org
1 OBSTETRICS 56
2 57
3 Lower uterine segment thickness to prevent uterine 58
4
5
rupture and adverse perinatal outcomes: a multicenter 59
60
6 prospective study 61
7 62
Q7 Nicole Jastrow, MD; Suzanne Demers, MD; Nils Chaillet, PhD; Mario Girard, ;
8 63
Robert J. Gauthier, MD; Jean-Charles Pasquier, MD, PhD; Belkacem Abdous, PhD;
9 64
Chantale Vachon-Marceau, MD; Sylvie Marcoux, MD, PhD; Olivier Irion, MD;
10 Q1
65
Normand Brassard, MD; Michel Boulvain, MD, PhD; Emmanuel Bujold, MD, MSc
11 66
12 67
13 68
14 BACKGROUND: Choice of delivery route after previous cesarean rupture, which was defined as requiring urgent laparotomy. We calculated 69
delivery can be difficult because both trial of labor after cesarean delivery that 942 women who were undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean 70
15
and elective repeat cesarean delivery are associated with risks. The major delivery should be included to be able to show a risk of uterine rupture
16 71
risk that is associated with trial of labor after cesarean delivery is uterine <0.8%.
17 72
rupture that requires emergency laparotomy. RESULTS: We recruited 1856 women, of whom 1849 (99%) had a
18 73
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the occurrence of uterine complete follow-up data. Lower uterine segment thickness was <2.0 mm
19 rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery when lower uterine in 194 women (11%), 2.0e2.4 mm in 217 women (12%), and 2.5 mm
74
20 segment thickness measurement is included in the decision-making in 1438 women (78%). Rate of trial of labor was 9%, 42%, and 61% in the 75
21 process about the route of delivery. 3 categories, respectively (P<.0001). Of 984 trials of labor, there were no 76
22 STUDY DESIGN: In 4 tertiary-care centers, we prospectively recruited symptomatic uterine ruptures, which is a rate that was lower than the 77
23 women between 34 and 38 weeks of gestation who were contemplating a 0.8% expected rate (P.0001). 78
24 vaginal birth after a previous single low-transverse cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of lower uterine segment thickness 79
25 Lower uterine segment thickness was measured by ultrasound imaging measurement in the decision of the route of delivery allows a low risk of 80
26 and integrated in the decision of delivery route. According to lower uterine uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery. 81
27 segment thickness, women were classified in 3 risk categories for uterine 82
28 rupture: high risk (less than 2.0 mm), intermediate risk (2.0e2.4 mm), and Key words: lower uterine segment, uterine rupture, vaginal birth after 83
29 low risk (2.5 mm). Our primary outcome was symptomatic uterine cesarean delivery 84
30 85
31 86
32
33
34
I n the last 3 decades, the rate of ce-
sarean deliveries has been rising
continuously worldwide and has
perform an elective repeat cesarean de-
livery (ERC). ECR will reduce the risk of
uterine rupture but can also be associ-
uterine scar defect at delivery of 16% of
women when the LUS thickness was Q4
<2.5 mm compared with 0.7% when the
87
88
89
35 reached >30% in many countries. A ated with risks of short-term maternal thickness was 3.5 mm or more.13 More 90
36 major contributor to this trend is the complications, such as hemorrhage, recently, a LUS thickness of <2.3 mm 91
37 concomitant decline in the percentage of hysterectomy, thromboembolism, and was identied as a signicant risk factor 92
38 trial of labor after cesarean delivery neonatal complications that include for uterine rupture.14 Although meta- 93
39 (TOLAC) and vaginal birth after cesar- respiratory distress syndrome.5-7 In analyses report no LUS thickness cut- 94
40 ean delivery (VBAC).1 Fear of intra- addition, cesarean delivery is associated off that can predict all uterine ruptures, 95
41 partum uterine rupture, a rare with a higher risk of longer term com- most authors agree that the risk is high 96
42 (0.4e1.1%) but potentially catastrophic plications, such as placenta praevia and when the LUS thickness is <2.0 mm.10,11 97
43 complication of TOLAC, represents the accreta in future pregnancies.8,9 There- We aimed to evaluate the occurrence 98
44 main reason for this trend.2 Uterine fore, the selection of the good candidate of uterine rupture when LUS thickness 99
45 rupture can lead to perinatal asphyxia or who is at low risk for uterine rupture measurement was included in the deci- 100
46 death and severe maternal complica- during TOLAC is crucial. sion about delivery route in a large 101
47 tions.3,4 The alternative for TOLAC is to Assessment of lower uterine segment cohort of women who wanted to attempt 102
48 (LUS) thickness by ultrasound imaging TOLAC. 103
49 in the third trimester of pregnancy has 104
50 Cite this article as: Jastrow N, Demers S, Chaillet N, been proposed to predict the risk of Materials and Methods 105
51 et al. Lower uterine segment thickness to prevent uterine uterine rupture.10-14 A landmark study Study design and participants 106
rupture and adverse perinatal outcomes: a multicenter
52 by Rozenberg et al13 showed that the risk We conducted a prospective cohort 107
prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;:.
53 of a defective scar at delivery (uterine study between April 2009 and June 2013 108
54 0002-9378/$36.00 scar dehiscence and uterine rupture) is in 3 Canadian Hospitals (Centre Hos- 109
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.018 related directly to the degree of thinning pitalier Universitaire de Qubec, 110
of the LUS. They reported a risk of Qubec; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire
111 167
112 Sainte-Justine, Montreal; Centre Hospi- Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) between 34 delivery (recurrent or not), previous 168
113 talier Universitaire Fleurimont, Sher- weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of vaginal birth, and estimated fetal weight. 169
114 brooke) and a Swiss Hospital (Hpitaux gestation by a trained sonographer or Finally, women were informed that 170
115 Universitaires de Genve, Geneva). We midwife who was supervised by a mode of delivery would be discussed 171
116 recruited women who were contem- maternal-fetal medicine specialist in again in case of induction of labor or in 172
117 plating a TOLAC with a single previous each center. At least 6 measurements (3 case of labor dystocia. The institutional 173
118 low-transverse cesarean delivery and a transabdominal and 3 transvaginal) of ethics committee in each center 174
119 singleton pregnancy in cephalic presen- the LUS thickness were performed, with approved the study. Medical records 175
120 tation. The likelihood of VBAC and the the use of the method previously were reviewed for obstetric and neonatal 176
121 risk of uterine rupture were evaluated described (Figure).14 The thinnest LUS outcomes after delivery. F1
177
122 and discussed between 34 weeks 0 days value was retained. Fetal biometry (head Our primary outcome was symptom- 178
123 and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation. circumference, biparietal diameter, atic uterine rupture, dened as a com- 179
124 abdominal circumference, femur length) plete separation of the uterine scar that 180
125 Procedures was measured to estimate fetal weight resulted in protrusion of fetal or placental 181
126 After informed consent was obtained with the use of the Hadlock formula.15 parts in the peritoneal cavity and required 182
127 from the participant, a research nurse or According to LUS thickness, women urgent laparotomy. Secondary outcomes 183
128 midwife recorded maternal characteris- were classied in 3 risk categories for included incidental scar disruption 184
129 tics and medical and reproductive uterine rupture during TOLAC: high (complete opening of the previous scar 185
130 history, including the features of the risk (<2.0 mm), intermediate risk without protrusion of fetal or placental 186
131 previous cesarean delivery. Body mass (2.0e2.4 mm), and low risk (2.5 mm). parts in the peritoneal cavity) and uterine 187
132 index was calculated with the use of the Participants and their health care pro- scar dehiscence (dened as a small win- 188
133 maternal weight at inclusion (end of viders were informed of the risk cate- dow in the LUS) that was diagnosed 189
134 pregnancy). Tobacco use was considered gory. All participants met with the during cesarean delivery. A routine 190
135 when the woman was currently smok- obstetrician after the LUS assessment. manual revision of the LUS integrity was 191
136 ing. Diabetes mellitus included gesta- During this consultation, each woman not performed after vaginal birth. 192
137 tional and pregestational diabetes was informed about her risk of uterine Other secondary outcomes included 193
138 mellitus. Previous cesarean delivery that rupture during TOLAC according to the rates of TOLAC and VBAC, maternal 194
139 was performed for labor dystocia, ceph- LUS thickness (average of 0.5e1%, most outcomes (postpartum hysterectomy, 195
140 alopelvic disproportion, descent arrest, likely >1% when LUS is <2.0 mm and blood transfusion, and maternal death), 196
141 or failure to progress was reported as most likely <0.5% when LUS thickness neonatal outcomes (5-minute Apgar 197
142 previous cesarean delivery for recurrent is 2.5 mm); the consequences of score <7, cord blood pH <7.0, perinatal 198
143 reason. uterine rupture (including perinatal asphyxia [dened as a 5-minute Apgar 199
144 Examination of the LUS was asphyxia and death), the maternal and score <4, a cord blood pH <7.0 when 200
145 performed with transabdominal and neonatal complications of ECR, and the available], and evidence of altered 201
146 transvaginal ultrasound imaging with chances of successful VBAC based on neurologic status, and/or multisystem 202
147 Voluson Expert or Voluson E8 (GE the indication of previous cesarean organ failure), and intrapartum or 203
148 neonatal death. 204
149 205
150 Statistical analysis 206
FIGURE
151 Labor and delivery characteristics and 207
Lower uterine segment thickness
152 uterine scar defects were reported 208
according to LUS thickness categories
web 4C=FPO
153 209
154 (<2.0 mm, 2.0e2.4 mm, and 2.5 210
155 mm). Neonatal and maternal outcomes 211
156 were stratied according to intended 212
157 mode of delivery. We estimated that the 213
158 use of the LUS thickness could result in a 214
159 low risk of uterine rupture in women 215
160 who undergo TOLAC. We calculated 216
161 that a minimum of 942 women who 217
162 underwent a TOLAC should be included 218
163 to exclude the value of 0.8% from our 219
164 estimate of the risk of uterine rupture 220
165 Lower uterine segment thickness measured by a A, transabdominal and a B, transvaginal scan. (1-sided test; a.05; power0.80) 221
166 Jastrow et al. Lower uterine segment thickness and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016.
should the observed risk be 0.2%. We 222
estimated that a minimum of 1450
335 391
336 TABLE 2 392
337 Labor characteristics and outcomes according to the lower uterine segment thickness categories 393
338 394
339 Lower uterine segment thickness 395
340 Variable <2.0 mm (n194) 2.0e2.4 mm (n217) 2.5 mm (n1438) P value 396
341 Gestational age at delivery, wka 38.9 0.9 39.3 1.0 39.6 1.0 <0.0001 397
342 398
Elective repeat cesarean delivery, n (%) 177 (91) 123 (57) 557 (39) <.0001
343 399
344 Uterine scar dehiscence, n (%) 22 (12) 3 (2) 5 (1) <.0001 400
345 Trial of labor, n (%) 17 (9) 94 (43) 881 (61) <.0001 401
346 Induction of labor 2 (12) 11 (12) 153 (17) .32 402
347 403
Oxytocin during labor 6 (35) 32 (35) 363 (41) .37
348 404
349 Vaginal birth 14 (82) 73 (78) 585 (66) .04 405
350 Symptomatic uterine rupture 0 0 0 406
351 Incidental scar disruption 0 0 3 (0.3) .83 407
352 408
Uterine scar dehiscence 0 5 (5.3) 17 (1.9) .09
353 409
354 Any type of scar defect at cesarean delivery 0/3 5/21 (24) 20/276 (7) .02 410
355 during labor 411
356
a
Data are given as mean standard deviation. 412
Jastrow et al. Lower uterine segment thickness and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016.
357 413
358 414
359 415
distress that was not related to a uterine decision-making process on the route of 170 women who underwent a TOLAC
360 416
361 scar defect. We observed no case of delivery results in a low risk of uterine when the LUS thickness was integrated 417
362 maternal death or postpartum hysterec- rupture during TOLAC and denitively in the decision on the route of delivery. 418
tomy, but 23 women (1.2%) received inuences the womens choice about the They observed that the introduction of
363 419
blood transfusion for postpartum hem- route of delivery. LUS thickness measurement in clinical
364 420
orrhage that was more frequent in Meta-analyses of numerous small practice led to a signicant reduction of
365 421
women who underwent a TOLAC. studies showed an association between emergency cesarean deliveries and uter-
366 422
LUS thickness and the risk of uterine scar ine scar defects, when compared with the
367 423
Comment defect at delivery.10,11 Rozenberg et al16 previous period. However, some differ-
368 424
369 Our study suggests that integrating observed no case of uterine rupture ences between the 2 studies have to be 425
370 LUS thickness measurement in the and only 2 uterine scar defects from the pointed out. First, the former study used 426
only abdominal ultrasound imaging; we
371 427
used a combination of transabdominal
372 428
TABLE 3 and transvaginal ultrasound imag-
373 429
Neonatal and maternal outcomes according to intended mode of delivery ing.17,18 Second, based on previous
374 430
literature,14 by suggesting safety, we used
375 Trial of labor Elective repeat cesarean 431
Variable (n984), n (%) delivery (n865), n (%) lower thresholds (2.0e2.5 mm instead
376 432
377 of 3.5 mm). 433
Neonatal outcomes
378 Our study conrmed the association 434
Five-minute Apgar score <7 13 (1.3) 10 (1.2) between uterine scar dehiscence that was
379 435
380 Arterial cord pH <7.0 2 (<1) 2 (<1) diagnosed at ERC and LUS thickness 436
Perinatal asphyxia a
1 (<1) 0 that was reported in published meta-
381 437
analyses.10,11 In contrast, LUS thickness
382 Intrapartum or neonatal death 0 1 (<1) 438
was not associated with uterine scar
383 439
Maternal outcome dehiscence that was diagnosed at repeat
384 440
385 Maternal blood transfusion 17 (1.7) 6 (0.7)b cesarean delivery after a failed TOLAC. 441
386 Postpartum hysterectomy 0 0 This can be explained by the fact that the 442
duration of labor and labor dystocia are
387 Maternal death 0 0 443
major risk factors for uterine scar
388 a
Defined as the combination of Apgar score at 5 minutes <4, arterial cord blood pH <7.0, and neonatal multisystemic organ
444
dehiscence.19-21 The 3 cases of incidental
389 failure; b P<.05. 445
Jastrow et al. Lower uterine segment thickness and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016. scar disruption that were observed in
390 446
our cohort occurred in women with
559 615
Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada; the Department of Obstetrics Received March 14, 2016; revised May 3, 2016; Universite Laval, Canada. S.D. and E.B. hold a Re-
560 & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Hopital Sainte- accepted June 11, 2016. searchers salary award from the Fonds de la Recherche 616
561 Justine, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health du QuebeceSante. Q3 617
562 (Drs Chaillet and Gauthier); and the Department of Ob- Research (operating grant #210974), the Geneva Uni- The authors report no conflict of interest. 618
563 stetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universite de versity Hospitals (PRD #09-II-28), and the Jeanne et Corresponding author: Emmanuel Bujold, MD, MSc, 619
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada (Dr Pasquier). Jean-Louis Levesque Perinatal Research Chair at FRCSC. emmanuel.bujold@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca
564 620
565 621
566 622
567 623
568 624
569 625
570 626
571 627
572 628
573 629
574 630
575 631
576 632
577 633
578 634
579 635
580 636
581 637
582 638
583 639
584 640
585 641
586 642
587 643
588 644
589 645
590 646
591 647
592 648
593 649
594 650
595 651
596 652
597 653
598 654
599 655
600 656
601 657
602 658
603 659
604 660
605 661
606 662
607 663
608 664
609 665
610 666
611 667
612 668
613 669
614 670