Low risk pregnancies after a cesarean section: Determinants of trial of labor and its failure

Autoři: Sjur Lehmann aff001;  Elham Baghestan aff002;  Per E. Børdahl aff001;  Lorentz M. Irgens aff003;  Svein Rasmussen aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway aff001;  Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway aff002;  Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway aff003;  Medical Birth Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226894



In pregnancies after a previous cesarean section (CS), a planned repeat CS delivery has been associated with excess risk of adverse outcome. However, also the alternative, a trial of labor after CS (TOLAC), has been associated with excess risks. A TOLAC failure, involving a non-planned CS, carries the highest risk of adverse outcome and a vaginal delivery the lowest. Thus, the decision regarding delivery mode is pivotal in clinical handling of these pregnancies. However, even with a high TOLAC rate, as seen in Norway, repeat CSs are regularly performed for no apparent medical reason. The objective of the present study was to assess to which extent demographic, socioeconomic, and health system factors are determinants of TOLAC and TOLAC failure in low risk pregnancies, and whether any effects observed changed with time.

Materials and methods

The study group comprised 24 645 second deliveries (1989–2014) after a first delivery CS. Thus, none of the women had prior vaginal deliveries or more than one CS. Included pregnancies were low risk, cephalic, single, and had gestational age ≥ 37 weeks. Data were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN). The exposure variables were (second delivery) maternal age, length of maternal education, maternal country of origin, size of the delivery unit, health region (South-East, West, Mid, North), and maternal county of residence. The outcomes were TOLAC and TOLAC failure, as rates (%), relative risk (RR) and relative risk adjusted (ARR). Changes in determinant effects over time were assessed by comparing rates in two periods, 1989–2002 vs 2003–2014, and including these periods in an interaction model.


The TOLAC rate was 74.9%, with a TOLAC failure rate of 16.2%, resulting in a vaginal birth rate of 62.8%. Low TOLAC rates were observed at high maternal age and in women from East Asia or Latin America. High TOLAC failure rates were observed at high maternal age, in women with less than 11 years of education, and in women of non-western origin. The effects of health system factors, i.e. delivery unit size and administrative region were considerable, on both TOLAC and TOLAC failure. The effects of several determinants changed significantly (P < 0.05) from 1989–2002 to 2003–2014: The association between non-TOLAC and maternal age > 39 years became weaker, the association between short education and TOLAC failure became stronger, and the association between TOLAC failure and small size of delivery unit became stronger.


Low maternal age, high education, and western country of origin were associated with high TOLAC rates, and low TOLAC failure rates. Maternity unit characteristics (size and region) contributed with effects on the same level as individual determinants studied. Temporal changes were observed in determinant effects.

Klíčová slova:

Cesarean section – Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy – Labor and delivery – Norway – Pediatrics – Pregnancy – Socioeconomic aspects of health – Women's health


1. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1267–78. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f 20502300

2. Lehmann S, Baghestan E, Bordahl PE, Muller Irgens L, Rasmussen SA. Trial of labor after cesarean section in risk pregnancies: A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;

3. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evidence report/technology assessment. 2010;1–397.

4. Herstad L, Klungsoyr K, Skjaerven R, Tanbo T, Eidem I, Forsen L, et al. Maternal age and elective cesarean section in a low-risk population. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2012;91:816–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01405.x 22435923

5. Fagerberg MC, Marsal K, Kallen K. Predicting the chance of vaginal delivery after one cesarean section: validation and elaboration of a published prediction model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;188:88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.031 25801723

6. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:806–12. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000259312.36053.02 17400840

7. Irgens LM. The Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Epidemiological research and surveillance throughout 30 years. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:435–9. 10857866

8. <United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistics Use (Revision 4). 1999.

9. European surveillance of congenital anomalies, description available at: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/ accessed 20.10.2019.

10. Lehmann S, Baghestan E, Børdahl P, Ebbing M, Irgens L, Rasmussen S. Validation of data in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway on delivery after a previous cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jul;96 (7):892–897 doi: 10.1111/aogs.13115 28196281

11. Henry OA, Gregory KD, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. American journal of public health. 1995;85:1143–6. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.8_pt_1.1143 7625515

12. Vikanes A, Magnus P, Vangen S, Lomsdal S, Grjibovski AM. Hyperemesis gravidarum in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway—a validity study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2012;12:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-115 23095718

13. Melve KK, Lie RT, Skjaerven R, Van Der Hagen CB, Gradek GA, Jonsrud C, et al. Registration of Down syndrome in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway: validity and time trends. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:824–30. doi: 10.1080/00016340802217184 18607831

14. Skomsvoll J, Ostensen M, Baste V, Irgens L. Validity of a rheumatic disease diagnosis in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:831–4. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.810905.x 12225297

15. Moth FN, Sebastian TR, Horn J, Rich-Edwards J, Romundstad PR, Asvold BO. Validity of a selection of pregnancy complications in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:519–27. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12868 26867143

16. Klungsoyr K, Harmon QE, Skard LB, Simonsen I, Austvoll ET, Alsaker ER, et al. Validity of pre-eclampsia registration in the medical birth registry of norway for women participating in the norwegian mother and child cohort study, 1999–2010. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. 2014;28:362–71. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12138 25040774

17. Thomsen LC, Klungsoyr K, Roten LT, Tappert C, Araya E, Baerheim G, et al. Validity of the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:943–50. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12159 23621424

18. Studsgaard A, Skorstengaard M, Glavind J, Hvidman L, Uldbjerg N. Trial of labor compared to repeat cesarean section in women with no other risk factors than a prior cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:1256–63. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12240 23962339

19. Yeh J, Wactawski-Wende J, Shelton JA, Reschke J. Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labor in low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:144. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.079 16389024

20. Stattmiller S, Lavecchia M, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Abenhaim HA. Trial of labor after cesarean in the low-risk obstetric population: a retrospective nationwide cohort study. J Perinatol. 2016;36:808–13. doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.36 27253892

21. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr., Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:689–95. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001 8703167

22. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:3–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200107053450101 11439945

23. Cameron CA, Roberts CL, Peat B. Predictors of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;85:267–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.09.002 15145263

24. Knight HE, Gurol-Urganci I, van der Meulen JH, Mahmood TA, Richmond DH, Dougall A, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a cohort study investigating factors associated with its uptake and success. BJOG. 2014;121:183–92. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12508 24251861

25. Pang MW, Law LW, Leung TY, Lai PY, La TK. Sociodemographic factors and pregnancy events associated with women who declined vaginal birth after cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;143:24–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.10.016 19136194

26. Attanasio LB, Paterno MT. Correlates of Trial of Labor and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28:1302–12.

27. King DE, Lahiri K. Socioeconomic factors and the odds of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. JAMA. 1994;272:524–9. 8046806

28. Selo-Ojeme D, Abulhassan N, Mandal R, Tirlapur S, Selo-Ojeme U. Preferred and actual delivery mode after a cesarean in London, UK. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;102:156–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.03.008 18436222

29. Merry L, Vangen S, Small R. Caesarean births among migrant women in high-income countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;32:88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.09.002 26458998

30. Grytten J, Skau I, Sørensen R. Do Mothers Decide? The Impact of Preferences in Healthcare. J Human Resources 2013;vol. 48 no. 1 142–68.

31. Eden KB, McDonagh M, Denman MA, Marshall N, Emeis C, Fu R, et al. New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted? Obstetrics and gynecology. 2010;116:967–81. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f2de49 20859163

32. Vangen S, Stoltenberg C, Stray-Pedersen B. Complaints and complications in pregnancy: a study of ethnic Norwegian and ethnic Pakistani women in Oslo. Ethn Health. 1999;4:19–28. doi: 10.1080/13557859998155 10887458

33. Naimy Z, Grytten J, Monkerud L, Eskild A. The prevalence of pre-eclampsia in migrant relative to native Norwegian women: a population-based study. BJOG. 2015;122:859–65. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12978 25040439

34. Iversen T, Ma CT, Meyer HE. Immigrants' acculturation and changes in Body Mass Index. Econ Hum Biol. 2013;11:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2012.02.003 22425439

35. Vyas DA, Jones DS, Meadows AR, Diouf K, Nour NM, Schantz-Dunn J. Challenging the Use of Race in the Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section Calculator. Womens Health Issues. 2019;29:201–4. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2019.04.007 31072754

36. van Ryn M, Burke J. The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:813–28. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00338-x 10695979

37. Richardson A, Allen JA, Xiao H, Vallone D. Effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on health information-seeking, confidence, and trust. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23:1477–93. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0181 23698662

38. Newton ER. Vaginal birth after cesarean prediction: a self-fulfilling prophecy? Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:796–7. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000260113.80756.79 17400837

39. Salvesen HB, Trovik J, Bordahl PE. [Staffing and emergency service in Norwegian obstetrics and gynecology departments]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004;124:2780–2. 15534675

40. Linn G, Ying YH, Chang K. The determinants of obstetricians' willingness to undertake delivery by vaginal birth after cesarean section in Taiwan. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:991–1002. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S205009 31496714

41. Colais P, Bontempi K, Pinnarelli L, Piscicelli C, Mappa I, Fusco D, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean birth in Italy: variations among areas of residence and hospitals. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2018;18:383. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-2018-4 30249198

42. Gross MM, Matterne A, Berlage S, Kaiser A, Lack N, Macher-Heidrich S, et al. Interinstitutional variations in mode of birth after a previous caesarean section: a cross-sectional study in six German hospitals. J Perinat Med. 2015;43:177–84. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0108 25395596

43. Triebwasser JE, Kamdar NS, Langen ES, Moniz MH, Basu T, Syrjamaki J, et al. Hospital contribution to variation in rates of vaginal birth after cesarean. J Perinatol. 2019;39:904–10. doi: 10.1038/s41372-019-0373-2 30952949

44. Schemann K, Patterson JA, Nippita TA, Ford JB, Roberts CL. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates for women with at least one previous caesarean section: a population based cohort study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15:179. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0609-x 26285692

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1
Nejčtenější tento týden