Category Archives: VBAC

Why I’m feeling conflicted about AB 1306: CNM Physician Supervision vs. Home VBAC Hurdle

Update September 2, 2016

This bill was not passed.

Update August 25, 2016 1:32pm

The Senate floor vote for this bill has been postponed until Monday.


Update August 25, 2016 9:57am

For those of you watching this issue closely, this bill will be up for a Senate floor vote today. You can watch the California Senate live here.


Update August 24, 2016 10:06pm

The Senate floor vote for AB 1306 is scheduled to happen tomorrow, August 25th. (Click here to see the current status of the bill.)

The California capital opens at 9am, so if you haven’t already called your state Senator to tell them how you feel about AB 1306, tomorrow is the time.

All you have to say is, “I’m calling to voice my support of [or opposition to] AB 1306.”

Click here to receive a reminder email tomorrow at 9am.

All my thoughts on AB 1306 can be found below.


Update August 24, 2016 11:06am 

I have thought about AB 1306 for so many hours since I initially opposed it last Friday and I’m feeling really conflicted about it.  Let me share with you why.

Removing physician supervision will improve the ability of CNMs to practice autonomously including offering VBAC in the hospital setting (where hospital policy permits) and in birth centers (provided the CNM opts to offer VBAC). This could be a good thing for VBAC families and a great thing for all the other people CNMs serve.

And so it’s really tough because it could negatively impact the small number of women who plan home VBACs by requiring them to have a VBAC consult with an OB.

So, what is the right decision?

Support this bill so CNMs can have a greater reach?

Or oppose this bill because of this requirement?

My mission is to increase access to VBAC in all birth settings. Is it enough that this may increase hospital VBAC access – where most women birth – as well as birth center VBAC while possibly making home VBAC harder to achieve?

Here is the specific language from AB 1306 (Sec 6, 2746.5(B)):

If a woman wants a home VBAC and she ‘still desires to be a client of the certified nurse-midwife, the certified nurse-midwife shall provide the woman with a referral for an examination by a physician and surgeon trained in obstetrics and gynecology. A certified nurse-midwife may assist the woman in pregnancy and childbirth only if an examination by a physician and surgeon trained in obstetrics and gynecology is obtained and, based upon review of the client’s medical file, the certified nurse-midwife determines that the risk factors presented by the woman’s condition do not increase the woman’s risk beyond that of a normal, low-risk pregnancy and birth. The certified nurse-midwife may continue care of the client during a reasonable interval between the referral and the initial appointment with the physician and surgeon.’

This is why I’m conflicted:

44% of CA hospitals outright ban it. They do not “allow” their physicians to attend VBAC. What happens if those hospitals decide, they will not “allow” their physicians to even consult with families seeking out-of-hospital (OOH) VBAC? Or physicians say that their malpractice insurance will not “allow” them to consult with OOH VBAC families? Where does that leave OOH VBAC families?

Right now, the VBAC rate in the state of California is only 9%. This bill could increase VBAC access in birth centers and hospitals assuming that hospital policy “allows” CNMs to attend VBAC.

As it stands, 91% of California families have repeat cesareans and the overwhelming majority of those are due to VBAC bans, misinformation and being unable to find a supportive provider.

But here’s the tough part: OBs who are staunch supporters of VBAC have told me that they would never have a consultation with a woman planning a home VBAC because they don’t, in any way, want to be connected with something that could be construed as validating, okaying, or approving home VBAC.

Even though the legislation isn’t asking OBs to approve of home VBAC, that is what OBs see. And the overwhelming majority of OBs – who support hospital VBAC and may even philosophically agree with OOH VBAC – would not participate in VBAC consults for women planning home VBACs.

This is mitigated a bit by the fact that women can have these consults via a chart review and Skype. So regardless of where they live in the state, they could reach the handful of OBs willing to participate in a VBAC consult.

But having the VBAC consult in the legislation means that as OB allies die, or as hospital policies tighten, or malpractice insurance fears increase, the legislation holds firm. That is not a good thing. It leaves women standing out in the cold on their own. And forces them to go back to the hospital system, where, as we see from the current California VBAC rates, they will likely acquiesce to a cesarean or be forced into a cesarean per hospital policy that is presented as equivalent to law unless CNMs are able to measurably increase VBAC access in the hospital setting.

CNMs can tell families that the prior cesarean is “unlikely to impact this pregnancy” and then talk about the unlikely though possibly dire consequences if a uterine rupture occurs out of the hospital. And talk about transfer protocols as you would with any other patient. Women don’t need to talk to an OB in order to get that information.

So while this bill does include home VBAC in the language, access to home VBAC is assuming that the pregnant person can find a OB who is willing to provide them with this consult. While the option is there, the ability to exercise that option is based on the kindness and ethics of a few OBs. And when they are gone, or the climate changes, women bare the brunt of their absence.

A VBAC consult does not make pregnancies safer. It will not improve outcomes. It only undermines the professional training of CNMs and the autonomy of patients.

And all the while, this bill also removes physician supervision from CNMs. And that is a very good thing.

So, do we say to home VBAC families, “Best of luck to you?” and, “Removing physician supervision for CNMs is worth this trade?” and then hope and pray that these women can find an OB willing to provide them with this consult?

I’m sharing with you the pros and cons as I see them so you can make your own decision.

It’s not too late to contact your state Senator and tell them, “I’m calling to voice my support of [or opposition to] AB 1306.”

Does your state require families planning home VBACs to have a consultation with an obstetrician? If yes, I’d like to ask you a few short questions.


Update Friday August 19, 2016 10:21pm

Thank you to those that contacted your Assembly Member today! The deadline to amend the bill to exclude the VBAC consult was Friday.

The next step is to oppose the Senate floor vote which is expected to happen next week (the week of Aug 22nd).

Please contact your state Senator on Monday, August 22nd, and tell them, “I’m calling to voice my opposition to AB 1306.” That’s it.

If you click the yellow button below, I’ll send you a reminder email Monday morning when the capital opens at 9am.

Be notified when legislation threatens VBAC access!


August 18, 2016 by Jen Kamel

Yesterday I was in Sacramento attending the Midwifery Advisory Council meeting at the California Medical Board.

At that meeting, I learned about a piece of legislation that will decrease VBAC access in California.

TODAY IS THE LAST DAY TO VOICE YOUR OPINION!

If access to midwifery care for women who have had a prior cesarean section is important to you, then please register your opposition to AB 1306 unless amended to exclude VBAC consult with your Assembly Member or with it’s author – Assembly Member Autumn Burke.

AB 1306 would remove physician supervision for Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs).

This is a good thing.

But here’s the bad part: it puts into statute (law) a requirement that any woman seeking to deliver with a CNM outside a hospital AND who has had a prior cesarean delivery must first have a consultation with a physician (AB1306 Sec 6, 2746.5(B)).

Be notified when legislation threatens VBAC access!

It is this requirement for consultation that is at issue for the following reasons:

• All women are capable of determining for themselves and their families, together with their midwife or health care provider, what measure of risk is appropriate for them. Requiring a physician consultation before they are able to continue midwifery care undermines patient autonomy.

• Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) are highly trained health care professionals. They are quite able to determine, together with their client, when a particular woman would benefit from a consultation with a physician.

Requiring a physician consultation for every woman with a prior cesarean delivery does nothing to increase her safety in the current pregnancy. There is no way for a physician (or anyone else) to predict which pregnant woman is going to have difficulty with her current birth because she had a cesarean delivery in a prior pregnancy.

Requiring a physician consultation puts an increased burden on women. It may delay prenatal care, a known risk factor for prematurity, low birth weight and poor outcomes. It is costly and time consuming in the absence of evidence for benefit.

While collaboration between care providers is the ideal, in many areas of California midwife/physician collaboration is not possible because there are no physicians willing to form this relationship. This reduces access to midwifery care and in many instances it also reduces access to successful vaginal birth after a prior cesarean.

Putting precise wording, regarding any medical condition, into statute disallows health care providers the use of the most recent research when helping clients make decisions regarding their care. Putting into law, the requirement for a physician consultation when a woman has had a prior cesarean delivery, will not allow women and their midwives to take into account the growing body of evidence surrounding the practice of a trial of labor after a previous cesarean (TOLAC), prior to determining the need for a physician consultation.

I fully support CNMs and the important care that they provide to California families. But this bill is problematic because of how it will impact VBAC access for those who want an out-of-hospital VBAC with a CNM.

Once again, call your Assembly Member or AB 1306’s author – Assembly Member Autumn Burke – TODAY and say, “I’m calling to voice my opposition to AB 1306 unless amended to exclude VBAC consult.” That’s it.

If you want to say more, you can add, “…because it restricts a woman’s right to choose her care provider and mode of delivery.”

I already called my Assembly Member and it took me exactly 36 seconds.

I hope you do the same.

If you live outside of California, please leave a comment on the author’s Facebook page so others who are learning about the bill realize the implications it will have on VBAC access unless amended.

Be notified when legislation threatens VBAC access!

When you are the statistic: Uterine rupture loss

Above: “I donated my wedding dress to be made into gowns for deceased infants to be buried in. I had pictures done in my dress before I donated it. This is one of my favorites.” – Kaila Flory

Kaila Flory lost her baby to a uterine rupture eight months ago. She recently reached out to me and gave me permission to share her story and pictures of her son Beau.  She is currently raising money to purchase Cuddle Cots in Beau’s memory. Cuddle Cots are refrigerated bassinets that enable loss parents to spend more time with their child. While t-shirt sales end on April 22, 2016 at midnight EST, you can donate anytime. Even just $10 will get her closer to her goal. Buy a t-shirt and/or donate here.  Connect with her Facebook page here

Women who have had uterine ruptures and lost their babies have endured some of our greatest fears. But they are part of our community as well. When the VBAC Facts Community, a Facebook group, was open to the public, we welcomed and embraced the parents who joined us after their loss. Often they felt like they were no longer part of the birth community. They didn’t know where they fit in. They felt isolated and yet they wanted to share their story. We had many loss moms as members and many parents who were planning VBACs wanted to hear their stories.

What follows is Kaila’s story.

Kaila’s Flory’s first son was born by cesarean after being induced for intrauterine growth restriction. When she was 38 weeks and a few days pregnant with her second son, 26-year-old Kaila started having cramps around 1 a.m. “Luckily I had stayed with my dad, so I was not alone with my 3 year old. My husband was at Basic Training. Then a contraction came. Ok, I thought, this is real. It’s time. Then another came. It had only been like a minute or 2. Then severe pain came over my abdomen, and my face and limbs went numb.”

Her father called the paramedics and she was rushed to the hospital, where a STAT c-section was ordered. She nearly bled to death.

Beau-&-Kaila

“This is the only photo I have of myself holding him. I requested people to not take my photo, but I am so glad my best friend took this with her phone. THIS is what raw, real pain looks like. This is why I want people to have Infant Loss Awareness.”

She says:

While I wholeheartedly believe that women should be given the option for VBACs, I also believe women need to consider their child’s health as the most important in this situation. I would have loved to have 3 weeks of pain just to have my son in my arms. I know it is not my fault, and that they do not, normally, schedule a c-section until 39 weeks, but part of me still feels guilty.

When Kaila contacted me, my heart broke. I emailed her back:

Kaila,

Thank you so much for sharing your story with me and I am so sorry about your loss.

I want you to know that I hear you. I really hear you.

I talk quite a bit about how these small numbers represent real women and real babies and it doesn’t matter how small the risk is, if it happens to you, if you are that number, it’s devastating.

The difficulty is that there are serious risks both ways. With VBAC, we have uterine rupture. With repeat cesareans, we have accreta.

Accreta results in more maternal deaths, more maternal complications and comparable infant deaths and complications to uterine rupture. Accreta requires a more sophisticated response of which many hospitals are unable to offer which results in more deaths and complications. Many women are never told about the risks of accreta which prohibits them from making an informed decision. [View my sources and read more about accreta here.]

I discuss uterine rupture and accreta extensively in my workshops including how often it happens, variables that can impact the rate, and outcomes for mother and baby because there is so much confusion about where the risk lies and what could happen.

The other difficulty is that no can predict how an individual birth will play out. Will you be the one to have a uterine rupture? An accreta? And in either of these situations, will you be the one to lose your baby? Or will you have a safe VBAC or repeat cesarean with a healthy mom and baby? There are no guarantees in life and no crystal balls.

Some women who lose their babies to uterine rupture say, “Don’t plan VBACs.”

Some women who lose their babies to accreta say, “I wish I had access to VBAC.”

So the question is, if there are serious complications either way, who should make the decision on how to birth?

It always comes down to the mother.

Given the small chance of a bad outcome, women should have the option to decide what set of risks and benefits are tolerable to them. They should not be forced into cesareans or mislead into VBACs. This needs to be their decision based on information. Part of the reason why I started VBAC Facts is that I, as a consumer, wanted more information and it wasn’t easy for me to find.

To bring it full circle, I hear you.

Have you had the opportunity to connect with other loss moms? I have compiled a resource page here.

I know it may ring hollow, but you are not to blame. Sometimes things happen that we cannot predict and that are outside of our control and I’m so very sorry you were the statistic.

I’ll keep you in my heart Kaila. <3

Warmly,

Jen

Kaila replied:

I will be honest with you, my doctor did not mention accreta once. Wow that is scary too. 🙁 I don’t wish that or a rupture on anyone. Thank you so much for responding to me. And thank you for advising women on what to do after a C-section. If you ever want to use my story, please let me know. I would be happy to share it for statistic purposes. Thanks so much! 🙂

So I’m sharing Kaila’s story today. As I said in my email to her, I talk about the risks of uterine rupture and accreta in my workshops because they are both real risks on either side of the equation. Sadly, a small number of people will experience this reality, and they deserve our support and compassion.

I do hope you will support Kaila’s Cuddle Cots fundraiser. Even just $10 will get her closer to her goal. Donate here. Connect with her Facebook page here.

Learn more about Infant Loss Awareness here.

Calling women who plan home VBACs “stupid” misses the point

I’m in an online group for labor & delivery nurses where the discussion of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) at home came up. While some understood the massive VBAC barriers many women face, others simply said, “Find a hospital that supports VBAC.”

I left a late-night comment stating that “finding another hospital that supports VBAC” is just not a reality in many areas of the country. It’s literally not possible. Not even in the highly populated state of California. (Barger, 2013)

I also suggested rather than calling women stupid or debating the validity of the decision to have a home VBAC​, we should consider why women make this decision.

First, it is not one they take lightly.  Every parent wants a safe, healthy birth for themselves and their baby. It takes more research, work, and energy to plan a home VBAC—and it usually means thousands of out-of-pocket dollars up front. It is most certainly not the easy way out.

Women choose out-of-hospital birth due to disrespectful and abusive care, including obstetric violence and forced/coerced cesareans, delivered by hospitals. Parents also choose out-of-hospital VBAC due to VBAC bans and restrictive VBAC policies (i.e., repeat CS scheduled at 39 weeks, labor can only last 12 hours, baby must weigh less than _____, no induction/ augmentation, etc.).

These are serious issues:

Disrespectful care.

Abusive care.

Obstetric violence.

Forced/coerced cesareans.

VBAC bans.

Restrictive VBAC policies.

And this isn’t a comprehensive list of why women choose home VBAC, but it’s the ones that many nurses, providers, and administrators have control over.

In my comment on the nurses’ group, I posted the link to my California Medical Board testimony addressing these barriers and the resulting importance of access to out-of-hospital VBAC.​

We shouldn’t be asking why women are so stupid and reckless.  We should be asking:

“What can we do to make women feel safe coming to our hospital to give birth?”

And:

“How can we increase access to VBAC in all hospital settings?”

I also suggested that coming from a place of judgment on this option may very well color the tone of their communication. Even if they’re not using the words “stupid” or “reckless,” parents will pick up on what’s not being said. That’s not good for the provider-patient relationship. People want to be heard, understood, and respected. All of us.

It’s important to hear parents when they talk about their past hospital experiences, without being defensive.

Hear them and see it as an opportunity to make a change. Consider, how can you make a difference in your practice and facility?

If this were any other business, we would probably say that this is a services and marketing problem.

If you have a restaurant, and you start to lose customers to a competitor, you figure out why your customers are leaving and appeal to that.

You don’t slam the other restaurant.

You don’t call your customers stupid because someone else is offering a product that they like better.

Even if you would never personally eat there, that other restaurant is offering something that people want. And they are leaving your restaurant to get it.

So, find out what that thing is and change it.

Yes, I said all that in this nurses’ group.  The next morning, I checked to see how my comments were taken, because I know from experience that not everyone wants to hear or acknowledge the realities I outlined.

I smiled to see that the conversation had remained respectful, even from some folks who disagreed with me.  There was no name calling. No personal attacks.  My comments even had a couple likes!

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. And I think it’s so important to consider that many women around the country do not have access to respectful care in a facility that supports VBAC.

What are some other reasons that women choose out-of-hospital birth? Leave your comment below.

Learn more:

Askins, L., & Pascucci, C. (n.d.). Retrieved from Exposing the Silence Project: http://www.exposingthesilenceproject.com/

Barger, M. K., Dunn, T. J., Bearman, S., DeLain, M., & Gates, E. (2013). A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636061/pdf/1471-2393-13-83.pdf

Kamel, J. (2014, Dec 17). What I told the California Medical Board about home VBAC. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2014/12/17/what-i-told-medical-board-home-vbac-part-1/

Kamel, J. (2016, Jan 6). “No one can force you to have a cesarean” is false. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2016/01/06/no-force-cesarean-false/

Pascucci, C. (2014, Feb 17). Home Birth vs. Hospital Birth: YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT, PEOPLE. Retrieved from Improving Birth: http://improvingbirth.org/2014/02/versus/

 

“Hospitals offering VBAC are required to have 24/7 anesthesia” is false

In 2010, I was sitting next to an OB/GYN during a lunch break at the National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference. She was telling me about how she had worked at a rural hospital, without 24/7 anesthesia, that offered vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).

I asked her what they did in the event of an emergency. “I perform an emergency cesarean under local anesthetic,” she plainly stated. She explained how you inject the anesthetic along the intended incision line, cut and then inject the next layer and cut, all the way down until you get to the baby.

It certainly wasn’t ideal, but it was how her small facility was able to support VBAC while responding to those uncommon, but inevitable, complications that require immediate surgical delivery.

CLICK to share on Facebook.

CLICK to share on Facebook.

They had everything a hospital needs to offer VBAC: a supportive policy, supportive providers, and motivation to make VBAC available at their hospital.

From a public health standpoint, it’s to our benefit to offer VBAC because repeat cesareans increase the rate of accreta in future pregnancies as well as hysterectomy and excessive bleeding.

And rural hospitals are NOT capable of managing an accreta because it requires far more than (local) anesthesia and a surgeon. (Read more on how morbidity, mortality, and ideal response differs between uterine rupture & accreta.)

When I hear of smaller, rural hospitals telling women that they can’t offer VBAC because “ACOG requires” 24/7 anesthesia, I think of that OB/GYN and ACOG’s (2010) guidelines which state

Women and their physicians may still make a plan for a TOLAC [trial of labor after cesarean] in situations where there may not be “immediately available” staff to handle emergencies, but it requires a thorough discussion of the local health care system, the available resources, and the potential for incremental risk.

So, yes, it is possible and reasonable to offer VBAC without 24/7 anesthesia.

It is ideal? No.

But do you know what else is not ideal?

It’s not ideal to have VBAC bans mandating repeat cesareans that expose women to the increasing risks of surgical birth across the board as a matter of policy—risks that can be far more serious and life-threatening than the risks of VBAC.

It’s not ideal to have any vaginal delivery at a hospital that doesn’t offer 24/7 anesthesia, because any woman giving birth may require emergency surgery.

It’s not ideal to have a cesarean (scheduled or emergency) at a hospital that doesn’t have a blood bank.

It’s not ideal nor realistic to have every pregnant woman drive hours in labor to larger hospitals that offer blood banks, 24/7 anesthesia, and various obstetric sub-specialties for planned VBAC.

It’s not ideal to have state troopers attending roadside births for some of those women.

And it’s deadly for rural hospitals to be managing a surprise accreta.

So, we have to come up with better options.

We can’t continue to pretend that banning VBAC is in the best interest of families.  It does not serve our communities in the long run because it simply exposes the ones we love to a more serious complication in future pregnancies.

Learning how to perform a cesarean under local anesthetic makes hospitals—regardless of geography—safer places to give birth. It enables them to perform cesareans more quickly when they don’t have an anesthesiologist in the hospital but the baby needs to be born NOW.

This could make a huge difference in the outcomes for any laboring mom—VBAC or non-VBAC—as well as her baby.

Learn more about VBAC barriers and watch me debunk the four reasons why hospitals ban VBAC in my workshop, “The Truth About VBAC.”

Does your rural hospital offer VBAC or not?

Does your urban or suburban hospital offer VBAC or not?

Leave a comment below!

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116 (2), 450-463,http://m.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Practice_Bulletins/Committee_on_Practice_Bulletins_Obstetrics/Vaginal_Birth_After_Previous_Cesarean_Delivery

Kamel, J. (2015, April 2). Too Bad We Can’t Just “Ban” Accreta – The Downstream Consequences of VBAC Bans. Retrieved from Science & Sensibility: http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/placenta-accreta-vbac-ban/

Kamel, J. (2010, July 22). VBAC ban rationale is irrational. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2010/07/22/vbac-ban-rationale-is-irrational/

Komorowski, J. (2010, Oct 11). A Woman’s Guide to VBAC: Putting Uterine Rupture into Perspective. Retrieved from Giving Birth with Confidence: http://www.givingbirthwithconfidence.org/p/bl/ar/blogaid=181

“No one can force you to have a cesarean” is false

Update: Since this article was originally published, it has been updated with several new resources (listed at the bottom) as well as a video.

 

hospital-bed

 

“No one can force you to have a cesarean.” I see this all the time in message boards.

Don’t worry about

… the VBAC ban

…your unsupportive provider

… your provider’s 40 week deadline

… [insert other VBAC barrier here]

no one can force you to have a cesarean.

That’s just not true.

Let’s start with what is ethical and legal: Yes, no one can legally force you to have a cesarean.

ACOG even says in their latest VBAC guidelines that “restrictive VBAC policies should not be used to force women to undergo a repeat cesarean delivery against their will.” So even if your facility has a VBAC ban, they still cannot force you to have surgery… legally or ethically.

But then you have reality: It happens all the time, but it may look different than you expect.

It’s often NOT a woman screaming “I do not consent” as she is wheeled into the OR, though that has happened.

It’s through lies. It’s through fear.

“The risk of uterine rupture is 25%.”

“Do you want a healthy baby or a birth experience?”

“Planning a VBAC is like running across a busy freeway.”

Hospital policy and provider preference are presented as superseding the woman’s right to decline surgery.

“No one attends VBAC here.”

“It’s against our policy.”

“We don’t allow VBACs.”

Or unreasonable timelines are assigned giving the woman the illusion of choice.

“You have to go into labor by 39 weeks.”

“Your labor can’t be longer than 12 hours.”

“You have to dilate at least 1 centimeter per hour.”

Or it can be a slow process where a seemingly once supportive provider quietly withdraws support exchanging words of encouragement with caution. Dr. Brad Bootstaylor, an Atlanta based OBGYN, describes how this can unfold at 4:00 in this video after a woman describes her experience:

Or, if the birthing parents don’t listen, it can escalate to calling social services, ordering a psychiatric evaluation, or even getting a court order for a forced cesarean.

It can be as simple as, “Your baby is distress.” How do you know if this is true or not? Are you willing to take that risk?

Some people suggest that parents should learn how to interpret fetal heart tones so they can evaluate their baby’s status. But I think this is a wholly unreasonable expectation for non-medical professionals, especially when one is in labor. It is as much an art as it is a science.

In short, coercion frequently isn’t by physical force. It’s through manipulation. This is why it’s worth your time and effort to search for a supportive provider who you trust to attend your birth.

Don’t just think, “Well, I can hire anyone and simply refuse.”

Sometimes it’s not that simple as Rinat Dray, was forced to have a cesarean, and Kimberly Turbin, who received a 12-cut episiotomy while yelling “Do not cut me,” know all too well.

And this is why understanding the complete picture is important. It’s not enough to ponder how things are “supposed to be” or how we want them to be, but how they actually are. The difference between perception and reality is huge. Learn more in my online workshop, “The Truth About VBAC.”

Have you seen a situation like described above play out? Share it in the comment section.

Continue the conversation & share on Facebook here:

There is a huge difference between what is legal, what is ethical, and what actually happens. #forcedcesareans #ethicalvsreality #vbacfacts

Posted by www.VBACFACTS.com on Wednesday, January 6, 2016

 

Learn more:

ACLU. (n.d.). Coercive and punitive governmental responses womens conduct during pregnancy. Retrieved from ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/coercive-and-punitive-governmental-responses-womens-conduct-during-pregnancy

Cantor, J. D. (2012, Jun 14). Court-Ordered Care — A Complication of Pregnancy to Avoid. New England Journal of Medicine, 366, 2237-2240. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1203742?

Hartocollis, A. (2014, May 16). Mother accuses doctors of forcing a c-section and files suit. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://nytimes.com/2014/05/17/nyregion/mother-accuses-doctors-of-forcing-a-c-section-and-files-suit.html?referrer=&_r=0

Human Rights in Childbirth. (2015, Jan 14). Rinat Dray is not alone, Part 1. Retrieved from Human Rights in Childbirth: http://www.humanrightsinchildbirth.org/amicusbriefpart1/

International Cesarean Awareness Network. (n.d.). Your right to refuse: What to do if your hospital has “banned” VBAC. Retrieved from Feminist Women’s Health Center: http://www.fwhc.org/health/pdf_about_vbac.pdf

Jacobson, J. (2014, Jul 25). Florida hospital demands woman undergo forced c-section. Retrieved from RH Reality Check: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/07/25/florida-hospital-demands-woman-undergo-forced-c-section/

Kamel, J. (2012, Mar 2). Options for a mom who will be ‘forced’ to have a cesarean. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/03/02/options-mom-forced-repeat-cs/

Maryland Families for Safe Birth. (2015, Jan 28). The truth about VBAC: Maryland families need access. Retrieved from YouTube: https://youtu.be/C5nymk3IGqE

Paltrow, L. M., & Flavin, J. (2013, April). Arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for women’s legal status and public health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 38(2), 299-343. Retrieved from http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/early/2013/01/15/03616878-1966324.full.pdf+html

Pascucci, C. (2015, Jun 4). Press Release: Woman charges OB with assault & battery for forced episiotomy. Retrieved from Improving Birth: http://improvingbirth.org/2015/06/preview-woman-charges-ob-with-assault-battery-for-forced-episiotomy/

Shoulder pain is a symptom of uterine rupture

I’ve written before about the symptoms of uterine rupture as well as how having an epidural does not interfere with the diagnosis of uterine rupture.

The focus of this Quick Fact is how shoulder pain can be a symptom of uterine rupture.

How can an uterine rupture cause shoulder pain?

Image Source: http://wesleytodd.blogspot.com/2013/10/ablation-for-recurring-af-i.html

Image Source: http://wesleytodd.blogspot.com/2013/10/ablation-for-recurring-af-i.html

Internal bleeding from uterine rupture can cause referred pain through the phrenic nerve which can present in the shoulder.

Shoulder pain is sometimes not included in lists of uterine rupture symptoms, but I have seen it cited multiple places (see below) and have had conversations with OBs, nurses, and anesthesiologists who have experienced uterine ruptures with shoulder pain.

I’m also aware of two cases where the uterine rupture diagnosis was delayed because staff was not familiar with the incidence of referred pain.

Anyone who works with birthing women should be aware of the symptoms of uterine rupture including referred pain.

Please note that not every uterine rupture causes shoulder pain and not all shoulder pain is a symptom of uterine rupture.

Where can you learn more?

I discuss uterine rupture – factors, symptoms, rates, and outcomes – at great lengths in my online workshop, “The Truth About VBAC: History, Politics, & Stats

The following quotes addressing shoulder pain & uterine rupture are from case studies and textbooks. Want more? Google uterine rupture referred pain or uterine rupture shoulder pain.

“APH [brisk antepartum haemorrhage], as in this case, often indicates uterine rupture and may occur in association with shoulder tip pain due to haemoperitoneum.” (Navaratnam, 2011)

“Management of uterine rupture depends on prompt detection and diagnosis. The classic signs (sudden tearing uterine pain, vaginal haemorrhage, cessation of uterine contractions, regression of the fetus) have been shown to be unreliable and frequently absent but any of the following should alert suspicion… Chest or shoulder tip pain and sudden shortness of breath.” (Payne, 2015)

“Signs and symptoms of uterine rupture may include… referred pain in the shoulder (with epidural anesthesia)” (Murry, 2007 p.283)

“Jaw, neck, or shoulder pain can be referred pain from a uterine rupture.” (Murry, 2007, p.76)

“Shoulder pain (Kehr’s sign) is a valuable sign of intraperitoneal blood in subdiaphragmatic region. Even a small amount of blood can cause this symptom, but it is important to realize that it may be 24 h or longer after the bleeding has occurred before blood will track up under the diaphragm, and some cases of acute massive intraperitoneal bleeding may not initially have shoulder pain.” (Augustin, 2014, p. 512)

“Shoulder tip pain may be experienced if significant haemoperitoneum is present, due to irritation of the diaphragm (i.e. referred pain through phrenic nerve).” (Baker, 2015, p.373)

References

Augustin, G. (2014). Acute abdomen during pregnancy. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=mq8pBAAAQBAJ

Baker, P. N., McEwan, A. S., Arulkumaran, S., Datta, S. T., Mahmood, T. A., Reid, F., . . . Aiken, C. (2015). Obstetrics: Prepare for the MRCOG: Key articles from the Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine journal. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=DcqqCgAAQBAJ

Murray, M. (2007). Antepartal and intrapartal fetal monitor. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=_4jYJUGG56cC

Murray, M., & Huelsmann, G. (2008). Labor and delivery nursing: Guide to evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=q22jEEZo7rwC

Navaratnam, K., Ulaganathan, P., Akhtar, M. A., Sharma, S. D., & Davies, M. G. (2011). Posterior uterine rupture causing fetal expulsion into the abdominal cavity: A rare case of neonatal survival. Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/criog/2011/426127/

Payne, J. (Ed.). (2015, Mar 17). Uterine rupture. Retrieved from Patient: http://patient.info/doctor/Uterine-Rupture

Applying medical research to clincial realities

Isabel recently asked over on Uterine rupture rates after 40 weeks:

“I wonder however if there are studies that compare the method of induction. My Doula said that the increase rates of uterine/ scar rupture was due to using high dosages of Pitocin, but now the induction uses lower dosages and administered at longer intervals. Do you know something about this?
Thank you”

 

Isabel,

Great question.

A few factors to consider:

1. Induction protocols can vary by provider, including some providers who don’t induced planned VBACs at all.
2. Induction guidelines can vary by hospital.
3. Women can react to the same drug/dose differently.
4. Some studies do compare the uterine rupture rates among spontaneous, induced, and augmented planned VBACs.

Medical studies on induction are only relevant to your situation if your provider follows the same protocol outlined in the study. However induction protocols are often not spelled out in detail unless that is the focus of the study.

When reading medical research, make special note of the sample size. We need ample participants in order to accurately capture and report the incidence of uncommon events such as uterine rupture. I typically like to see at least 3,000.  

Also remember that it’s ideal to have a experimental group (who receives the induction protocol) and a control group (who does not receive the induction protocol) in order to measure the difference in outcomes, such as fetal distress, uterine rupture, hemorrhage, cesarean hysterectomy, etc. Ideally, we would have a couple thousand, at least, in the experimental and control group.

In terms of the trend that induction now uses lower dosages and is administered at longer intervals, that may be true in some practices, but I would always confirm and not assume.

Anecdotally, I have heard a wide range of induction protocols reported just as research has identified similar variations among cesarean and episiotomy rates that are not linked to medical indication. This California Healthcare Foundation infographic clearly illustrates how hospitals differ:

Tale of Two Births

CLICK to share on Facebook

In terms of specific studies comparing the method of induction, the first resource that comes to mind is the Guise 2010 Evidence Report.

Search for the word Cytotec and there is a discussion comparing rates of rupture by Pitocin, prostaglandins, and Cytotec.

Pitocin is associated with the lowest rate of rupture among the chemical agents which is likely why ACOG (2010) recommends Pitocin and/or Foley catheter induction in planned VBACs when a medical indication presents. (Learn more about what the Pitocin insert actually says.)

There may be more recent studies out there. Google Scholar is a good place to start. You can often obtain the full texts of medical studies at your local library, university, or graduate school.

Also, if you subscribe to Evidence Based Birth’s newsletter, she will email you a crash course on how to find good evidence.

I hope this helps!

Jen

What is the induction protocol at your facility? Does it differ for those with a prior cesarean? Let me know in the comment section.

____________________

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116 (2), 450-463, http://dhmh.maryland.gov/midwives/Documents/ACOG%20VBAC.pdf

California Healthcare Foundation. (2014, Nov). A Tale of Two Births: High- and Low-Performing Hospitals on Maternity Measures in California. Retrieved from California Healthcare Foundation: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2014/11/tale-two-births

Guise, J.-M., Eden, K., Emeis, C., Denman, M., Marshall, N., Fu, R., . . . McDonagh, M. (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44571/

Friedman, A. M., Ananth, C. V., Prendergast, E., Alton, M. E., & Wright, J. D. (2015). Variation in and factors associated with use of episiotomy. JAMA, 313(2), 197-199. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2089343

Kozhimannil, K. B., Arcaya, M. C., & Subramanian, S. V. (2014). Maternal Clinical Diagnoses and Hospital Variation in the Risk of Cesarean Delivery: Analyses of a National US Hospital Discharge Database. PLoS Med, 11(10). Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001745

New Research on Home Birth with an Obstetrician

male-doctor-thumbs-up-squareOver the last five years Dr. Stuart Fischbein, a Southern California obstetrician, has attended 135 home births. These deliveries included VBACs, vaginal breech and vaginal twin deliveries.

A summary of these births has been recently published.

Here are some highlights along with a few additional resources I compiled where you can learn more.

On patient selection:

“This model was not limited by strict protocols and allowed for guidelines to be merely guidelines. Women over 35, VBAC, breech and twin pregnancies were not excluded from this series simply because those labels existed. Each client was evaluated on her own merits and the comfort of the practitioner.”

On informed choice and the limitations of hospital birth:

“Home birth is not for everyone but informed choice is. The patronizing statement, “home delivery is for pizza”, is unprofessional and has no place in the legitimate discussion. Some suggest making hospital birth more homelike. While this may be a beginning and deserves investigation, it fails to recognize the difficult balance between honoring normal undisturbed mammalian birth and the reality of the hospital model’s legal and economic concerns and policies.”

On collaborative care:

“Pregnant women deserve to know that midwifery style care, both in and out of hospital, is a reasonable choice. A collaborative model between obstetrician and midwife can provide better results than what is occurring today.”

On lost skills:

“It would be wise to put the constructive energy of our profession towards the training of future practitioners in the skills that make obstetricians truly specialists such as breech, twin and operative vaginal deliveries.”

On the growth of home birth:

“Home birth will continue to grow as educated women realize that the current hospital model has many flaws.”

On our ethical obligation to provide a smooth home to hospital transfer:

“Cooperation, respect and smooth transition from home to hospital honors the pregnant woman and is our ethical obligation.”

_____________

California Healthcare Foundation. (2014, Nov). A Tale of Two Births: High- and Low-Performing Hospitals on Maternity Measures in California. Retrieved from California Healthcare Foundation: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2014/11/tale-two-births

Fischbein SJ (2015) “Home Birth” with an Obstetrician: A Series of 135 Out of Hospital Births. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2(4): 00046. DOI: 10.15406/ogij.2015.02.00046. Retrieved from Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal: http://medcraveonline.com/OGIJ/OGIJ-02-00046.pdf

Johnson, N. (2010, Sept 11). For-profit hospitals performing more C-sections. Retrieved from California Watch: http://californiawatch.org/health-and-welfare/profit-hospitals-performing-more-c-sections-4069

Kennedy, M. (Director). (2015). Heads Up! The Disappearing Art of Vaginal Breech Delivery [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from http://www.informedpregnancy.com/#!heads-up/cef1

Klagholz, J., & Strunk, A. (2012). Overview of the 2012 ACOG Survey on Professional Liability. Retrieved from The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: http://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Professional-Liability/2012PLSurveyNational.pdf

What I told the California Medical Board about home VBAC

california state seal

A little backstory

Back in October, I attended my first Interested Parties Meeting held by the Medical Board of California regarding new midwifery regulations as required by AB1308. (Read more about AB1308 here and here.)  Up for discussion was which conditions or histories among women seeking a home birth with a Licensed Midwife should be required to obtain physician approval.  A prior cesarean was on the list of over 60 conditions or histories and home VBAC was the one subject that generated the most comment and discussion that day.

What does AB1308 mean in terms of home VBAC in California?

There has been a lot of confusion regarding what AB1308 means in terms of home VBAC in California. In an effort to clear things up, Constance Rock-Stillman, LM, CPM, President, California Association of Midwives said this on January 23, 2014:

AB 1308 went into effect on 1/1/14, but there is nothing in the new legislation that says we [CPM/LMs] cannot do VBACs. We can do VBACs. We just need to define in our regulations what preexisting conditions will require physician consultation. [Which is what the October 15 and December 15th Interested Party meetings were about.] Until the new regulations are written we should continue to follow our current regulations and they only require us to provide certain disclosures and informed consent to clients.

Please let the community know that if they want to have a say in whether or not VBACs with Ca LMs require a physician consultation, they should come to the Interested Parties meeting that the medical board will be holding and tell the board how they feel about it. The medical board is a consumer protection agency, so they need to hear what consumers want to be protected from.

We will let you know as soon as the meeting is scheduled.

[Ms. Rock-Stillman responds when questioned by those who have not been involved it the creation of this legislation yet insist this legislation removes the option of home VBAC entirely:]

I’m in my third year as president of the California Association of Midwives, and I’m a practicing licensed midwife. I have been at every Midwifery Advisory Counsel meeting, at the Capitol 30 times last year, I’ve spoken in legislative committee hearings, I’ve sat in weekly meetings with CAM’s legal counsel who worked side-by-side with us on the legislation, I’ve been in Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla’s boardroom with ACOG and at every one of the public events where Susan Bonilla promised that the LMs would still be able to do VBACs. So I think I qualify as a knowledgeable stakeholder in this issue. Yes, we intentionally left VBAC out of the list of prohibited conditions, so at this point there is no question as to whether or not we can do VBACs. The only part that’s in question is whether or not all VBACs will require physician consultation. Regulations that clarify under what circumstances physician consultation will be required will be written by the California Medical Board.  This is a process that takes time. Maybe even a year or more. The regulations that will be adopted will be based on evidence and input from all the stakeholders. This is why I think it’s so important that midwives and consumers be at the meetings to insure their voices get heard. At the last Interested Parties meeting that the medical board held, I asked what we were suppose to do until the new regulations are written and we were told that we should follow our current regulations and our community standards until new regulations are adopted.

Why I attended

VBAC-relic

Click to share on Facebook

My intention in attending the October 15, 2014 meeting was to amplify the voice of the consumer.  I think sometimes it’s difficult for OBs who attend VBACs, or for those who live in communities where they have access to hospitals that allow VBAC, to understand that not everyone lives in that world.

Some live in a world where if they want a VBAC in a hospital with a supportive midwife or doctor who takes their insurance, that means driving over 50 miles each way for prenatal care and delivery while they literally drive by other facilities that offer labor and delivery, but ban VBAC.  Or it means acquiescing to a unnecessary repeat cesarean whose risks compound with every surgery. Or it means planning an unassisted birth which comes with its own set of risks. This is a tremendous burden.

As VBAC and repeat cesarean both carry risks and benefits, and women are the ones who bear and endure those risks, they should be the ones who choose which mode of delivery is acceptable to them. I celebrate when women have access to supportive hospital-based practitioners.  But the reality is, many women do not enjoy that privilege and yet they still wish to avoid the serious complications that come with each cesarean surgery.

Who else was at the meeting?

Other people in the room included the Senior Staff Counsel of the Medical Board, an OB-GYN representing ACOG, an ACOG lobbyist, Constance Rock-Stillman along with many other CAM representatives and midwives, California Families for Access to Midwives, a few other consumers, and me. Senior Staff Counsel was tasked with writing these regulations and as the meeting progressed, items were reworded or removed from the list.

Below is the five minute presentation I prepared and presented to the Medical Board on October 15, 2014.  As there was a limited time to speak, I sent a follow-up letter to the Medical Board which goes into more depth. I’ll be posting that soon.

My statement

Today I’m speaking on behalf of consumers regarding the importance of out of hospital VBAC. I will be focusing on the impact of requiring women seeking out of hospital VBAC to obtain physician approval. This proves problematic because very few physicians, if any, would be willing to sign off on a home VBAC due to liability concerns. This would effectively cut off the option of a vaginal delivery for many women throughout our state.

I’m Jennifer Kamel, Founder of VBAC Facts, an organization which seeks to close the gap between what best practice guidelines and the evidence says about VBAC vs. repeat cesarean and what people generally believe.

Some people may think reducing access to out of hospital VBAC is not a big deal. But 44% of California hospitals ban VBAC (Barger, 2013) despite the American College of OBGYNs (2010) and the National Institutes of Health’s (2010) assertion that VBAC is a safe, reasonable, and appropriate option for most women.

ACOG (2010) is clear, “Respect for patient autonomy argues that even if a center does not offer TOLAC, such a policy cannot be used to force women to have cesarean delivery or to deny care to women in labor who decline to have a repeat cesarean delivery.” But this recommendation is simply ignored by many facilities.

Consumers report that many facilities provide incomplete or misleading informed consent, maintain a strict VBAC ban, and ignore ACOG’s comments denouncing forced cesareans.  These facilities led women to believe that a repeat cesarean is their only option.

As a Sacramento area OB-GYN resident recently shared, “There is the routine overplaying of the risks of VBAC, and failure to mention the risks of repeat cesareans, or that ACOG considers VBAC safe and reasonable.”

With the cloud of legal liability hanging over our heads, I wonder about the culpability of the many facilities whose hospital policies mandate repeat cesareans and forbid VBACs yet who are also unprepared to manage the serious consequences of multiple repeat cesarean sections including placenta accreta, cesarean hysterectomies, and hemorrhage. (Heller, 2013)

VBAC is successful about 75% of the time, most women are candidates (ACOG, 2010), about half of women are interested in the option (Declercq E. R., Sakala, Corry, Applebaum, & Herrlick, 2013), and VBAC results in lower maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the current delivery as well as in future deliveries. Yet, VBAC is simply not occurring in many communities throughout the state of California resulting in a 9% VBAC rate statewide. (State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2013)

According to Barger (2013), a study looking at the prevalence of VBAC bans in California, “Among the 56% [of hospitals that offer trial of labor after cesarean or TOLAC], the median VBAC rate was 10.8% (range 0-37.3%)…According to the nurses surveyed, we found that about half of hospitals with continuous anesthesia coverage did not offer TOLAC, not because of an explicit hospital policy against it, but because physicians were unwilling to stay in the hospital with a woman attempting TOLAC.”  So even in facilities that offered VBAC, attaining one and avoiding surgery can be elusive.

It is within this climate that women choose out-of-hospital VBAC. For many women in the state, VBAC is simply not a viable option at their local facility. Barger (2013) found that “The mean distance from a non-TOLAC to a TOLAC hospital was 37 mi. [as the crow flies] with 25% of non-TOLAC hospitals more than 51 mi. from the closest TOLAC hospital. In 2012, 139 hospitals offered TOLAC, [which was] 16.6% fewer than in 2007.” So the trend is moving towards fewer hospitals offering VBAC.

For some women traveling to a hospital that offers VBAC and accepts their insurance is a huge burden consisting of coordinating work and school schedules, vacation and sick time, and the cost of travel and child care. We do not want to be in a position where state troopers are attending births on the side of the road.

As Dr. Elliott Main (2013), Medical Director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC), has stressed, “In California, we are seeing a lot of hysterectomies, accretas, and significant blood loss due to multiple prior cesareans. Probably the biggest risk of the first cesarean is the repeat cesarean.”

Women should not feel like home VBAC is their only option, but for too many women their choice is limited to home VBAC or repeat cesarean. If a hospital VBAC is not a possibility and the choice of out-of-hospital birth is removed, that essentially forces women into either unwanted and unneeded repeat cesarean surgery, and the increasing risks that come with multiple prior cesareans, or into unassisted home births where they deliver without an midwife or doctor.

In light of the recommendations made by ACOG and the NIH and the realities of increasing maternal morbidity rates in the state of California due to multiple repeat cesarean sections, the objective should be making VBAC more accessible, not less.

Bibliography

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010, August). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116(2), 450-463.

Barger, M. K., Dunn, T. J., Bearman, S., DeLain, M., & Gates, E. (2013). A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636061/pdf/1471-2393-13-83.pdf

Declercq, E. R., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlick, A. (2013). Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection. Retrieved from http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10450

Guise, J.-M., Eden, K., Emeis, C., Denman, M., Marshall, N., Fu, R., . . . McDonagh, M. (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44571/

Heller, D. S. (2013). Placenta accreta and percreta. Surgical Pathology, 6, 181-197.

Main, E. (2013). HQI Regional Quality Leader Network December Meeting. San Diego.

National Institutes of Health. (2010, June). Final Statement. Retrieved from NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights: http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbacstatement.htm

State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. (2013, December 17). Utilization Rates for Selected Medical Procedures in California Hospitals, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/PatDischargeData/ResearchReports/Hospipqualind/vol-util_indicatorsrpt/

You need to talk to the doctor/midwife face-to-face

Trying to find a VBAC supportive health care provider can be (very, very) difficult process.  Understandably, some women choose to call various providers rather than meet with them face to face. This woman’s experience illustrates the pitfalls of this method.

While VBAC is not a household term, it should be a familiar one among an OB’s front office staff.  Perhaps this will prompt more providers to have a quick discussion with their staff about VBAC and maybe even pass out a copy of the Quick Facts page (high res PDF) so that everyone who interacts with patients has a basic working knowledge of the topic.

Of course, this is the experience of one mom at one OB’s office and certainly doesn’t reflect on all the dedicated and intelligent individuals who work at OB’s offices throughout the world… simply this one.

For tips on interviewing care providers, including how to present yourself and specific questions to ask, go here.

________________________

Well, GREAT little anecdote for you all… In my search for an OB who will at least consider a VBA2C I ended up talking to a lady office assistant via phone yesterday. It went as follows:

Click to share on Facebook

Click to share on Facebook

Me: “Hi! *general convo* Is the doctor VBAC friendly?”

Lady: “Is she friendly?”

M: “No, will she consider a VBAC?”

L: “Um, what’s a VBAC?”

*I hear another nurse in the background, say ‘Yes, we do VBAC’*

M: “Wait, did she say you guys will do a VBAC?”

*Nurse in the background says to lady on the phone, ‘Wait, has she had a c-section?’*

L: “Um, have you had a c-section?”

M: “Yes, of course.”

L: “Oh, the other nurse said if you’ve had a c-section we can’t give you a VBAC.”

M: “Ok, I think you need to know, VBAC stands for Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. It would be impossible to have a VBAC without previously having had a c-section.”

L: “Oh! I didn’t know that!”

*general pleasantries and I hung up*

______________________

When you called your local health providers, what information did the front office staff share with you?  One mom said, “We’ve done surveys in Orlando by calling all the OB offices in town (I know, huuuge undertaking, right?!). We have been told vbac is illegal, that there is a 50% chance a baby will die, and all kinds of other outrageous statements, all from the person *answering the phone*.”

Resources for processing traumatic births and losses

A dear woman contacted me.  15 months after her cesarean, it was still hard for her to read my posts without crying.  This simply broke my heart.  She is not alone.  There are many women who carry the grief and pain of their traumatic vaginal or cesarean births or the loss of their baby.  Every. Day.

So I asked on Facebook for resources for women who are in the midst of the processing and grieving.  Here is the list.  If you know of more, whether they are on-line or in person groups, for free or a fee, please leave a comment.

None of these groups or individuals have been checked out or endorsed by VBAC Facts.  This is simply a list of resources for you to check out.

It saddens me to say this but there are individuals and groups who find and share the stories of loss moms in order to berate them.  Please be careful when sharing information on the internet as anything you post on-line can be easily shared with others outside your closed/private internet group.  There is no such thing as privacy on the internet.  Being anonymous and not providing your home address or identifying information are ways to get around this.

_____________________

Stillbirthday has a comprehensive list of immediate resources (like crisis hotlines, books, and websites) and long term resources (like workshops and retreats.)

There are support groups for women who have experienced uterine rupture. Here is a list: http://www.honoredbabies.org/resource-center/grief-support.htm

I know there is one local to me (Renfrew county, Ontario, Canada) but it’s not available through the Internet.

Solace for Mothers

Barbara-ann Horner: I volunteer for Postpartum Support International and most moms who call experience a traumatic birth message me i can find more resources or chat if you’d like

ICAN, the International Cesarean Awareness Network, is awesome. You can go to their website ican-online.org and there’s a ton of info and local support groups to join. I joined one after experiencing a very traumatic cesarean section and it’s been so helpful in the healing process.

The Dunamas Center does a lot of work with birth trauma.

Merrell Holliman-Carlson: I am a leader of the Ocala Birth Network, we have a FB page and also monthly meetings, we are in Marion County, FL but have several online members who are out of state, we provide information and resources for expectant moms as well as a ‘safe’ outlet for traumatized moms. A lot of us have dealt with unnecesareans and bad inductions, some have VBAC’d and others hope to. You are MORE than welcome!

http://www.humanizebirth.org/ has some resources and you can contact the ladies running the page and have our story added to the campaign as well, there is also a facebook page and group for women to share their stories and talk to others who have been through traumatic birth events as well

BEBA clinic (Ray Castelino)

Babycenter has a “Disappointing Birth Experiences” board….

Online, I recently found the Birth Trauma Association. They’re wonderful! They also have a group on Facebook.

Jamie Bodily: I offer individual sessions in the St. Louis area but no group at this point.

I know Nancy Wainer offers group workshops in the Massachusetts  area. Janel Mirendah also works in group or individually on birth trauma, she did a workshop when she came to do a screening of The Other Side of the Glass.

Yes, Mother to Mother! “Mother to Mother – Postpartum Depression Support St. Louis.  Mother to Mother provides telephone support and encouragement to women with postpartum adjustment disorder (PPAD). Mother to Mother is the only service of its kind in the St. Louis metropolitan area. We serve all women in the state of Missouri and parts of Illinois, free of charge.”

@backline is a great resource. They have a free talkline for birth or miscarriage trauma.

Birthing From Within Birth Story. Listening is amazing.

Birthtalk in Australia!!! They do free group sessions in Australia (Queensland) & personal sessions (also via Skype for international). They are the best

There’s a Birth Crisis group, as well as a CBAC group out there, I know both those group owners and they work hard to keep it safe.

A lady I know who had a stillbirth at 36 weeks is on a site called www.facesofloss.com. “Faces of Loss, Faces of Hope: Putting a face on miscarriage, stillbirth and infant loss.”

Geneviève Prono: I have been helping women heal from a traumatic and difficult birth and prepare for another birth, for twenty years. I do in person and group sessions by skype and am currently writing a book and putting some programs in place. The site in French (apparently google translates it) www.chrysalidefrance.com. What brought me to this three c-sections followed by three VBACs.

Tiffany Hoffman: I do individual birth trauma resolution as well as those who have had difficult or disappointing birth experiences. I have also created a birth trauma workshop, so that women who don’t live here can travel for a weekend intensive to start the healing process. They also learn several ways to continue processing their experience and feelings on their own. My website is www.sacredbirthspace.com

Linda Llone Hinchliffe: Our Birth Choices group offer emotional support to anyone who needs it…

Birth Matters of Fort Wayne, IN offers a Traumatic Birth Healing/Healing for Birth class several times a year. From personal experience – it’s just what my husband and I needed.

There’s a group in Virginia called Mothers Healing Together.

Lexi Abeln: I facilitate a free support group in Camp Hill, PA called Birthlight.

Birth after Caesarean Support and Information Group in Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Canaustralia.net — Empowering birthing women to make informed decisions about childbirth after caesarean

There’s a yoga studio local to me in Pittsburgh, PA that does a traumatic birth workshop.

Precious sleeping angles – group on Facebook

Stillbirth support – group on Facebook

Resources for men

Grieving fathers – group on Facebook

You can also following the two threads I posted on my Facebook profile page and fan page about this for more information or to contact the individuals above who offer counseling.

Do you have a resource you would like to add to the list? Please include it in the comments.

Induction is wrong, wrong, wrong… wait, what?

I hear all the time how induction in VBAC is contraindicated. This is false. This is the kind of misinformation that materializes when we demonize all induction rather than specifying that elective inductions are not worth the increased risks.

It’s important to use clear, specific language when we talk about birth because there is a lot of confusion among moms, advocates, doulas, and health care providers about VBAC and induction. When I point out the lack of clarity many people have on the topic to “anti-induction advocates” (for the lack of a better term), they respond with the fact that their focus is warning moms about elective inductions, which is absolutely needed. And they genuinely believe that people are aware of the distinction between elective and medically-indicated inductions. However, that has not been my experience, in fact it’s been quite the opposite.  There are many people who don’t understand the why, when, and how of inducing VBACs and that is impacting the abilities of women to make informed decisions and exercise their right of patient autonomy.

First, you can induce VBACs

To be clear, medically indicated induction in a VBAC is not contraindicated! Yet, many, many, many people persist that it is citing ACOG (1) and the Pitocin insert (2). ACOG clearly says in their latest VBAC guidelines (3) that “induction remains an option” in a mom planning a VBAC via Pitocin or Foley catheter. The Pitocin drug insert (2) does state, “Except in unusual circumstances, oxytocin [Pitocin] should not be administered in the following conditions” and then lists “previous major surgery on the cervix or uterus including cesarean section.” However, despite conventional wisdom, a prior cesarean is not listed under the contraindications section.  Further, the drug insert recognizes the value of individualized care:

The decision [to use Pitocin in a woman with a prior cesarean] can be made only by carefully weighing the potential benefits which oxytocin can provide in a given case against rare but definite potential for the drug to produce hypertonicity or tetanic spasm.

This is in line with ACOG’s latest VBAC recommendations (3) where they say, “Respect for patient autonomy supports the concept that patients should be allowed to accept increased levels of risk…” So this is information a woman can use to make an informed decision if she is faced with a medical condition that requires sooner rather than later delivery of her baby, but not necessarily in the next 15 minutes.  To induce, have a cesarean, or wait for spontaneous labor when facing a true medical issue is a decision for the mom to make in conjunction with her supportive heath care provider based on the evidence of her risks, benefits, and options.

My point is, if you just read bits and pieces of the insert, or a few key quotes from an anti-induction article, you are going to miss the full story; much like how reading the full text of a study gives you context and details that you lack by just reading the abstract.  Read my article (4) for more information on inducing VBACs.

Yet, misinformation persists

Ok, so now you know that induction remains an option per the Pitocin insert, ACOG, and respect for patient autonomy.  Now check out these quotes, from the last couple days, from six different people. If I were to keep a list of comments like these, just referring to induction and VBAC for a month, I would literally have dozens if not hundreds.  Misinformation is rampant:

“pitocin is CONTRAINDICATED for vbac bc the risk of uterine rupture”

“I thought it was unsafe to use pitocin with a vbac.”

“vbac should never be induced!”

“It is unsafe for prev surgical births. It says so in the PDR, or at least it did.”

“Not supposed to induce with a VBAC.”

“Never never never have an induction, especially with any kind of vbac!! Oh my goodness. it drastically raises your chances of uterine rupture!! Holy toledo. If you don’t know the risks involved with inductions, especially in vbacs, don’t offer the advice! Smh. Pitocin is completely contraindicated for vbacs, I’m pretty sure it even says that on the insert.”

“Are you actually trying to argue that induction of labour on a VBAC is OK???WOW…that is not evidence based AT ALL. Every study that has been done comparing the two shows a clear rise in risk associated with induction of labour and rupture. I am ALL for choice no matter the case, but I think every women has a right to INFORMED choice and you clearly are not. UNLIKE.”

Note the tone of these comments.  There is no room for negotiation.  Do you get the sense that they are just referring to elective inductions or all inductions? The message I get from these comments is loud and clear: these individuals believe that VBACs should not be induced. Period.

“Well, I would choose an induction…”

What is especially ironic is that some women who speak this way in public, privately share with me, that they themselves would opt for an induction over a repeat cesarean. Though do you see room for that option in any of the comments above?  They preserve that choice for themselves and yet pound the party line that all induction is always wrong and publicly deny that option to other women… for what purpose?  To maintain ad nauseam that induction is an evil, evil thing? Yes, apparently that is the case.

The last person’s comment was in response to me sharing my article (4) and saying that induction with medical indication does and should remain an option for moms planing VBACs.  Her reply equates my actions of sharing this reality with advocating against informed choice. How is keeping women in the dark about their options supporting the notion of informed consent? That faulty logic deserves a capitalized “WOW” with excessive exclamation points.

This is not the first person to say something like this to me. People so staunchly (and incorrectly) maintain that VBACs should never be induced because they have been indoctrinated to believe that induction is always wrong, it always introduces more risks.

More risk than what?

But the key question is: More risk than what? That is always what women should ask.

More risk than having a fetal demise before labor, partial placental abruption, or serious uterine infection and remaining pregnant? OK, so let’s say that is the truth.

Then any time any scarred woman has any of those medical conditions as well as those listed in my article (4), and they agree that remaining pregnant has higher risks that delivering the baby, they should have a cesarean, right? Even if vaginal birth remains an option, albeit via an induced labor?  Even if baby needs to be born sooner rather than later, but not necessarily in the next 15 minutes?  Those moms shouldn’t have a choice, they shouldn’t have a say, they should just go straight to cesarean?  How is that preserving choice for women?

Don’t misrepresent the facts

That is what these (extreme) “induction is wrong” proponents don’t understand. Induction has its place, as does every other medical intervention, and if you want to go straight to cesarean, rather than having a medically-indicated induction, fine.

But don’t misrepresent the truth to other women.

Don’t misrepresent what ACOG (1) or the Pitocin insert (2) says.

Don’t misrepresent the risks of Pitocin by listing a mish-mash of complications with no rates.  (How are women to understand the risks if you don’t tell them how frequently those emergencies occur?)

Don’t say things that can be disproved with a single mouse click like inducing VBACs is against evidence based medicine.

Don’t undermine a woman’s legal right to autonomy (5) by perpetuating the myth, that all induction, including when medically indicated, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Don’t dictate specific actions while withholding facts that would enable women to make their own decisions, even if they are different that what you would prefer.

Medically indicated induction = choice

People don’t appreciate that standing for medically indicated induction is standing for women to have a choice: induction vs. repeat cesarean. Without induction, there is no choice when a valid medical reason presents. By eliminating the option of induction, women are mandated to the increasing risks (6) of repeat cesarean. And yet people who persist in their agenda say things like this to me (naturally, the following was asserted after I shared my article (4) and they didn’t read it),

Does inducing a VBAC increase the chance of rupture??? YES. Does a women, and should a women have the right to choose that irregardless of that FACT??? YES. Is the most important thing informed consent?? I believe it is.

Clear language provides clarity

So if people think that, then they should use clear, unambiguous language like, “Induction remains an option when a medical indication presents” or “Elective induction isn’t worth the increased risks” rather than flat out declaring “pitocin is contraindicated” (false) and claiming that induction in a VBAC is not evidenced based (false) as this very commenter did earlier in the thread. If someone maintains that it should be a woman’s choice, then they should share substantiated facts, context, statistics, and references, not erroneous blanket statements.

Women can make informed decisions only when they are informed

To provide information supports choice and informed consent. To dictate a specific action while misrepresenting the evidence eliminates choice and prohibits informed consent . I do not dictate to other women what they should do (7).

If you read my article (4), you will see that I list the reasons for medically indicated induction as well as provide an extensive review of studies illustrating the increased risk of uterine rupture. I do this rather than simply saying, “the risk of rupture is higher and thus you shouldn’t do it” because providing facts with context puts the choice in the hands of the mom, rather than me (or anyone else) dictating to her what she should do.

Some women will accept that higher rate of rupture in order to have a vaginal birth. Others will choose to accept the risks of a repeat cesarean section. Those are choices for women to make for themselves based on facts, not on misrepresentations of what other women (incorrectly) think is contraindicated.

“Induction is wrong” & patient autonomy

People who advocate that “induction is always wrong” don’t understand the implications of their assertions. By arguing against inductions, which in the minds of many include medically indicated inductions since no distinction is made, they are effectively advocating for more cesareans and against informed consent and patient autonomy. The mission of VBAC Facts is to make hard-to-find, interesting, and pertinent information relative to post-cesarean birth options easily accessible to the people who seek it. I advocate for informed consent and patient autonomy and that is why I share evidence (4) rather than dictating what others should do. I only hope that this reasoning and evidence based position spreads because there are far to many people out there who persist in the inaccurate philosophy that inductions in a VBAC are always wrong even in the face of a valid medical reason. This does not support choice, women, or birth.

I profusely apologize for the excessive underlining in this article, but I think you will agree, that it was absolutely necessary.

Sources

1. Kamel, J. (2010, Jul 21). ACOG issues less restrictive VBAC guidelines. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2010/07/21/acog-issues-less-restrictive-vbac-guidelines/

2. JHP Pharmaceuticals LLC. (2012, Sept). Pitocin official FDA information, side effects and uses. Retrieved from Drugs.com: http://www.drugs.com/pro/pitocin.html

3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology , 116 (2), 450-463. Retrieved from Our Bodies Our Blog: http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ACOG_guidelines_vbac_2010.pdf

4. Kamel, J. (2012, May 27). Myth: VBACs should never be induced. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/05/27/myth-vbacs-should-never-be-induced/

5. Kamel, J. (n.d.). Legal stuff. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/category/vbac/legal-stuff

6. Kamel, J. (2012, Dec 9). Why cesareans are a big deal to you, your wife, and your daughter. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/12/09/why-cesareans-are-a-big-deal-to-you-your-wife-and-your-daughter/

7. Kamel, J. (2012, Dec 7). Some people think I’m anti-this/ pro-that: My advocacy style. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/12/07/some-people-think-im-anti-thispro-that-my-advocacy-style/

 

Why cesareans are a big deal to you, your wife, and your daughter

surgery-surgical-instrumentsI hear a lot, “What’s the big deal about cesareans? What difference does it really make if you have a cesarean?” Of course, if a cesarean is medically necessary, then the benefits outweigh the risks. But in the absence of a medical reason, the risks of cesareans must be carefully considered.

“Once a cesarean, always a cesarean”

If a woman has a cesarean, she is very likely to only have cesareans for future births. This is because while 45% of American women are interested in the option of VBAC (1), 92% have a repeat cesarean (2). Let me say that another way. Only 8% of women with a prior cesarean successfully VBAC.

One might interpret this statistic to mean that planned VBACs often end in a repeat cesarean. However, VBACs are successful about 75% of the time (3-7). The VBAC rate is so low because of the women interested in VBAC, 57% are unable to find a supportive care provider or hospital (1). And I would argue further that even among the women who have a supportive care provider, those women are so bombarded by fear based misinformation masquerading as caring advice from friends and family, they have no chance.  It is shocking to learn how ill-informed both women planning VBACs and repeat cesareans are about their birth options even upon admission to the hospital.  There is a fundamental gap in our collective wisdom about post-cesarean birth options.

Cesareans make subsequent pregnancies riskier

What’s the big deal, right? Who cares if you have a cesarean without a medical reason?

Forget about the immediate risks to mom and baby that cesareans impose. Just set that all aside for a moment.  Much of the risk associated with cesareans is delayed.  Most people are not aware of the long term issues that can come with cesareans and how these complications impact the safety of future pregnancies, deliveries, and children.

It is a well-established fact that the more cesareans a woman has, the more risky subsequent pregnancies and labors are regardless if the mom plans a VBAC or a repeat cesarean.  This was discussed at great lengths during the 2010 National Institutes of Health VBAC conference and was one of the reasons why ACOG released their less restrictive VBAC guidelines later that same year.

Many moms chose repeat cesareans because they believe cesareans are the prudent, safest choice. The fact that cesareans, of which over 1,000,000 occur in the USA each year, increases the complication rates of future pregnancies is often not disclosed to women during their VBAC consult.

A four year study looking at up to six cesareans in 30,000 women reported a startling number of complications that increased at a statistically significant rate as the prior number of cesareans increased:

The risks of placenta accreta [which has a maternal mortality of 7% and hysterectomy risk of 71%], cystotomy [surgical incision of the urinary bladder], bowel injury, ureteral injury [damage to the ureters – the tubes that connect the kidneys to the bladder in which urine flows – is one of the most serious complications of gynecologic surgery], and ileus [disruption of the normal propulsive gastrointestinal motor activity which can lead to bowel (intestinal) obstructions], the need for postoperative ventilation [this means mom can’t breathe on her own after the surgery], intensive care unit admission [mom is having major complications], hysterectomy, and blood transfusion requiring 4 or more units [mom hemorrhaged], and the duration of operative time [primarily due to adhesions] and hospital stay significantly increased with increasing number of cesarean deliveries (8).

Because the growing likelihood of serious complications that comes with each subsequent cesarean surgery, including uterine rupture, this study concluded,

Because serious maternal morbidity increases progressively with increasing number of cesarean deliveries, the number of intended pregnancies should be considered during counseling regarding elective repeat cesarean operation versus a trial of labor and when debating the merits of elective primary cesarean delivery (8).

This is because the risks of placenta accreta and previa in particular increase at a very high rate after multiple cesareans (9).

The largest prospective report of uterine rupture in women without a previous cesarean in a Western country,” concurred:

Ultimately, the best prevention [of uterine rupture] is primary prevention, i.e. reducing the primary caesarean delivery rate. The obstetrician who decides to perform a caesarean has a joint responsibility for the late consequences of that decision, including uterine rupture (10).

“Well, I just plan on having two kids…”

Unfortunately, many women don’t think about these future risks until they are pregnant again. And we all know the great difference between intended and actual family size.

According to the CDC, 49% of American pregnancies are unintentional (11). Thus, these theoretical risks quickly and suddenly become a reality for hundreds of thousands of American women every year. How women birth their current baby has real and well-documented implications and risks for their future pregnancies, children, and health.

VBAC bans and emergency response

In light of these increasing risks, VBAC bans do not make moms safer (12). Hospitals are either prepared for obstetrical complications, like uterine rupture in moms who plan VBACs and placenta accreta, previa, and cesarean hysterectomies among moms who plan repeat cesareans, or they are not. It is hard to understand how hospitals can claim that they are simultaneously capable of an adequate response to cesarean-related complications and yet they are unable or ill-equipped to respond to complications related to vaginal birth after cesarean.  Especially in light of the fact that we know motivated hospitals currently offer VBAC even in the absence of 24/7 anesthesia (13).

A recent Wall Street Journal article discusses how hospitals are trying to create a standard response to obstetrical emergencies:

The CDC is funding programs in a number of states to establish guidelines and protocols for improving safety and preventing injury.  And obstetrics teams are holding drills to train doctors and nurses to rapidly respond to maternal complications. They are using simulated emergencies that include fake blood, robots that mimic physiologic states, and actresses standing in as patients (14).

Because hospitals vary so greatly in their ability to coordinate a expeditious response to urgent situations,

Vivian von Gruenigen, system medical director for women’s health services at Summa Health System in Akron, Ohio, advises that pregnant women discuss personal risks with their doctor and ask hospitals what kind of training delivery teams have to respond in an emergency. ‘People think pregnancy is benign in nature but that isn’t always the case, and women need to be their own advocates,’ Dr. von Gruenigen says.

Impact of VBAC on future births

Counter the increasing risks that come with cesareans to the downstream implications for VBAC. After the first successful VBAC, the future risk of uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence, and other labor related complications significantly decrease (15). Thus, family size must be considered as VBAC is often the safer choice for women planning large families.

Bottom line? I defer to two medical professionals and researchers:

“There is a major misperception that TOLAC [trial of labor after cesarean] is extremely risky” – Mona Lydon-Rochelle PhD, MPH, MS, CNM (16-17).

In terms of VBAC, “your risk is really, really quite low” – George Macones MD, MSCE (16-17).

Women deserve the facts

Women are entitled to accurate, honest data explained in a clear, easy to understand format (18). They don’t deserve to have the risks exaggerated by an OB who wishes to coerce them into a repeat cesarean nor do they deserve to have risks sugar-coated or minimized by a midwife or birth advocate who may not understand the facts or whose zealous desire for everyone to VBAC clouds their judgement (19-20).

If you would like to get the opinions of actual VBAC supportive medical professionals who support a woman’s right to informed consent, there are several obstetricians and midwives who you can talk to on the VBAC Facts Community.

Take home message

Cesareans are not benign and the more you have, the more risky your future pregnancies become regardless of your preferred mode of delivery.

Almost half of the pregnancies in America are unintentional.

If hospitals can attend to cesarean-related complications, they can attend to VBAC-related complications.

_________________________________________________

1. Declercq, E. R., & Sakala, C. (2006). Listening to Mothers II: Reports of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection. Retrieved from Childbirth Connection: http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10068

2. Osterman, M. J., Martin, J. A., Mathews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2011, July 27). Expanded Data From the New Birth Certificate, 2008. Retrieved from CDC: National Vital Statistics Reports: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_07.pdf

3. Coassolo, K. M., Stamilio, D. M., Pare, E., Peipert, J. F., Stevens, E., Nelson, D., et al. (2005). Safety and Efficacy of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Attempts at or Beyond 40 Weeks Gestation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106, 700-6.

4. Huang, W. H., Nakashima, D. K., Rumney, P. J., Keegan, K. A., & Chan, K. (2002). Interdelivery Interval and the Success of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 99, 41-44.

5. Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., & Leveno, K. J. (2004). Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2581-2589.

6. Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., & Tom, E. (2006). Risk of Uterine Rupture With a Trial of Labor in Women with Multiple and Single Prior Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 108, 12-20.

7. Macones, G. A., Cahill, A., Pare, E., Stamilio, D. M., Ratcliffe, S., Stevens, E., et al. (2005). Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: Is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192, 1223-9.

8. Silver, R. M., Landon, M. B., Rouse, D. J., & Leveno, K. J. (2006). Maternal Morbidity Associated with Multiple Repeat Cesarean Deliveries. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 107, 1226-32.

9. Kamel, J. (2012, Mar 30). Placenta problems in VBAMC/ after multiple repeat cesareans. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/03/30/placenta-problems-in-vbamc-after-multiple-repeat-cesareans/

10. Zwart, J. J., Richters, J. M., Ory, F., de Vries, J., Bloemenkamp, K., & van Roosmalen, J. (2009, July). Uterine rupture in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116(8), pp. 1069-1080. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x/full

11. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. (2012, Apr 4). Unintended Pregnancy Prevention. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/index.htm

12. Kamel, J. (2012, Mar 27). Just kicking the can of risk down the road. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/03/27/just-kicking-the-can-of-risk-down-the-road/

13. Kamel, J. (2010, July 22). VBAC ban rationale is irrational. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2010/07/22/vbac-ban-rationale-is-irrational/

14.  Landro, L. (2012, Dec 10). Steep Rise Of Complications In Childbirth Spurs Action. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578171531475181260.html?mod=rss_Health

15. Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB. et al. Labor Outcomes With Increasing Number of Prior Vaginal Births After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;111(2):285-291. Retrieved from: http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2008/02000/Labor_Outcomes_With_Increasing_Number_of_Prior.6.aspx

16. NIH Consensus Development Conference. (2010). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Bethesda, Maryland. Retrieved from http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbac.htm

17. Kamel, J. (2012, Apr 11). The best compilation of VBAC research to date. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/04/11/best-compilation-of-vbac-research-to-date/

18. Kamel, J. (2012, Dec 7). Some people think I’m anti-this/ pro-that: My advocacy style. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/12/07/some-people-think-im-anti-thispro-that-my-advocacy-style/

19. Kamel, J. (n.d.). Birth myths. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/category/vbac/birth-myths

20. Kamel, J. (n.d.). Scare tactics. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/category/vbac/scare-tactics/

When all people can see is black or white

The way I do things

VBAC Facts communicates differently than many others who speak or write about birth. Rather than advocating for a specific decision, I advocate for access to information. Specifically, the mission of VBAC Facts is to close the gap between what the best practice guidelines from ACOG and the NIH say about VBAC and repeat cesarean and what people generally believe.

In meeting this goal, VBAC Facts makes hard-to-find, interesting, and pertinent information relative to post-cesarean birth options easily accessible to the people who seek it. VBAC Facts does not advocate for a specific mode of delivery, birth attendant or birth location. Because of this stance, sometimes people are a little confused. They are accustomed to outspoken advocates (arguing for either the pro or con) urging them to have a certain type of birth at a prescribed location with a specific type of birth attendant – or none at all.

VBAC Facts is occasionally labeled as pro-this/ anti-that because I periodically will not agree with someone. If someone supplies incorrect statistics, uses faulty logic, or uses the dreaded terms “always/never,” I pipe up and give my perspective and a source corroborating my stance.  You may (or may not) be surprised how often this interjection is interpreted as anti- or pro-[insert method of birth, place of birth or type of birth attendant here.]

Perhaps people interpret my realistic/ practical approach to things as anti-_________.  I like to debunk myths. I like to question the conventional wisdom. This can frustrate people because these myths give them (misplaced) confidence. Conventional wisdom can be confused for evidence because “everyone knows _____ is true.”

I acknowledge the various risks and benefits that come with our birth choices. I do this because I think that women are intelligent enough to hear “these are the risks and benefits of XYZ” rather me dictating “make XYZ choice.”

I also tend to avoid the often hollow sounding, “It will all be fine” or “I had a VBAC, so should every woman!”  To some people, that comes off as anti-this/pro-that… but for me, it’s a fair look at our choices.

I think sometimes people start to look at a specific mode of birth/ birth location/ type of birth attendant with rose-colored glasses.  They try to minimize the risks associated with their “choice of choice” in an attempt to advocate for others to make similar decisions whether that is VBAC, repeat cesarean, home or hospital birth.  (Everyone has an agenda!!)

But minimizing risks deprives women of their right to informed consent and that is really no different than individuals who exaggerate risk. I don’t advocate for women to birth a certain way in a certain location.

A big part of my philosophy is based on the fact that I have a website and a large readership.  I don’t want anyone to ever come back to me after a bad outcome and say, “You misled me.”  I feel an obligation to be honest and truthful about the pros and cons of options as well as the quality and quantity of research available to us.  Women often feel misled by their HCPs [health care providers].  I don’t want to be part of that misinformation machine.

My mission is simple: to make hard-to-find, interesting, and pertinent information relative to post-cesarean birth options easily accessible to the people who seek it.

I do this because I think the information speaks for itself.  It doesn’t need a cheerleader!  It doesn’t need someone to stretch the truth!  Just someone to say, “Read this!”

My tips for birth advocates

Someone recently posted in a group asking how they can get involved with birth advocacy. Other members and myself directed them to a variety of organizations like ICAN, Improving Birth, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the ACLU, and Human Rights in Childbirth.

There are many roads to the same destination. You can advocate right now by going on message boards and simply pointing people to accurate information when they ask questions. Sometimes all they need is to see a little bit that suggests what they have accepted as “truth” is the opposite of what major medical organizations, public health professionals, and medical researchers support and recommend.

Take home message

I have said many times, “Birth is not one size fits all.” As ACOG says, two women can look at the exact same information and make very different choices. There is not a Right or Wrong decision for all women, just a right or wrong decision for a specific woman. That is her decision to make based on information, not bullying or hysteria.

 

Evening primrose oil: “Don’t use it if you are pregnant?”

Note: After I published this article, it came to my attention that there was one other study on the oral use of EPO in pregnant woman.  You can read more about this second study in the comments section below.

________________________________________________________

Many moms and midwives use evening primrose oil (EPO) for cervical ripening. So I was absolutely shocked at the complete lack of evidence on the effectiveness and safety of EPO use among pregnant women. There is one study that examined the oral use EPO and it’s ability to ripen the cervix during pregnancy. It concluded EPO didn’t work as we expected it to and further, women who took EPO were more likely to experience a whole host of complications. Shockingly, there are no studies on the vaginal use of EPO and it’s effect on ripening the cervix during pregnancy. In short, there is insufficient clinical evidence documenting the risks and benefits of EPO and without that information, should pregnant women take it?

The two studies that have examined cervical ripening via oral EPO

Paula Senner gives an excellent review of this single study in her Quantitative Research Proposal entitled, “Oral Evening Primrose Oil as a Cervical Ripening Agent in Low Risk Nulliparous Women” (emphasis mine),

A study by Dove and Johnson (1999) investigated the use of evening primrose oil on the length of pregnancy and selected intrapartum outcomes at an American free-standing birth center in low-risk nulliparous women. More specifically, the study examined the effect of oral evening primrose oil on length of pregnancy, length of labor, incidence of postdates induction, incidence of prolonged rupture of membranes, occurrence of abnormal labor patterns, and cesarean delivery.

A two group retrospective quasiexperimental design was conducted on a sample drawn from the records of all nulliparous women at a free-standing birthing center over a seven year period from 1991 to 1998. All of the records were screened for accurate gestational age dating, cephalic presentation, low risk status and delivery between 38 and 42 weeks gestation. The study group consisted of 54 women who took oral evening primrose oil in their pregnancy (500 mg three times a day starting at 37 weeks gestation for the first week of treatment, followed by 500 mg once a day until labor ensued), and the control group was composed of 54 women who did not take anything. Antepartum and intrapartum records of all women were reviewed focusing on the above identified criteria.

Differences between measured variables of maternal age, Apgar score, birth weight, length of pregnancy, and length of labor were tested… Results showed no significant differences between the evening primrose oil group and the control group on age, Apgar score, or days of gestation (P>.05)… This retrospective chart review showed no benefit from taking oral evening primrose oil for the purpose of reducing adverse labor outcomes or for reduction of length of labor.

The study’s abstract gives us more details on the its findings (emphasis mine):

Findings suggest that the oral administration of evening primrose oil from the 37th gestational week until birth does not shorten gestation or decrease the overall length of labor. Further, the use of orally administered evening primrose oil may be associated with an increase in the incidence of prolonged rupture of membranes, oxytocin [Pitocin] augmentation, arrest of descent, and vacuum extraction.

The second study found that while women who took EPO experienced a greater degree of cervical ripening, that did not result in a shorter pregnancy or labor: “There was no significant difference in the interval from onset or end of treatment to onset of labor between the two groups” (Ty-Torredes, 2006).

So one study on oral EPO found that it doesn’t work as we thought it did and it offers considerable risks.  The other study found that it does result in some cervical ripening, but that did not translate into shorter pregnancies or labors.

As a result, a December 2009 article published in the American Family Physician recommended,

The use of evening primrose oil during pregnancy is not supported in the literature and should be avoided.

Medline Plus, a website published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, published an April 2012 article on EPO.  Medline echoes the sentiments of the American Family Physician article when it said there was,

insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness for [EPO during pregnancy and] research to date suggests that taking evening primrose oil doesn’t seem to shorten labor, prevent high blood pressure (pre-eclampsia), or prevent late deliveries in pregnant women… [Further,] taking evening primrose oil is POSSIBLY UNSAFE [their emphasis] during pregnancy.  It might increase the chance of having complications. Don’t use it if you are pregnant [emphasis mine.]

Bleeding issues could complicate cesareans

Research on the use of EPO for other aliments among non-pregnant people has suggested there could be a possible association between the use of EPO and bleeding problems during surgery. As a result, Medline recommends that people don’t use it at least 2 weeks before a scheduled surgery.

This poses a special problem for women using EPO during the last weeks of pregnancy. Since we cannot predict who will have a vaginal birth and who will have a cesarean, it is important to consider that EPO could contribute to hemorrhage during a cesarean and possibly even during a normal vaginal delivery. We just don’t know because there is a lack of data.

Dosages and mode of delivery

Another hole in the research and our knowledge relates to dosage.  I see women reporting an incredible range of dosages on the internet.  What is safe?  There are no clinical studies documenting how much women should take.  Maybe X dose of EPO is good, but Y dose introduces XYZ risks.  How long should women take EPO?  The last month of pregnancy?  The last two weeks?  (Remember, we just read how there is a possible bleeding issue.)  Should they take it twice a day or once a day?  Does the body absorb or metabolize EPO differently if it is administrated vaginally or orally?  Does it make a difference if the woman using EPO has a scar on her uterus?  Or multiple scars?  We just don’t know the answers to these questions.

What about our bodies’ innate ability to birth?

It comes down to the fundamental question: Do our bodies need something to help us go into labor? Many natural birth advocates reject the routine use of Pitocin augmentation during labor because they say our bodies know how to birth.  Yet it’s often women from this same mindset that use EPO. Either our bodies work as is, or they don’t.  Either we need something to help us go into labor – whether that is EPO or Pitocin – or we don’t.

Are we less leery of EPO because it comes from a flower?  Because midwives suggest it more than OBs?  Because we can purchase it over the counter?  Because it’s a pill, not an injection?  Because we can administer it to ourselves in the comfort of our home?  Because it’s not produced by “big pharma?”  Because it is used so routinely that no one questions it?  Or is it simply because we all assume since everyone takes it, the evidence must be on the side of EPO?

On (the lack of) evidence: Holding ourselves to the same standard

When I have shared the lack of evidence on EPO’s ability to ripen cervixes or prepare a woman’s body for labor, sometimes women reply with “But there is none [evidence] to suggest it won’t [help] either…….” American OBs used this same rationale when they induced scarred moms with Cytotec in the 1990s. There were no published medical studies on Cytotec induction in scarred women, so we didn’t know the risks and benefits. But people used it because we knew it caused uterine contractions. What can go wrong, right?

But the problem is, when there is a lack of clinical evidence on large populations of women, we are sometimes surprised with dire outcomes that no one could have predicted as was the case of Cytotec.  We cannot look back at that period and think, “How could they have done that” when we are now doing the same thing with EPO: using a chemical without evidence of its benefits and harms.

Some rail against “the medical system” because Pitocin/ultrasound/etc hasn’t been “proven safe,” yet we use EPO with no evidence that it does what we think it does, no evidence that it is safe, and the limited evidence we do have says that it’s associated with a variety of complications.

As Hilary Gerber D.O. aka Mom’s Tin Foil Hat says,

As someone who spent many years in the natural supplements industry, I agree that we need to hold natural products to the same scrutiny.

Also, most EPO is extracted with solvents like hexane. I am much more supportive of natural products or interventions that have been used in that form or method for generations (e.g. sexual intercourse at term, ingesting a substance that is a common food item, etc) than a chemically extracted, concentrated, unstudied substance.

Anecdote vs. evidence

OBs who used Cytotec on scarred women in the 1990s inevitably would have said, “I haven’t had a bad outcome yet,” and I suspect that many people who use EPO now would say the same thing.  When we have one woman who used EPO and had an arrest of descent, do care providers recognize that this could be as a result of the EPO?  When we have one women who used EPO and it worked as expected, how can we determine her labor progressed because of the EPO?

When you have a small sample size, it’s hard to make a connection.  It’s even more difficult to connect EPO to it’s possible list of complications when not many care providers are aware of the lack of evidence on EPO and the findings of this one lone study.  Is our limited experience, with relatively few patients, without meticulous record keeping that can detect patterns across groups of patients, sufficient evidence?  I don’t think so.  We would likely need thousands of women in order to create a sample size powerful enough to detect – or rule out – common and more rare EPO complications in addition to answering the many questions I posed above.

Take away message

I’m not saying to use EPO or not.  I’m simply pointing out how little we know about this commonly used substance and questioning if that should make a difference in how we view and/or use it.

There is limited evidence on EPO’s ability to ripen the cervix and aid with labor.  We have two studies on the oral use of EPO that looked at this question and none on the vaginal use of EPO among pregnant women.  This is reason enough to not use it.

We have no evidence on an appropriate or safe dosage (if that exists).

We have no evidence on the risks and benefits of oral vs vaginal administration.

In order to make the association between EPO and complications, care providers need to be aware of the complications with which EPO may be associated.

Let’s review the research that does exist.  One study found that EPO doesn’t ripen the cervix and poses considerable risk.  Another study found that EPO does ripen the cervix but those women did not go into labor sooner than the women that didn’t take EPO. We need more large studies to confirm or refute the notion that EPO = ripen cervix = shorter pregnancies. Without that information, we are using a product that we know very little about.

_______________

Bayles, B., & Usatine, R. (2009, Dec 15). Evening Primrose Oil. American Family Physician, 80(12), 1405-1408. Retrieved from http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1215/p1405.html

Dove, D., & Johnson, P. (1999, May-Jun). Oral evening primrose oil: its effect on length of pregnancy and selected intrapartum outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 44(3), 320-4. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10380450

Gerber, H. (2012, November 13). Facebook comments on evening primrose oil.

McFarlin, B. L., Gibson, M. H., O’Rear, J., & Harman, P. (1999, May-Jun). A national survey of herbal preparation use by nurse-midwives for labor stimulation. Review of the literature and recommendations for practice. Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 44(3), 205-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10380441

Medline Plus. (2012, Apr 10). Evening primrose oil. Retrieved from Medline Plus: A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine & National Institutes of Health: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/1006.html

Senner, Paula. (2003, December). Oral Evening Primrose Oil as a Cervical Ripening Agent in Low Risk Nulliparous Women. Retrieved from Frontier School of Midwifery and Family Nursing, Philadelphia University: http://www.instituteofmidwifery.org/MSFinalProj.nsf/a9ee58d7a82396768525684f0056be8d/f44c26c0836acbb585256dd1006b2a22?OpenDocument

Ty-Torredes, K. A. (2006). The effect of oral evening primrose oil on bishop score and cervical length among term gravidas. AJOG, 195(6), S30. Retrieved from http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2806%2901323-8/fulltext

Wagner, Marsden. (1999). Misoprostol (Cytotec) for Labor Induction: A Cautionary Tale. Retrieved from Midwifery Today: http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/cytotecwagner.asp