Cesarean delivery due to nonreassuring fetal heart rate: the effect of phase of labor on subsequent vaginal delivery success

References

• Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landon MB, Grobman WA, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network. What we have learned about trial of labor after cesarean delivery from the Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Cesarean Registry. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(5):281–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;6(6):CD005528:CD005528.
   Google Scholar
• Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, et al. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1181–1193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellows P, Shah U, Hawley L, et al. Evaluation of outcomes associated with trial of labor after cesarean delivery after a change in clinical practice guidelines in an academic hospital. J Matern-Fetal Neonat Med. 2017;30(17):2092–2096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, et al. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:CD004224.
   Google Scholar
• 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(25):2581–2589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 115. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):450–463. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664418 [cited 12 Oct 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):806–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(3 Pt 2):1016–1023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, et al. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):338–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(2 Pt 1):262–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Peaceman AM, Socol ML. Cost-effectiveness of elective cesarean delivery after one prior low transverse cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(5):745–751.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, et al. Birthweight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J. 2005;7(5):311–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gluck O, Mizrachi Y, Kovo M, et al. Major underestimation and overestimation of visual blood loss during cesarean deliveries: can they be predicted? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(5):907–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lurie S, Shalev A, Sadan O, et al. The changing indications and rates of cesarean section in one academic center over a 16-year period (1997–2012). Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(4):499–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lydon-Rochelle MT, Gardella C, Cárdenas V, et al. Repeat cesarean delivery: what indications are recorded in the medical chart? Birth. 2006;33(1):4–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amorim-Costa C, de Campos DA, Bernardes J. Cardiotocographic parameters in small-for-gestational-age fetuses: how do they vary from normal at different gestational ages? A study of 11687 fetuses from 25 to 40 weeks of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(3):476–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epplin KA, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, et al. Effect of growth restriction on fetal heart rate patterns in the second stage of labor. Am J Perinatol. 2015;32(9):873–878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verspyck E, Sentilhes L. Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns associated with different labour managements and intrauterine resuscitation techniques. J Gynecol, Obstet Biol Reprod. 2008;37(Suppl 1):S56–S64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weiner E, Fainstein N, Pomeranz A, et al. Pregnancy outcome and placental pathology in emergent cesarean deliveries for non-reassuring fetal heart rate in laboring versus non-laboring women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(19):3089–3093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackwell SC, Grobman WA, Antoniewicz L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier fetal heart rate Interpretation System. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4):378.e1–378.e5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan SP, Klauser CK, Woodring TC, et al. Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):623.e1–623.e5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiossi G, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Timing of delivery and adverse outcomes in term singleton repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(3):561–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner E, Mizrachi Y, Grinstein E, et al. The role of placental histopathological lesions in predicting recurrence of preeclampsia. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(10):953–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar