Practice variation of vaginal birth after cesarean and the influence of risk factors at patient level: a retrospective cohort study.

Autor:	Vankan E; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Schoorel EN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., van Kuijk SM; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Mol BJ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia., Nijhuis JG; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Aardenburg R; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, the Netherlands., Alink M; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., de Boer K; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, the Netherlands., Delemarre FM; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, the Netherlands., Dirksen CD; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands., van Dooren IM; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sint Jans Gasthuis, Weert, the Netherlands., Franssen MT; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Groningen University Medical Center, Groningen, the Netherlands., Kaplan M; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Röpcke-Zweers Hospital, Hardenberg, the Netherlands., Kleiverda G; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Flevo Hospital, Almere, the Netherlands., Kuppens SM; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands., Kwee A; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Langenveld J; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands., Lim FT; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands., Melman S; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Sikkema MJ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ZiekenhuisGroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands., Smits LJ; Caphri School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Visser H; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, the Netherlands., Woiski M; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands., Scheepers HC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands., Hermens RP; Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica [Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand] 2017 Feb; Vol. 96 (2), pp. 158-165. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jan 03.
DOI:	10.1111/aogs.13059
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Large practice variation exists in mode of delivery after cesarean section, suggesting variation in implementation of contemporary guidelines. We aim to evaluate this practice variation and to what extent this can be explained by risk factors at patient level. Material and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed among 17 Dutch hospitals in 2010. Women with one prior cesarean section without a contraindication for a trial of labor were included. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to develop models for risk factor adjustments. One model was derived to adjust the elective repeat cesarean section rates; a second model to adjust vaginal birth after cesarean rates. Standardized rates of elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean per hospital were compared. Pseudo-R 2 measures were calculated to estimate the percentage of practice variation explained by the models. Secondary outcomes were differences in practice variation between hospital types and the correlation between standardized elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates. Results: In all, 1068 women had a history of cesarean section, of whom 71% were eligible for inclusion. A total of 515 women (67%) had a trial of labor, of whom 72% delivered vaginally. The elective repeat cesarean section rate at hospital level ranged from 6 to 54% (mean 29.8, standard deviation 11.8%). Vaginal birth after cesarean rates ranged from 50 to 90% (mean 71.8%, standard deviation 11.1%). More than 85% of this practice variation could not be explained by risk factors at patient level. Conclusion: A large practice variation exists in elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates that can only partially be explained by risk factors at patient level. (© 2016 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu