Showing posts with label VBAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VBAC. Show all posts

Monday, September 27, 2010

3 New Babies

This past month has brought three new babies into our world. Josiah was born on 8/21, Bryant was born on 9/19 and Sophie was born on 9/25.

I haven't had a chance to get a picture with Josiah yet!

Here is Dy and I with Bryant's family. He is the first boy after three girls.




Sophie's parents drove over 1000 miles to birth with Dy and I. They wanted a natural, intervention free VBAC and was not able to do that at their hospital there. Here is a peak into Sophie's entrance!

Sophie's Birth

If you are local and interested in birth photography like this - email me at alternativebirthservices@gmail.com for contact info for Sarah Braun. She has the ability to capture priceless moments!

Friday, August 14, 2009

The Real Risk of C-Section - Medscape Interview

Editor's Note:

Cesarean section (c-section) is the most commonly performed surgery in the United States. The frequency of surgical birth has increased from 4% in 1965 to about 33% today, despite World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations that a 5% to 10% rate is optimal and that a rate greater than 15% does more harm than good.[1-3]

Reasons for this increase have been discussed profusely:

  • The surgical focus of obstetrics and the need to train residents;
  • The low priority and few practical skills for supporting women's abilities to labor and give birth naturally;
  • A rigid view of the duration of normal labor; and
  • A low threshold of definition for 'labor dystocia' (the justification for up to 60% of cesarean births[4]).

Surgical birth is also a 'side effect' of interventions associated with actively managed labor: induction, artificial rupture of membranes, labor medications, and fetal monitoring.[5,6] Policies against vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and, increasingly, unsupported 'supply-side' justifications such as "baby seems large," also drive the trend toward cesareans. A recent report by the Lamaze Institute associates surgical birth with obstetricians' personalities -- specifically their anxiety levels.[7-9]

The risks for birth by surgery have also come under discussion. Maternal risks include a higher overall death rate, rehospitalization for wound complications and infection, placenta accreta and percreta (both with 7% mortality rate), placenta previa, uterine rupture with subsequent pregnancy, and preterm birth, with its own set of risks and complications for the newborn.[10-15]

Pamela K. Spry, BSN, MS, CNM, PhD, the President of Lamaze International, a leading childbirth-advocacy group, spoke with us about the risks for birth by scalpel.

Medscape: Childbirth methods are often trend-driven. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a big push for natural childbirth. What has driven women away from that method since then?

Dr. Spry: In the 1960s, women were rebelling against twilight sleep -- childbirth under heavy narcotics that required being strapped down to the delivery table. There was also the push for fathers to be in the delivery room, which wasn't allowed, and certainly not during heavily sedated birth. Now we have a widespread availability of local and regional methods of pain relief that let women be awake and aware, share the birth with their families, and basically rely on technology to assist them at birth. I think this drive has been somewhat alleviated, but there is still a push for natural childbirth. This is the reason women are still seeking classes, making birth plans, and choosing home birth and birthing centers.

"Natural childbirth" can mean different things to different people. For Lamaze, it means a birth that's allowed to happen on its own without the use of unnecessary medical interventions, to provide women the safest and healthiest birth possible.

Medscape: Are rates of surgical delivery being driven up by women or clinicians? Is this the age of Blackberry birth -- scheduling everything ahead of time?[16]

Dr. Spry: Actually, there are 2 parts to this question. One is, what has driven up the rate of repeat cesareans, and that answer is easy: there has been a big decrease in the availability of choosing to labor and deliver vaginally (VBAC) after having 1 or 2 previous cesarean births, causing a huge increase in the rate of surgical delivery [for repeat cesareans]. Compared with the early 1990s when VBACs were encouraged and acceptable, many hospitals, insurance companies, and clinicians now refuse to allow women to try laboring after a previous c-section because of perceived medical and legal risks.

The second part of the question is whether women or clinicians are responsible for the increase in the primary c-section rate, and I think that's more difficult to answer. In a study of more than 1500 women, we tried to determine just that. The research results indicated that only 1 woman in the study actually reported that she requested a cesarean, which leaves the decision for the vast majority of cesarean deliveries up to clinicians. So understanding when cesareans are medically necessary, as well as the risks involved, is important in achieving a safe and healthy birth.

Although it might be convenient, babies who are born before they are ready are at increased risk for major medical problems.

Medscape: Could fear be the reason for women agreeing to surgical birth? Are women enduring pain differently than in previous decades? Is the surgical scenario easier to contemplate than the unknowns of a natural labor and delivery?

Dr. Spry: Exactly. I think all of that has to do with the fact that our culture actually breeds fear around childbirth. We've got TV shows, popular culture, and horror stories from friends and families; women are taught to expect a negative experience and incredible pain. Lamaze is focused on trying to help women get the facts, know what to expect, and help take the fear out of the process. But the unknown parts, such as labor, its duration, birth, and even the unknown of when labor will start, makes it more appealing for some women to schedule a cesarean.

Medscape: The culture of hospital obstetrics seems designed for interventions, with cesarean procedures bringing in more money than natural delivery. Do you think hospital financial incentives are a reason for the rise in cesareans? Or would the costs for longer hospital stays with cesarean procedures balance out the revenues from them?[17]

Dr. Spry: I think that sometimes financial concerns, convenience, or concerns over lawsuits do rule medical decision-making around childbirth. When women have a good understanding of what constitutes quality care, they are in a better position to ask for it from their care providers. Interestingly enough, I just returned from our nurse-midwifery convention in Seattle, and I heard a speaker address this very thing: reducing the cesarean rate. Among his suggestions was the provocative notion that providers should be reimbursed the highest rate for labor and vaginal birth after cesarean, followed by labor and vaginal birth, and the lowest reimbursement for scheduled, elective cesarean delivery. That way, providers would be compensated for their actual time involved in the process, and scheduled c-sections would have the lowest reimbursement. He thought that would make a difference.

Medscape: What are the main risks these days with c-sections? Are these risks underplayed by obstetricians, and, if so, why?

Dr. Spry: Many of them were covered in the introduction. Any time we schedule a surgery or an induction, we are assuming that we know the baby's due date. Anything that's scheduled before a woman's estimated due date could result in a baby being born before it's ready. [And iatrogenic prematurity is a reality with any scheduled birth -- that is, due dates may have been calculated wrong and inadvertently, babies are born before they are actually term.] We're getting more research looking at the near-term preemie. We find that they have breathing and developmental problems and that the risk for death is increased. Certainly, cesarean delivery increases the risk for the baby being injured from the incision. Surgery also carries risks for women, such as blood loss, clotting, infections, severe pain, and adverse anesthesia-related events. This is something that we haven't focused on, and I'm not certain that informed consent includes this information -- that there are complications during future pregnancies and that it does risk future children. There is an increased risk for stillbirth with a second or third c-section, as well as placental problems like percreta and accreta (abnormal growth and attachment of the placenta into the uterus), increasing the risk for hemorrhage. Women may experience dire complications as a result -- bladder injury, hysterectomy, and maternal death. I don't know that I would describe these risks as "underplayed" by obstetricians, but rather that women are not prepared to ask the right questions that lead to informed decision-making.

It would be interesting to read the informed-consent documents for cesarean deliveries, and see what risks are included.

Medscape: A story in The New York Times recently reported that women who have c-sections seem to have fewer children. That story provoked over 200 comments, from women who have had all of their children by planned cesarean to women who had had births at home. A strong fear-driven contingent regarded childbirth as fraught with pain and danger, and that anyone who risked giving birth outside of a hospital was committing child abuse. Can you discuss any evidence comparing the risks to mothers and children between in-hospital and at-home births?[18]

Dr. Spry: A number of studies have looked at this. Some of the criticism of these studies has been that hospitals end up with higher-risk women, so it's an unfair comparison. But there are studies of low-risk women who had a planned home birth with a qualified birth attendant, compared with low-risk women who chose hospital births; the outcomes for home birth were better or as good as outcomes for women who birthed in hospitals.

Each study limits what kind of comparisons are made, but certainly women with previous surgical uterine scars, medical complications, or breech babies are all considered high-risk.

Medscape: The recovery period after any birth, from time immemorial known as the "lying-in" period, used to last several weeks after a birth. Now, even after surgical birth, women are up and around within a few days. Postpartum depression is another health consideration that has been much in the news lately. Do you think we have lost something with this shortened period of rest and recovery?[19]

Dr. Spry: I do. Studies have shown that it's better for mothers and babies to stay together after birth. Experts agree that unless a medical reason exists, healthy mothers and babies should not be separated following birth. Interrupting, delaying, or limiting the time that a mother and her baby spend together may have a harmful effect on their relationship and on breast-feeding. Babies stay warm, cry less, and have a better start on breast-feeding if moms and babies are together.

[As for the question about depression], women with postpartum depression do experience difficulty bonding with their babies. But this could be a result of depression rather than the cause, so it's really hard to answer [whether a shortened period of recovery is related to causing postpartum depression]. Most people get 6 weeks off of work, but even in those 6 weeks, women are still running around [trying to take care of other children, do chores, and manage the household]. I don't know whether we, as a culture, discourage mothers and babies to be together in the postpartum period by no longer posting signs on the doors that say "Don't knock, baby sleeping!" I'm just not aware of any comparative studies on how different postpartum protocols correlate with postpartum depression.

Medscape: There's a marked trend toward inducing delivery -- vaginally or surgically -- before 40 weeks, with mounting evidence that this is risky business. Where is this coming from?[20,21]

Dr. Spry: This increased induction rate has occurred for several reasons: the desire on the part of the women or the providers to arrange a convenient time for delivery. Again, it's a scheduling issue. Concerns about postmaturity, or a post-dates baby, with a fear of adverse outcome and litigation may have contributed to this. But despite the large number of women experiencing induction, one-half of the women who responded to the "Listening to Mothers" study said that they felt that labor should not be interfered with unless it's medically necessary. Eleven percent of the mothers also said that they had experienced some pressure from their care providers to have an induction. Lamaze gives this information to women to help them select their place of birth and communicate with their healthcare provider. These tools can assist women in having a safe and healthy birth.

Medscape: Even truly full-term infants born by cesarean end up in intensive care more frequently than their vaginally born peers. Is this because such infants born by cesarean are high-risk to begin with, or is the procedure itself responsible for this?

Dr. Spry: I think that it's both. I definitely think that some medically indicated surgical deliveries do end up with babies that were higher-risk to begin with. But if you compare low-risk babies that are born by cesarean with vaginal-birth babies, vaginal-birth babies do better. There is an increased likelihood of babies born surgically having problems with fluid in the lungs and less ability to clear it. So actually going through the birth canal seems to be better for the baby.

Medscape: In 2005, surgical birth was the most common Medicaid-billed procedure, performed on women who are most likely at risk for the poorest aftercare, complications, and support. Why is this population at highest risk for c-section?[21]

Dr. Spry: I don't think this statistic indicates that the Medicaid population is at highest risk if they were compared to the insured population. I think that a large part of the Medicaid population consists of pregnant women, because this is a time when they can get coverage. So Medicaid often ends at the 6-week postpartum exam. A childbearing woman would be more likely to be covered under Medicaid than a woman in her forties who needed gallbladder surgery.

There have been a couple of studies that looked at the cesarean delivery rate of women with private insurance delivering in private hospitals, and found that privately insured women had a higher surgical risk than the Medicaid population. The rate in New York was 30% for private vs 21% for Medicaid, if the Medicaid women delivered in a public hospital (a teaching hospital). So what has happened is that we've had somewhat of a shift of Medicaid patients moving into the private sector; they've shifted their deliveries from teaching hospitals to private institutions, and this has increased their probability for cesareans.

A study from Kaiser in California showed that this increased risk persists even after adjusting for patient demographics and clinical factors. The risk was associated not so much with Medicaid, but with delivering in a private institution. Teaching hospitals tend to follow evidence-based practice, and encourage women to deliver vaginally.

Medscape: What's your perspective on recent reports about the rate of repeat cesareans jumping from 65% to 90% between 1997 and 2006?[22]

Dr. Spry: Again, I think it's litigation fear. There have been more and more restrictions placed on women who want to have VBACs. Some insurance companies won't cover clinicians or hospitals [if they provide a trial of labor after cesarean; and] there are certainly clinicians who won't do VBACs. Women are finding it more and more difficult to seek and have a vaginal birth after a prior cesarean.

I just went to a conference where I talked to a number of women whose previous experience was with c-section, but who wanted a vaginal birth. Some of them chose home birth for their next pregnancies because it was their only option.

Medscape: As the concept of birth transitions from a physical, sexual, and societal passage to a billable surgical procedure, placing women in a more passive role, how is the overall well-being of women affected?

Dr. Spry: Within the maternity system, there's a distinct drive toward convenience: predictable process of labor and birth, maximized reimbursement, and limited liability. All of these factors can lead any care provider to make decisions that aren't necessarily based on the mother's and baby's needs. Women's decisions are affected as well, because without maximum reimbursement, they can't select a place of birth that they can't afford. I think it's critical for every birthing woman to recognize the realities of the environment and be prepared to advocate for herself, taking a more active role in her birth. This is something that Lamaze focuses on.

Studies have been done where a woman has experienced a kind of birth that she didn't want, and she felt that she had no control over it. Penny Simkin just gave an excellent talk on the risk of posttraumatic stress syndrome resulting from a birth in which a woman felt not in control, who felt decisions were made for her and were imposed on her. I think that sense of control is really important to the mental health and to the feeling of being competent and OK after birth.

Medscape: Obstetrics is a surgical specialty. So far, the significant numbers of women now practicing in the field have done little to change the surgical view of birthing women. Do you think there will be a tipping point away from the surgical approach to birth among obstetricians?

Dr. Spry: Sometimes it takes us years to figure out what we've been doing wrong; this is an alarming aspect of surgery, and few women are aware of the poor state of maternity care that we have in the United States. Many women assume that because they're birthing in the United States, they're getting quality care. Research and outcome studies suggest that this isn't necessarily the case, but I don't think our population knows that yet. We're seeing an increased number of maternal deaths. We haven't seen an increase in maternal deaths in this country for a long time. [An example of a delay in recognizing risk of accepted treatment is, that] in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, we gave diethylstilbestrol to women to prevent miscarriage. It wasn't until the next generation, and even after the next generation -- 30 years -- that we got rid of that practice. So I think change will come. And I think that we need to continue to perform research, monitor maternal morbidity, and look at these statistics, and then we'll see a shift.

The other issue is that really adverse, terrible events are rare; maternal deaths are rare, even though they are increasing. So an obstetrician having a personal experience of a maternal death is infrequent.

Essential skills are being lost in obstetrics -- for example, breech deliveries or twins. However, they are preserved in the world of midwifery.

I hope that we get the message across that women want and need a positive birthing experience, and that they will choose a birth team that will support that goal. We would like for everybody to have a safe and healthy birth.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Cesarean vs, VBAC - a dramatic difference

This is such a touching video and eye opening video. Most people do not realize the force needed to get a baby out during a cesarean section - in the second birth, a vacuum is used as well as manual force. It is 16 minutes long, but worth the time.

Cesarean vs. VBAC: A Dramatic Difference from Alexandra Orchard on Vimeo.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Neonatal Outcomes May Be Better With Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Charles Vega, MD, FAAFP

June 3, 2009 — Neonates born after elective subsequent cesarean delivery have significantly higher rates of respiratory morbidity and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and longer length of hospital stay vs those with vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), according to the results of a retrospective cohort study reported in the June issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

"Controversy remains on whether a trial of labor or an elective repeat cesarean delivery is preferable for a woman with a history of cesarean delivery," write Beena D. Kamath, MD, MPH, from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, and colleagues. "Historically, concerns regarding the increased risk of uterine rupture and perinatal asphyxia in trial of labor after cesarean compared with planned repeat cesarean have swayed obstetricians away from recommending a trial of labor after cesarean delivery; however, the absolute risk of perinatal asphyxia remains small."

The goals of this study were to compare the outcomes of neonates born by elective subsequent cesarean delivery vs VBAC in women with 1 previous cesarean delivery and to compare the cost differences between these procedures. The study cohort consisted of 672 women with 1 previous cesarean delivery and a singleton pregnancy at or after 37 weeks of gestation. Participants were categorized based on their intention to have an elective subsequent cesarean delivery or a VBAC, whether successful or failed. The main endpoints of the study were NICU admission and measures of respiratory morbidity.

Compared with the VBAC group, neonates born by cesarean delivery had higher NICU admission rates (9.3% vs 4.9%; P = .025). Rates of oxygen supplementation were also higher in the subsequent cesarean group for delivery room resuscitation (41.5% vs 23.2%; P < .01) and after NICU admission (5.8% vs 2.4%; P < .028). The rates of delivery room resuscitation with oxygen were lowest in neonates born by VBAC and highest in neonates delivered after failed VBAC.

Although the costs of elective subsequent cesarean delivery were significantly higher vs VBAC, the highest costs for the total birth experience were for failed VBAC, considering both delivery and NICU use.

"In comparison with vaginal birth after cesarean, neonates born after elective repeat cesarean delivery have significantly higher rates of respiratory morbidity and NICU-admission and longer length of hospital stay," the study authors write.

Limitations of this study include relatively short postpartum follow-up of the mothers to determine the additional costs of postsurgical complications and insufficient data to allow estimation of costs other than those for hospital care.

"Given the increasing rates of primary cesarean delivery and the concomitant decrease in VBACs, once a woman has had a primary cesarean delivery, we must consider the risks that this places on her subsequent deliveries and subsequent neonates," the study authors conclude. "Indeed, this argues for greater selectivity in performing a cesarean delivery in the first place, and certainly a greater need for counseling before a primary elective cesarean delivery. As investigators continue to search for ways to make cesarean delivery safer, we may be better served by exploring other means for reducing overall cesarean delivery rates and recognizing our own preoccupation with the individual that will be our patient, whether it be mother or neonate."

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1231-1238.

Clinical Context

The rate of cesarean delivery has reached an all-time high in the United States, and the current study provides an overview of the epidemiology of cesarean delivery. In 2006, 31.1% of all deliveries were via cesarean, and this rate was fueled by an increase in the rate of primary cesarean delivery by 60% between 1996 and 2005.

Women with a primary cesarean delivery have a greater than 90% chance of having another cesarean delivery. Overall, more than half of cesarean deliveries are performed electively, before the onset of labor.

The current study examines neonatal outcomes in women with a history of primary cesarean delivery, with the primary variable being VBAC vs subsequent elective cesarean delivery.

Study Highlights

  • The study was a retrospective review of cases at 1 Colorado hospital between 2005 and 2008.
  • Researchers focused on women with a history of 1 previous cesarean delivery who were pregnant with a singleton pregnancy at 37 weeks or more of gestation. 51% of these women had planned an elective subsequent cesarean delivery, and 49% had planned for VBAC.
  • The primary outcome of the study was admission to the NICU. Researchers conducted a multivariate regression analysis to account for the effects of maternal demographic and disease factors as well as birth factors on the study outcome. Other outcomes included the need for neonatal resuscitation and the cost of care.
  • 672 women were included in the analysis. The mean maternal age was 29 years, and approximately half of women were of Hispanic origin.
  • 35.6% of the study cohort had a planned elective cesarean delivery without labor, 15.5% had an elective cesarean delivery after the onset of labor, 36.3% of women had a successful VBAC, and 12.6% had a failed VBAC requiring cesarean delivery.
  • Older women and women with higher educational achievement were more likely to have an elective subsequent cesarean delivery.
  • 9.3% of neonates delivered by elective subsequent cesarean delivery required admission to the NICU vs only 4.9% of neonates delivered by intended VBAC. The adjusted odds ratios for NICU admission in neonates delivered with elective subsequent cesarean delivery without and with labor vs successful VBAC delivery were 2.93 and 2.26, respectively.
  • Infants in the cesarean group were more likely to require blow-by oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure after delivery vs infants delivered by VBAC, and they also had higher rates of NICU admission for hypoglycemia.
  • Conversely, infants delivered by VBAC were more likely to require bag mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation after delivery.
  • Infants delivered via cesarean after a failed VBAC had rates of NICU admission similar to rates of admission in the elective subsequent cesarean delivery group. However, infants delivered after failed VBAC required the most resuscitation efforts after delivery.
  • Factors associated with failed VBAC included chorioamnionitis and induction of labor.
  • Neonates delivered at 37 weeks of gestation required more resuscitation efforts vs more mature neonates.
  • Successful VBAC was associated with the shortest hospital stay and the lowest overall cost of care. Although failed VBAC was associated with the highest cost of care from all groups, planned VBAC still cost less than planned elective subsequent cesarean delivery overall.

Clinical Implications

  • The rate of cesarean deliveries in the United States was 31.1% in 2006, and an increase in the rate of primary cesarean deliveries was primarily responsible for this high rate. In addition, women with a primary cesarean delivery have a greater than 90% chance of having another cesarean delivery, and more than half of all cesarean deliveries are performed electively, before the onset of labor.
  • The current study finds that the rate of NICU admission is higher in infants delivered via elective subsequent cesarean delivery vs VBAC. Overall, elective subsequent cesarean delivery was estimated to be a more costly strategy.

Beautiful HBA2C Video

Check out this beautiful HBA2C (homebirth after 2 cesarean) video.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Caesarean sections linked to future birth risks

by Ginger Rough - Mar. 31, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Flagstaff mom Jody Borrero was only five weeks along in her pregnancy when doctors told her something had gone awry.

An ultrasound confirmed her placenta had implanted itself at the bottom of her uterus, across her cervix. What's worse, it also had attached itself too deeply, perforating the uterine wall and invading her bladder.

Borrero's physicians at St. Joseph's Hospital and medical center kept her stable for as long as they could. But on Feb. 2, they were forced to deliver Ethan Jr. nearly four months early.

He's still struggling to survive, and his 28-year-old mother, who hemorrhaged during the delivery, can no longer bear children.

Borrero's conditions, called placenta previa and placenta accreta, are both still relatively rare.

But physicians say they're turning up in more women, and medical experts believe the trend is tied to record numbers of moms-to-be delivering their children via Caesarean section.

C-sections, in which a baby is delivered via an incision made through the abdominal wall, leave a scar on the uterus. It now appears that scar is a key risk factor for the complication in subsequent pregnancies, physicians say.

Many women are unaware of the danger, however.

"I wanted to have four children, so after the first one was born by Caesarean, I knew I was going to have lots of C-sections," Borrero said. "I thought it would be fine. It wasn't. It's devastating."

Rise in C-sections

In the mid-1990s, roughly 1 in 5 babies were born via Caesarean section. But over the past decade, the rate of C-section births has jumped more than 50 percent.

Statistics released earlier this month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that nearly 32 percent of babies born in 2007 were through Caesarean delivery.

That's a new record, and the 11th straight year of increase.

Doctors say that in many cases, C-sections are medically necessary, even life-saving.

A woman may be unable to deliver vaginally, for example, if the baby is breech, meaning its feet or bottom has entered the birth canal first. In some instances, labor stops or the baby is simply too big to pass through the birth canal.

But C-sections also have increased in popularity simply because mothers see them as less painful or more convenient than a vaginal birth. They can be scheduled around work and home events. There is no prolonged labor.

Physicians say they fear that women who choose C-sections for these elective reasons may not realize that they are still putting their bodies through major trauma and could be setting themselves up for problems in future pregnancies.

"We tend to think about the immediate circumstance," said Dr. Marlin Mills, medical director of perinatal services with Banner Desert Medical Center. "But it's important to think about the consequences down the line, especially if you want to have a big family."

Future complications

Tracy Alexander, 31, had no reason to suspect that her most recent pregnancy would be any different than her first six. Her last delivery, via Caesarean, had been smooth.

But early in her second trimester, the Queen Creek mother got the bad news. Like Borrero, she had developed placenta accreta, a complication generally characterized by an improper attachment of the placenta to the uterine wall.

And like Borrero, hers was the most severe form of accreta, known as placenta percreta. It went through the uterus and intertwined with her other organs, including the bladder.

Alexander, who had started bleeding lightly at six weeks, eventually contracted an infection in her uterus. Her son Samuel was born at Banner Desert in Mesa 16 weeks early, on Jan. 24. He, too, remains in intensive care.

Doctors aren't sure exactly why Borrero and Alexander developed placenta accreta. But they believe it has something to do with their previous C-sections.

"We think that whenever the uterus has a scar on it . . . for some reason, that scar increases the chance that you have this," said Dr. Linda Chambliss, director of maternal-fetal medicine at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.

Studies and textbooks suggest that the risk of developing an accreta is as high as 40 percent in women who have had two previous Caesareans; that jumps to 60 percent with three C-sections, their physicians said.

And while Valley hospitals can't say exactly how many women they are seeing with the complication, those that traditionally deliver the most babies say it's a trend they're watching.

Earlier this year, St. Joseph's saw three women with the condition in one week, Chambliss said.

"In the 1950s, the incidence was something like 1 in 30,000 women," Mills said, adding that newer studies, conducted within the last decade, suggest that the rate has climbed to as high as 1 in 2,500 or even 1 in 500.

"So there is definitely an increase in occurrence," he said. "And in women with C-sections, that's where we've really seen an explosion."

New protocols

The uptick in accretas, and the emergency deliveries they cause, has prompted several Valley hospitals, including St. Joseph's in Phoenix and Banner Desert in Mesa, to establish new protocols.

Chief among them: creating on-call teams of surgeons and specialists to lend their expertise during the emergency surgery.

At Banner Desert, for example, the team draws in not only obstetricians but urologists, general surgeons and vascular surgeons. Patients with severe placenta accretas frequently need a total hysterectomy and, in many cases, subsequent surgeries to repair damage to the urinary tract and other organs.

Excessive bleeding is also a common problem. At St. Joseph's, a protocol allows the hospital to notify the blood bank of a "catastrophic situation," Chambliss said, giving the patient the highest priority for blood products.

Last year, one woman needed more than 100 units, roughly the equivalent of 100 pints, of blood. The average human body typically holds 10 pints.

Hospitals also are encouraging more pre-natal counseling of C-section risks, particularly if a woman is interested in having multiple children. They say it is possible for a woman who has delivered her first baby via Caesarean to give birth vaginally the second time.

Physicians have historically shied away from the option because it was thought to carry risks of uterine rupture. But those dangers now are believed to be very small in many patients.

In fact, the American Pregnancy Association suggests that as many as 90 percent of women who have had a Caesarean are candidates to later give birth vaginally.

"The real complications from vaginal births after C-sections are minuscule," said Dr. Mike Foley, a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine and chief medical officer at Scottsdale Healthcare . "Women shouldn't make a snap decision to have a C-section just because they've had one previously."

Most importantly, Borrero said, women need to educate themselves before they decide on an elective Caesarean.

"Women say they are too scared of the pain (of a vaginal delivery)," she said. "But I could lose my baby.

"I can't imagine anything more painful than that."

Monday, March 23, 2009

ICAN State by State VBAC Hospital Policy Summary

The information collected here was collected to identify VBAC policies in individual hospitals. We wanted to identify those hospitals that have official bans against VBAC in place. In some ways, these were the simplest calls. It is unlikely that we are mistaken about these hospitals. The more difficult hospitals were those with de facto bans in place. This is defined as a hospital that indicates there is no official policy against VBAC but in reality there are no doctors who will agree to attend one, or the restrictions on a VBAC are so extreme as to make it very unlikely a VBAC would be achieved. Our callers asked a series of questions to try to accurately identify hospitals where there is no official ban but there is no option for VBAC. Obviously, this is a “softer number”, because we were dependent on more subjective information to make this determination. It is important to acknowledge this when using these numbers, especially when giving them to a reporter. If you have time, it would be worth calling these hospitals yourself and seeing what responses you get. You can find the contact information on the VBAC Hospital Policy Database.


It is also very important to understand that even the hospitals that do “allow” VBAC, and that were able to give us names of physicians who are known to support VBAC, very few of these hospitals actually do very many VBACs. We would estimate that no more than 10% of the hospitals we called were truly “VBAC supportive”, based on the comments of the people we talked to. Making sure you emphasize this point is crucial in presenting the VBAC access crisis accurately – the number of official bans is truly only the tip of the iceberg.


I’ve also included the state cesarean rate and VBAC rate data for each state. These numbers are from the National Vital Statistics Report. Births: Final Data for 2006. A couple of comments on these numbers: the cesarean rate is defined as the percentage of births that end in a cesarean. However, some states only report “low risk” cesareans in this rate – in other words, cesareans of breech or multiples are NOT included in this number. Unfortunately, I don’t have a good list of which states do this, we just know it does happen. Obviously, the states are not eager to let us know if they report this way. VBAC rate is defined as the percentage of women with a previous cesarean who then have a subsequent vaginal birth. The percentage is NOT that of total births (unlike the cesarean rate) but a percentage of ONLY the women with a previous cesarean who had a birth that year. So, if you wanted to find out the VBAC rate relative to the total number of births, you’d need to divide the total number of VBACs by the total number of births. Needless to say, that number is going to be very small.

Alabama:
51 total hospitals
8 Official Bans (16%)
6 de facto
33.4% c/s rate
5.2% VBAC rate

Alaska:
17 total hospitals
5 Official Bans (29%)
2 de facto
23% c/s rate
17.7% VBAC rate

Arizona:
27 total hospitals
9 Official Bans (33%)
4 de facto
26.5% c/s rate
5.5% VBAC rate

Arkansas:
43 total hospitals
16 Official Bans (37%)
9 de facto
33.2% c/s rate
4.6% VBAC rate

California:
251 total hospitals
96 Official Bans (38%)
17 de facto
31.3% c/s rate
5.2% VBAC rate

Colorado:
56 total hospitals
24 Official bans (43%)
3 de facto bans
25.3% c/s rate
10.2% VBAC rate

Connecticut:
28 total hospitals
1 Official ban (4%)
2 de facto bans
34.1% c/s rate
6.2% VBAC rate

District of Columbia:
5 total hospitals
0 Official bans (0%)
0 de facto bans
30.6% c/s rate 2006
6.4% VBAC rate

Delaware:
5 total hospitals
2 official bans (40%)
0 de facto bans
30.7% c/s rate
9.8% VBAC rate

Florida:
101 total hospitals
25 Official bans (25%)
31 de facto bans
36.1% c/s rate
5.4% VBAC rate

Georgia:
78 total hospitals
12 official bans (15%)
16 de facto bans
31.3% c/s rate
4.7% VBAC rate

Hawaii:
12 total hospitals
6 official bans (50%)
1 de facto bans
25.6% c/s rate
11.0% VBAC rate

Idaho:
26 total hospitals
14 official bans (54%)
1 de facto ban
22.8% c/s rate
17.5% VBAC rate

Illinois:
111 total hospitals
19 official bans (17%)
5 de facto bans
29.6% c/s rate
8.0% VBAC rate

Indiana:
97 total hospitals
26 official bans (27%)
16 de facto bans
29% c/s rate
5.8% VBAC rate

Iowa:
70 total hospitals
45 official bans (64%)
8 de facto bans
27.7% c/s rate
7.9% VBAC rate

Kansas:
67 total hospitals
31 official bans (46%)
13 de facto bans
29.3% c/s rate
10.6% VBAC rate

Kentucky:
30 total hospitals
6 banned (20%)
3 de facto bans
34.5% c/s rate
6.1% VBAC rate

Louisiana:
50 total hospitals
5 official bans (10%)
12 de facto bans
35.4% c/s rate
2.5% VBAC rate

Maine:
27 total hospitals
15 official bans (56%)
5 de facto bans
29.9% c/s rate
5.5% VBAC rate

Massachusetts:
49 total hospitals
13 official bans (27%)
5 de facto bans
33.2% c/s rate
8.2% VBAC rate

Maryland:
34 total hospitals
3 official bans (9%)
0 de facto bans
32.2% c/s rate
8.7% VBAC rate

Michigan:
93 total hospitals
29 official bans (31%)
5 de facto bans
29.8% c/s rate
7.8% VBAC rate

Minnesota:
96 total hospitals
30 official bans (31%)
25 de facto bans
25.4% c/s rate
9.7% VBAC rate

Mississippi:
38 total hospitals
8 official bans (21%)
6 de facto bans
35.4% c/s rate
3.1% VBAC rate

Missouri:
66 total hospitals
16 official bans (24%)
11 de facto bans
30.2% c/s rate
7.3% VBAC rate

Montana:
26 total hospitals
12 official bans (46%)
2 de facto bans
28% c/s rate
10.2% VBAC rate

Nebraska:
58 total hospitals
28 official bans (48%)
14 de facto bans
28.8% c/s rate
9.7% VBAC rate

Nevada:
18 total hospitals
8 official bans (44%)
5 de facto bans
32.3 % c/s rate
4.4% VBAC rate

New Hampshire:
22 total hospitals
6 official bans (27%)
3 de facto bans
29.9% c/s rate
13.4% VBAC rate

New Jersey:
48 total hospitals
5 official bans (10%)
6 de facto bans
37.4% c/s rate
8.8% VBAC rate

New Mexico:
23 total hospitals
12 official bans (52%)
3 de facto bans
23.3% c/s rate
12.0% VBAC rate

New York:
141 total hospitals
24 official bans (16%)
15 de facto bans
32.6% c/s rate
9.8% VBAC rate (excludes NYC)
13.1% VBAC rate, NYC


North Carolina:
67 total hospitals
17 official bans (25%)
9 de facto bans
29.9% c/s rate
7.7% VBAC rate

North Dakota:
11 total hospitals
5 official bans (45%)
1 de facto ban
27.8% c/s rate
14.1% VBAC rate


Ohio
:

112 total hospitals
37 official bans (33%)
8 de facto bans
29.3% c/s rate
12.6% VBAC rate

Oklahoma:
60 total hospitals
28 official bans (47%)
19 de facto bans
33.3% c/s rate
2.6% VBAC rate

Oregon:
54 total hospitals
23 official bans (42%)
9 de facto bans
28.2% c/s rate
9.3% VBAC rate

Pennsylvania:
97 total hospitals
6 official bans (6%)
17 de facto bans
29.7% c/s rate
13.8% VBAC rate

Puerto Rico:
24 total hospitals
0 official bans (0%)
12 de facto bans
48.3% c/s rate
7.5% VBAC rate

Rhode Island:
7 total hospitals
3 official bans (43%)
0 de facto bans
31.1% c/s rate
8.4% VBAC rate

South Carolina:
46 total hospitals
13 official bans (28%)
7 de facto bans
32.9% c/s rate
10.2% VBAC rate

South Dakota:
21 total hospitals
2 official bans (10%)
2 de facto bans
27% c/s rate
16.1% VBAC rate

Tennessee:
60 total hospitals
13 official bans (22%)
6 de facto bans
32.4 % c/s rate
11.3% VBAC rate

Texas:
138 total hospitals
20 official bans (14%)
24 de facto bans
33.2% c/s rate
9.4% VBAC rate

Utah:
36 total hospitals
9 official bans (25%)
7 de facto bans
21.5% c/s rate
18.7% VBAC rate

Virginia:
53 total hospitals
8 official bans (15%)
6 de facto bans
32.4% c/s rate
5.4% VBAC rate

Vermont:
12 total hospitals
3 official bans (25%)
0 de facto bans
26% c/s rate
20.9% VBAC rate

Washington:
68 total hospitals
28 official bans (41%)
2 de facto bans
28.4% c/s rate
12.4% VBAC rate

West Virginia:
23 total hospitals
9 official bans (39%)
2 de facto bans
35.2% c/s rate
4.9% VBAC rate

Wisconsin:
72 total hospitals
19 official bans (26%)
6 de facto bans
24.6% c/s rate
12.1% VBAC rate

Wyoming:
21 total hospitals
13 official bans (62%)
3 de facto bans
26.3% c/s rate
8.5% VBAC rate

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Secondary Cesarean Sections Pose Risk Factors

(NaturalNews) Doctors warn most expectant mothers with a previous Cesarean section about the risks of vaginal birth following a Cesarean (VBAC) but not about the risks of multiple Cesarean sections both to mother or her baby. The primary cause for concern during VBAC is uterine rupture, which could lead to the deaths of mother and baby. When told of that possibility, and often under pressure from her doctor, many women opt for a scheduled repeat Cesarean section.

That a Cesarean section is major surgery is often downplayed. Yet, risks to the mother include increased risk of emergent hysterectomy, hemorrhage, organ damage, infection with increased risks of rehospitalization, and cardiopulmonary and thromboembolic conditions. Surgical wound complications such as adhesions can cause bowel obstruction and chronic pain; pain at the incision site often persists beyond six months. Risk of maternal death is 4 times higher with Cesarean section than with vaginal birth, although this risk is small in both cases.

Babies born by Cesarean section have an increased risk of respiratory distress syndrome and a five-fold increase in persistent pulmonary hypertension over those born vaginally. Problems with future reproduction associated with previous Cesarean sections include infertility and numerous placenta problems. Placental abruption, where the placental lining separates from the uterus, rises from a risk of 1 in 1500 to 1 in 300 after just one Cesarean section; 20-40% of placental abruptions result in neonatal death. Placenta previa occurs when the placenta adheres to the uterus dangerously close to or covering the cervix and has a 5 times higher frequency after a Cesarean section. This risk increases with number of previous Cesarean surgeries: after 4 or more, placenta previa is 9 times more likely. Risk of ectopic pregnancy (those that develop outside the uterus or within the Cesarean scar) is slightly increased as well, with the likelihood about 1.3 times higher.

The occurrences of negative outcomes listed above are likely to increase as the rate of Cesarean section increases. As measured in 2005, the rate of Cesarean sections in the US was 30.2%. This excessive rate is due in part to the low incidence of VBAC which is in part due to maternal 'choice' and in part due to lack of VBAC support by hospitals and doctors. In his recent Naturalnews article, 'Early Repeat C-Sections Linked to Health Complications in Newborns' Reuben Chow states "...It is also likely that many women are opting for C-sections with the hope that it would be the easier choice of delivery. And the thing about C-sections is that, once a woman has had it once, she is very likely to use the same method for subsequent pregnancies." This statement reflects a common theme portrayed by the media that women choose Cesarean sections over vaginal births. However, the 2005 'Listening to Mothers' survey found only 1 woman out of 1500 who requested a primary Cesarean section (for a first birth that is). Choice of primary C-section is virtually non-existent. As for the choice of subsequent Cesarean section, VBAC is often not an option; many US hospitals officially ban VBAC, while others have 'de facto' bans where no doctor on staff will support one.

This risk that women are advised of, that of uterine rupture while attempting a VBAC, is about 6 in 1000 or 0.6%. During a primary vaginal birth uterine rupture can still occur and does at a rate of about 2 in 1000 or 0.2%. Additionally, because an obstetrician is required to be present in any hospital were a VBAC is underway, the risk of death to mother and baby during an actual uterine rupture is very low. With a skewed assessment of this risk and little, if any, assessment of the risk of secondary Cesarean, the ability of women to make informed decisions is badly compromised.

Birth is a natural process that can be very empowering for a woman. A Cesarean section is often the antithesis of birth empowerment and can be emotionally traumatic for many women. The International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) has more information including local support groups (http://www.ican-online.org).

Sources:
Hemminki, E. and J. Merilinen 1996. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 174: 1569-1574
Zelop, C. and L.J. Heffner 2004. The downside of cesarean delivery: short- and long-term complications. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 47: 386-93.
Fang, Y.M. and C.M. Zelop 2006. Vaginal birth after cesarean: assessing maternal and perinatal risks--contemporary management. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 49: 147-153.
Lamaze International: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...
Block, J. 2007. Pushed The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care, Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA.

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Trouble With Repeat Cesareans

By Pamela Paul
Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009

For many pregnant women in America, it is easier today to walk into a hospital and request major abdominal surgery than it is to give birth as nature intended. Jessica Barton knows this all too well. At 33, the curriculum developer in Santa Barbara, Calif., is expecting her second child in June. But since her first child ended up being delivered by cesarean section, she can't find an obstetrician in her county who will let her even try to push this go-round. And she could locate only one doctor in nearby Ventura County who allows the option of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). But what if he's not on call the day she goes into labor? That's why, in order to give birth the old-fashioned way, Barton is planning to go to UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. "One of my biggest worries is the 100-mile drive to the hospital," she says. "It can take from 2 to 3 1/2 hours. I know it will be uncomfortable, and I worry about waiting too long and giving birth in the car."

Much ado has been made recently of women who choose to have cesareans, but little attention has been paid to the vast number of moms who are forced to have them. More than 9 out of 10 births following a C-section are now surgical deliveries, proving that "once a cesarean, always a cesarean"--an axiom thought to be outmoded in the 1990s--is alive and kicking. Indeed, the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN), a grass-roots group, recently called 2,850 hospitals that have labor and delivery wards and found that 28% of them don't allow VBACs, up from 10% in its previous survey, in 2004. ICAN's latest findings note that another 21% of hospitals have what it calls "de facto bans," i.e., the hospitals have no official policies against VBAC, but no obstetricians will perform them.

Why the VBAC-lash? Not so long ago, doctors were actually encouraging women to have VBACs, which cost less than cesareans and allow mothers to heal more quickly. The risk of uterine rupture during VBAC is real--and can be fatal to both mom and baby--but rupture occurs in just 0.7% of cases. That's not an insignificant statistic, but the number of catastrophic cases is low; only 1 in 2,000 babies die or suffer brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation.

After 1980, when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a conference on skyrocketing cesarean rates, more women began having VBACs. By 1996, they accounted for 28% of births among C-section veterans, and in 2000, the Federal Government issued its Healthy People 2010 report proposing a target VBAC rate of 37%. Yet as of 2006, only about 8% of births were VBACs, and the numbers continue to fall--even though 73% of women who go this route successfully deliver without needing an emergency cesarean.

So what happened? In 1999, after several high-profile cases in which women undergoing VBAC ruptured their uterus, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed its guidelines from stipulating that surgeons and anesthesiologists should be "readily available" during a VBAC to "immediately available." "Our goal wasn't to narrow the scope of patients who would be eligible, but to make it safe," says Dr. Carolyn Zelop, co-author of ACOG's most recent VBAC guidelines.

But many interpreted the revision to mean that surgical staff must be present the entire time a VBAC patient is in labor. While major medical centers and hospitals with residents are staffed to provide this level of round-the-clock care, smaller hospitals typically rely on anesthesiologists on call. Among obstetricians, many solo practitioners are unable to stay for what could end up being a 24-hour delivery; others calculate the loss of unseen patients during that time and instead opt to do hour-long cesareans, which are now the most commonly performed surgeries on women in the U.S.

Some doctors, however, argue that any facility ill equipped for VBACs shouldn't do labor and delivery at all. "How can a hospital say it can handle an emergency C-section due to fetal distress yet not be able to do a VBAC?" asks Dr. Mark Landon, a maternal-fetal-medicine specialist at the Ohio State University Medical Center and lead investigator of the NIH's largest prospective VBAC study.

Part of the answer has to do with malpractice insurance. Following a few major lawsuits stemming from VBAC cases, many insurers started jacking up the price of malpractice coverage for ob-gyns who perform such births. In a 2006 ACOG survey of 10,659 ob-gyns nationwide, 26% said they had given up on VBACs because insurance was unaffordable or unavailable; 33% said they had dropped VBACs out of fear of litigation. "It's a numbers thing," says Dr. Shelley Binkley, an ob-gyn in private practice in Colorado Springs who stopped offering VBACs in 2003. "You don't get sued for doing a C-section. You get sued for not doing a C-section."

Of course, the alternative to a VBAC isn't risk-free either. With each repeat cesarean, a mother's risk of heavy bleeding, infection and infertility, among other complications, goes up. Perhaps most alarming, repeat C-sections increase a woman's chances of developing life-threatening placental abnormalities that can cause hemorrhaging during childbirth. The rate of placenta accreta--in which the placenta attaches abnormally to the uterine wall--has increased thirtyfold in the past 30 years. "The problem is only beginning to mushroom," says ACOG's Zelop.

"The decline in VBACs is driven both by patient preference and by provider preference," says Dr. Hyagriv Simhan, medical director of the maternal-fetal-medicine department of Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. But while many obstetricians say fewer patients are requesting VBACs, others counter that the medical profession has been too discouraging of them. Dr. Stuart Fischbein, an ob-gyn whose Camarillo, Calif., hospital won't allow the procedure, is concerned that women are getting "skewed" information about the risks of a VBAC "that leads them down the path that the doctor or hospital wants them to follow, as opposed to medical information that helps them make the best decision." According to a nationwide survey by Childbirth Connection, a 91-year-old maternal-care advocacy group based in New York City, 57% of C-section veterans who gave birth in 2005 were interested in a VBAC but were denied the option of having one.

Zelop is among those who worry that "the pendulum has swung too far the other way," but, she says, "I don't know whether we can get back to a higher number of VBACs, because doctors are afraid and hospitals are afraid." So how to reverse the trend? For one thing, patients and doctors need to be as aware of the risks of multiple cesareans as they are of those of VBACs. That is certain to be on the agenda when the NIH holds its first conference on VBACs next year. But Zelop fears that the obstetrical C-change may come too late: "When the problems with multiple C-sections start to mount, we're going to look back and say, 'Oh, does anyone still know how to do VBAC?'"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1880665-1,00.html