VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Alves, João
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Vilhena, Cristina, Tomás, Cláudia, Antunes, Isabel Lobo, Metello, José, Natário, Isabel, Puga, Marco, Casal, Ester
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/20826
Resumo: Sem PDF
id RCAP_f1f6f7250ecc8129917328312b5e6426
oai_identifier_str oai:run.unl.pt:10362/20826
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous LaborSem PDFOBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of vaginal birth in women attempting vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC) through labour induction with dinoprostone versus a trial of spontaneous labour. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective cohort study in a tertiary care hospital of women with one prior caesarean delivery. Women who attempted VBAC with labour induction with dinoprostone were compared with women undergoing spontaneous labour. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between VBAC success and labour induction taking into account confounding variables. Both maternal and neonatal safety were studied to find a difference between the group with spontaneous labour versus the group labour induction. RESULTS: A total of 1076 women in the cohort attempted VBAC (649 with spontaneous labour and 427 with induced labour). Women who were given a trial of spontaneous labour were more likely to have a successful VBAC (70.3% compared with 48.7%, odds ratio (OR) 2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93–3.21). If women have had a previous vaginal delivery they were more likely to have a successful VBAC, OR of 2.98, 95% CI 2.08-4.27. The risk of uterine rupture (0.5% for induced labour compared with 0.6% for spontaneous labour) or overall morbidity (2.7% compared with 2.1%) was not significantly increased in the women with labour induction. CONCLUSION: Women with a previous caesarean section have a lower VBAC rate with labour induction versus spontaneous labour. If they have a previous vaginal delivery, the chance of a vaginal delivery increases. Overall, vaginal birth is safe and effective in women with one caesarean section with labour induction with dinoprostone.DM - Departamento de MatemáticaRUNAlves, JoãoVilhena, CristinaTomás, CláudiaAntunes, Isabel LoboMetello, JoséNatário, IsabelPuga, MarcoCasal, Ester2017-05-30T14:01:54Z20152015-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/20826eng1528-8439PURE: 1421200https://doi.org/10.5580/IJGO.28478info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-03-11T04:06:42Zoai:run.unl.pt:10362/20826Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T03:26:29.962202Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
title VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
spellingShingle VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
Alves, João
title_short VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
title_full VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
title_fullStr VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
title_full_unstemmed VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
title_sort VBAC In Women Undergoing IOL With Dinoprostone Versus Spontaneous Labor
author Alves, João
author_facet Alves, João
Vilhena, Cristina
Tomás, Cláudia
Antunes, Isabel Lobo
Metello, José
Natário, Isabel
Puga, Marco
Casal, Ester
author_role author
author2 Vilhena, Cristina
Tomás, Cláudia
Antunes, Isabel Lobo
Metello, José
Natário, Isabel
Puga, Marco
Casal, Ester
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv DM - Departamento de Matemática
RUN
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Alves, João
Vilhena, Cristina
Tomás, Cláudia
Antunes, Isabel Lobo
Metello, José
Natário, Isabel
Puga, Marco
Casal, Ester
description Sem PDF
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
2017-05-30T14:01:54Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10362/20826
url http://hdl.handle.net/10362/20826
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1528-8439
PURE: 1421200
https://doi.org/10.5580/IJGO.28478
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137894774865920

Registros relacionados