{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,15]],"date-time":"2026-05-15T08:48:02Z","timestamp":1778834882516,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":31,"publisher":"Georg Thieme Verlag KG","issue":"06","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Am J Perinatol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>\n            Objective\u2003Vaginal birth after cesarean can reduce morbidity associated with multiple cesarean deliveries. Failed vaginal birth after cesarean is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Vaginal Birth After Cesarean calculator is a validated tool to predict the likelihood of successful trial of labor after cesarean. Predicted likelihood\u2009&lt;\u200960% has been associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. We sought to determine if formal incorporation of calculated vaginal birth after cesarean likelihood into patient-centered counseling would reduce failed vaginal birth after cesarean.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Study Design\u2003This is a quality improvement intervention at a single tertiary-care academic medical center, in which standardized patient counseling was implemented, facilitated by an electronic medical record template featuring patient-specific likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean success. Term singleton pregnancies with history of one to two cesareans were included; those with contraindication to labor were excluded. Historical controls (January 2016\u2013December 2018, n\u2009=\u2009693) were compared with a postimplementation cohort (January 2019\u2013April 2020, n\u2009=\u2009328). Primary outcome was failed vaginal birth after cesarean.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Results\u2003Fewer patients in the postintervention cohort had a history of an arrest disorder (PRE: 48%, 330\/693 vs. POST: 40%, 130\/326, p\u2009=\u20090.03); demographics were otherwise similar, including the proportion of patients with &lt;60% likelihood of success (PRE: 39%, 267\/693, vs. POST: 38%, 125\/326). Following implementation, induction of labor in patients with a &lt;60% likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean decreased from 17% (45\/267) to 5% (6\/125, p\u2009&lt;\u20090.01). The proportion of failed vaginal birth after cesarean decreased from 33% (107\/329) to 22% (32\/143, p\u2009=\u20090.04). Overall vaginal birth after cesarean rate did not change (PRE: 32%, 222\/693, vs. POST: 34%, 111\/326, p\u2009=\u20090.52).<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Conclusion\u2003An intervention targeting provider counseling that included a validated vaginal birth after cesarean success likelihood was associated with decreased risk of failed trial of labor after cesarean without affecting overall vaginal birth after cesarean rate.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Key Points\n          <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1055\/a-1960-2797","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,13]],"date-time":"2022-10-13T22:56:46Z","timestamp":1665701806000},"page":"575-581","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Quality Initiative to Reduce Failed Trial of Labor after Cesarean Using Calculated VBAC Success Likelihood"],"prefix":"10.1055","volume":"40","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-7507-4870","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Frank B.","family":"Williams","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hayley","family":"Pierce","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Carole A.","family":"McBride","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Justin","family":"DeAngelis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kelley","family":"McLean","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"194","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,12,30]]},"reference":[{"issue":"02","key":"ref1","first-page":"1","article-title":"Births: final data for 2019","volume":"70","author":"J A Martin","year":"2021","journal-title":"Natl Vital Stat Rep"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e110","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003078","article-title":"ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery","volume":"133","author":"ACOG Practice Bulletin No","year":"2019","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"359","key":"ref3","first-page":"1","article-title":"Recent trends in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: United States, 2016-2018","author":"M JK Osterman","year":"2020","journal-title":"NCHS Data Brief"},{"issue":"10","key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"689","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199609053351001","article-title":"Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section","volume":"335","author":"M J McMahon","year":"1996","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"07","key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1365","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2001.115044","article-title":"Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity","volume":"184","author":"J U Hibbard","year":"2001","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"25","key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2581","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa040405","article-title":"Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery","volume":"351","author":"M B Landon","year":"2004","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1656","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2005.04.002","article-title":"Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study","volume":"193","author":"G A Macones","year":"2005","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1016","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2005.05.066","article-title":"The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery","volume":"193","author":"M B Landon","year":"2005","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"800","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000259313.46842.71","article-title":"Predicting failure of a vaginal birth attempt after cesarean delivery","volume":"109","author":"S K Srinivas","year":"2007","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"262","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000254169.49346.e9","article-title":"Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean","volume":"109","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2007","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"115","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000922","article-title":"Outcomes of term induction in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: analysis of a modern obstetric cohort","volume":"126","author":"J R Lappen","year":"2015","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"165.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2016.10.017","article-title":"Risk factors for complete uterine rupture","volume":"216","author":"I Al-Zirqi","year":"2017","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"452.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2008.01.008","article-title":"Vaginal birth after cesarean: clinical risk factors associated with adverse outcome","volume":"198","author":"K D Gregory","year":"2008","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"806","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000259312.36053.02","article-title":"Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery","volume":"109","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2007","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"56.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2008.06.039","article-title":"Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor?","volume":"200","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2009","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"09","key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"874","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMms2004740","article-title":"Hidden in plain sight - reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms","volume":"383","author":"D A Vyas","year":"2020","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"664.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2021.05.021","article-title":"Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in term gestations: a calculator without race and ethnicity","volume":"225","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2021","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"S 01","key":"ref20","first-page":"122","article-title":"\"Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with TOLAC versus elective repeat cesarean as a function of VBAC success prediction\" in SRI 2020: Scientific Abstracts","volume":"27","author":"H Pierce","year":"2020","journal-title":"Reprod Sci"},{"issue":"12","key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e7","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjqs-2015-004480","article-title":"Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature","volume":"25","author":"D Goodman","year":"2016","journal-title":"BMJ Qual Saf"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e0121349","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0121349","article-title":"Diagnostic value of run chart analysis: using likelihood ratios to compare run chart rules on simulated data series","volume":"10","author":"J Anh\u00f8j","year":"2015","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"ref23","volume-title":"R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing","author":"R Core Team","year":"2013"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1279","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181e459e5","article-title":"National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8-10, 2010","volume":"115","year":"2010","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1226","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.84","article-title":"Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries","volume":"107","author":"R M Silver","year":"2006","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1148","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2006.06.042","article-title":"Can uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery be predicted?","volume":"195","author":"G A Macones","year":"2006","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"30.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2008.03.039","article-title":"Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery","volume":"199","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2008","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1037\/1040-3590.12.1.19","article-title":"Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis","volume":"12","author":"W M Grove","year":"2000","journal-title":"Psychol Assess"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1059","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000001083","article-title":"Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term","volume":"126","author":"M C Tolcher","year":"2015","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"254.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2017.11.603","article-title":"A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix","volume":"218","author":"L D Levine","year":"2018","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref32","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"559","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003696","article-title":"Risk calculator to predict cesarean delivery among women undergoing induction of labor","volume":"135","author":"R M Rossi","year":"2020","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e31","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0037-1599129","article-title":"Validation of a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery reveals unexpected success in a diverse american population","volume":"7","author":"M M Maykin","year":"2017","journal-title":"AJP Rep"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref34","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S530","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.11.832","article-title":"Validity of the MFMU antenatal VBAC \u2018calculator\u2019 in the contemporary labor management era","volume":"220","author":"W M Perez","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"}],"container-title":["American Journal of Perinatology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.thieme-connect.de\/products\/ejournals\/pdf\/10.1055\/a-1960-2797.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,12]],"date-time":"2023-04-12T12:56:41Z","timestamp":1681304201000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.thieme-connect.de\/DOI\/DOI?10.1055\/a-1960-2797"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,13]]},"references-count":31,"journal-issue":{"issue":"06","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,3]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,4]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/a-1960-2797","archive":["Portico","CLOCKSS"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0735-1631","1098-8785"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0735-1631","type":"print"},{"value":"1098-8785","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published-other":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,13]]},"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,13]]}}}