(Reaffirmed October 2022)
This Practice Advisory was developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines—Obstetrics in collaboration with Anjali J. Kaimal, MD, MAS; Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD; Manisha Gandhi, MD; Michelle Moniz, MD, MSc; Steven Ralston, MD, MPH; and Jen Villavicencio, MD.
The decision to undergo trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) or schedule a repeat cesarean birth is one in which a patient’s values and preferences should be prioritized in a process of shared decision making 1 . While some individuals prioritize the experience of labor in their decision making, the likelihood of a vaginal delivery may also be an important consideration. Pregnant individuals may want to consider the potential risk of complications based on whether a TOLAC results in a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or cesarean birth 2 . The complexity of this decision-making process and the desire to incorporate information about individual characteristics and obstetric history into counseling prompted the development of calculators to predict the likelihood of VBAC if TOLAC is undertaken. The most widely validated calculator, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) VBAC Calculator, was published in 2007 and identified age, body mass index, history of vaginal delivery, indication for prior cesarean, history of VBAC, and race and ethnicity as predictors 3 . Given the increasing recognition that differences in outcome by race are not biologically based but rather reflect the impact of systemic racism, social determinants of health, and clinician bias, utilizing race and ethnicity variables in a VBAC calculator may deter patients and clinicians from TOLAC without biologic cause and thereby reinforce inequity rather than support patient-centered care
4 5 .
In recognition of this concern, the investigators who published the original NICHD calculator developed a new calculator utilizing the same dataset collected from 1999 to 2002 without including the socially constructed variables of race and ethnicity 6 . The resulting calculator involves the same variables as the first model with the exception of race and ethnicity and added the variable of chronic hypertension treated with medication before and during pregnancy. Similar to the prior calculator, the calibration curve shows that predictions are more likely to be accurate when the predicted likelihood of VBAC is 60% or higher and deviated substantially when the estimate was 40% or lower 6 7 8 9 10 .
A VBAC calculator is one of many tools that can be used to provide information during a shared-decision-making discussion. When a calculator is used to provide an estimate of the likelihood of a clinical event, the limitations of the tool including uncertainty in the estimate and the impact of unmeasured or excluded clinical characteristics as well as variability in practice patterns must be included to balance the discussion. A VBAC calculator score should not be used as a barrier to TOLAC 11 . This is particularly critical because of the greater likelihood of inaccuracy of the estimate of VBAC for those with lower predicted probabilities 6 7 8 9 10 . Given these limitations, in considering the best way to achieve the shared goal of an informed patient preference, some patients and clinicians may prefer to utilize a calculator while others may prefer a more general discussion of options for mode of delivery, review of overall VBAC rates of 60–80% with TOLAC, and consideration of an individual’s obstetric risk factors along with their preferences and goals 11 12 .
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is dedicated to reviewing our existing clinical guidance and liaising with stakeholders, content experts, and public member representatives to address issues of health equity and reexamine how race and ethnicity are addressed in our guidance. Moreover, ACOG will continue to review clinical recommendations and identify and address those that base clinical guidance, algorithms, and other practice patterns on race.
Please contact [email protected] with any questions.
- National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8-10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1279-95. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e459e5
- Kaimal AJ, Grobman WA, Bryant A, Blat C, Bacchetti P, Gonzalez J, et al. The association of patient preferences and attitudes with trial of labor after cesarean [published erratum appears in J Perinatol 2019;39:1696]. J Perinatol 2019;39:1340-8. doi: 10.1038/s41372-019-0399-5
- 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. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:806-12. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000259312.36053.02
- Vyas DA, Eisenstein LG, Jones DS. Hidden in plain sight - reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms. N Engl J Med 2020;383:874-82. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms2004740.
- 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
- Grobman WA, Sandoval G, Rice MM, Bailit JL, Chauhan SP, Costantine MM, et al. Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean in term gestations: a calculator without race and ethnicity. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network [published online May 24, 2021]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.021
- Maykin MM, Mularz AJ, Lee LK, Valderramos SG. Validation of a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery reveals unexpected success in a diverse American population. AJP Rep 2017;7:e31-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1599129
- Harris BS, Heine RP, Park J, Faurot KR, Hopkins MK, Rivara AJ, et al. Are prediction models for vaginal birth after cesarean accurate? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220:492.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.232
- Wong JW, Yoshino KD, Ahn HJ, Choi SY, Chang AL. Examining the validity of a predictive model for vaginal birth after cesarean. J Perinat Med 2019;48:11-5. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2019-0345
- Nguyen MT, Hayes-Bautista TM, Hsu P, Bragg C, Chopin I, Shaw KJ. Applying a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean to a Latina inner-city population. AJP Rep 2020;10:e148-54. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1708493
- Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:e110-27. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078
- Basile Ibrahim B, Kennedy HP, Holland ML. Demographic, socioeconomic, health systems, and geographic factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean: an analysis of 2017 U.S. birth certificate data [published erratum appears in Matern Child Health J 2021;25:1081-2]. Matern Child Health J 2021;25:1069-80. doi: 10.1007/s10995-020-03066-3
A Practice Advisory is issued when information on an emergent clinical issue (e.g. clinical study, scientific report, draft regulation) is released that requires an immediate or rapid response, particularly if it is anticipated that it will generate a multitude of inquiries. A Practice Advisory is a brief, focused statement issued within 24-48 hours of the release of this evolving information and constitutes ACOG clinical guidance. A Practice Advisory is issued only on-line for Fellows but also may be used by patients and the media. Practice Advisories are reviewed periodically for reaffirmation, revision, withdrawal or incorporation into other ACOG guidelines.
This information is designed as an educational resource to aid clinicians in providing obstetric and gynecologic care, and use of this information is voluntary. This information should not be considered as inclusive of all proper treatments or methods of care or as a statement of the standard of care. It is not intended to substitute for the independent professional judgment of the treating clinician. Variations in practice may be warranted when, in the reasonable judgment of the treating clinician, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reviews its publications regularly; however, its publications may not reflect the most recent evidence. Any updates to this document can be found on www.acog.org or by calling the ACOG Resource Center.
While ACOG makes every effort to present accurate and reliable information, this publication is provided “as is” without any warranty of accuracy, reliability, or otherwise, either express or implied. ACOG does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse the products or services of any firm, organization, or person. Neither ACOG nor its officers, directors, members, employees, or agents will be liable for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in connection with this publication or reliance on the information presented.
Publications of the American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists are protected by copyright and all rights are reserved. The College's publications may not be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the copyright owner.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), is the nation's leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of more than 58,000 members, ACOG strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. www.acog.org