144592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ørbaek M, Thorsteinsson K, Helleberg M, et al. Assessment of mode of delivery and predictors of emergency Caesarean section among women living with HIV in a matched-pair setting with women from the general population in Denmark, 2002–2014. HIV Med. 2017;18:736–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Briand N, Jasseron C, Sibiude J, et al. Cesarean section for HIV-infected women in the combination antiretroviral therapies era, 2000–2010. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:335.e1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aebi-Popp K, Mulcahy F, Glass TR, et al. Missed opportunities among HIV-positive women to control viral replication during pregnancy and to have a vaginal delivery. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64:58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kennedy CE, Yeh PT, Pandey S, et al. Elective cesarean section for women living with HIV: a systematic review of risks and benefits. AIDS. 2017;31:1579–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ministero della Salute—Direzione generale della digitalizzazione, del sistema informativo sanitario e della statistica. Certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP). Analisi dell’evento nascita—Anno 2014. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.
  28. 28.
    Kaplanoglu M, Bulbul M, Kaplanoglu D, Bakacak SM. Effect of multiple repeat Cesarean sections on maternal morbidity: data from Southeast Turkey. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1447–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat Cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Makoha FW, Felimban HM, Fathuddien MA, et al. Multiple Cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;87:227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Biler A, Ekin A, Ozcan A, et al. Is it safe to have multiple repeat Cesarean sections? A high volume tertiary care center experience. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33:1074–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tita AT, Landon MB, Spong CY, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chiossi G, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Timing of delivery and adverse outcomes in term singleton repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gasim T, Al Jama FE, Rahman MS, Rahman J. Multiple repeat cesarean sections: operative difficulties, maternal complications and outcome. J Reprod Med. 2013;58:312–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Tibaldi
    • 1
  • Giulia Masuelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matilde Sansone
    • 6
  • Beatrice Tassis
    • 2
  • Irene Cetin
    • 3
  • Laura Franceschetti
    • 4
  • Arsenio Spinillo
    • 5
  • Giuliana Simonazzi
    • 7
  • Antonella Vimercati
    • 8
  • Serena Dalzero
    • 9
  • Alessandra Meloni
    • 10
  • Maria Bernardon
    • 11
  • Valentina Frisina
    • 1
  • Cosimo Polizzi
    • 12
  • Tullia Todros
    • 1
  • Pasquale Martinelli
    • 6
  • Marco Floridia
    • 12
  • Marina Ravizza
    • 9
  • for SIGO-HIV Study Group
  1. 1.Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Città della Salute e della Scienza HospitalTurin UniversityTurinItaly
  2. 2.Obstetric and Gynecology UnitFondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyLuigi Sacco Hospital and Milan UniversityMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Brescia, ASST Spedali CiviliBresciaItaly
  5. 5.IRCCS S. Matteo and Department of Obstetrics and GinaecologyUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  6. 6.Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Dentistry ScienceUniversity Federico IINaplesItaly
  7. 7.Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Policlinico Sant’Orsola-MalpighiUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  8. 8.Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human OncologyUniversity of BariBariItaly
  9. 9.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, DMSD Obstetric and Gynecology, San Paolo Hospital Medical SchoolUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  10. 10.Division of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, S. Giovanni di Dio HospitalUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly
  11. 11.Institute for Maternal and Child HealthIRCCS Burlo GarofoloTriesteItaly
  12. 12.National Centre for Global HealthIstituto Superiore di SanitàRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations