Ritodrine versus salbutamol for external cephalic version.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with beta-agonist tocolytics preceding external cephalic version (ECV) attempt increases success rates. Most studies have focused on intravenously and orally administered beta-agonists, while other administration routes including intramuscularly (IM) and subcutaneously (SC) are understudied. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of IM ritodrine to SC salbutamol given prior to ECV. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent ECV between 1/2012 and 12/2019 at two medical centers. We compared patients undergoing ECV following IM ritodrine versus SC salbutamol. We matched the two groups by parity and placental location. Maternal, pregnancy, ECV procedure and neonatal characteristics were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 601 women were included in each group. Median maternal age and amniotic fluid index (AFI) were lower in the Ritodrine group (27 vs. 32 years, P<0.001, 11 vs. 15 AFI cm, P<0.001, respectively). The median gestational age at ECV was higher in the Ritodrine group (380/7 vs. 370/7 weeks gestation). Success rate was higher in the Ritodrine group (71.7% vs. 63.8%, P=0.003). Vaginal delivery rate was higher in the Ritodrine group (70.7% vs. 60.1%, P<0.001). The number needed to treat to benefit was 10. In a multivariate analysis, Ritodrine was independently associated with higher ECV success rates as compared with Salbutamol (aOR 2.1, 95%CI 1.52-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular ritodrine significantly improved the success rate of ECV compared to SC salbutamol, and both drugs were safe and acceptable before ECV.

Nifedipine versus ritodrine during external cephalic version procedure: a case control study.

OBJECTIVE: Published series regarding interventions for facilitating external cephalic version (ECV) have concluded that parenterally administered beta-stimulant tocolytics, increased ECV success rate and reduced the number of cesarean sections. However, there were insufficient data regarding calcium channel blockers to provide good evidence regarding its efficacy. Given the paucity of literature, we aimed to compare the efficacy of nifedipine to that of ritodrine on ECV success rates. METHODS: This is a retrospective case control study of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent ECV between January 2012 and December 2013 at Bikur Cholim Medical Center and Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel. Patient undergoing ECV with tocolysis by ritodrine were compared with those using nifedipine as tocolysis. Patients were matched in a one-to-one ration by parity and placental location. RESULTS: Overall, 148 women received ritodrine and 148 women received nifedipine before ECV procedure. Overall success rate was higher among the ritodrine group (82.4 vs. 63.5%, p < .001). Among nulliparous and among parous, success rate was higher in the ritodrine group (78.9 vs. 57.9 and 88.6 vs. 73.5%, p = .001, p = .04, respectively). Vaginal delivery rate was higher among the ritodrine group (86.5 vs. 68.9%, p < .001). Cesarean delivery rate was 31.1% for the nifedipine group versus 13.5% in the ritodrine group (p < .001). Number needed to treat to benefit (NNTb) 5.7 (95% confidence interval 3.7-12.1). Overall, 216 of 296 (72.9%) of ECV were successful. Ritodrine was associated with higher success rates as compared with nifedipine (56.5 vs. 32.5%, p < .001). In a multivariate analysis, ritodrine tocolytic therapy was independently associated higher ECV success rates as compared to nifedipine (OR 4.54, 95% CI 2.38-9.09). Higher amniotic fluid index (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28) and nulliparity (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.30) were additional independent predictors of ECV outcome. CONCLUSION: Ritodrine significantly improve the success of ECV compared with nifedipine. Both drugs are shown to be safe.

Management of labor after external cephalic version.

OBJECTIVES: Current literature evaluating the role of induction of labor (IOL) following successful external cephalic version (ECV) attempt as compared to expectant management is limited. We aim to assess the risk of cesarean delivery in those undergoing immediate IOL following successful ECV as compared to those who were expectantly managed. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of successful external cephalic versions. The study group included 57 women that were induced after procedure in the lack of maternal or fetal indications for induction of labor. These women were compared to 341 expectantly managed women. Maternal and fetal characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Gestation age at delivery was higher among the expectant management group (401/7 vs. 384/7, median, p=0.002) as compared to the induction group. Cesarean delivery rates were similar between both groups (28 [8.2%] vs. 3 [5.3%], p=0.44). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only nulliparity was significantly associated with cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio 3.42, confidence interval 1.61-7.24, p=0.001). No correlation was found between the version-to-delivery interval and the risk for cesarean delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labor after successful ECV was not shown to influence cesarean delivery rates. As immediate IOL may result in higher rate of early-term deliveries, and in light of the lack of clinical benefit, we advocate against elective IOL following successful ECV.

Late preterm versus term external cephalic version: an audit of a single obstetrician experience.

PURPOSE: Recent literature evaluating the optimal timing for external cephalic version (ECV) in non-cephalic presentation is limited and hampered by methodological issues. We aimed to compare late preterm ECV [term (36-37 weeks of gestation] to term ECV ( > 37 weeks). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data of ECV procedures performed by a single operator during a 6 year period. Maternal, ECV procedure, delivery and fetal characteristics were compared between preterm ECV and term ECV. RESULTS: Overall, 547 (91.6%) of ECVs were term ECV while 50 (8.4%) procedures were preterm ECV. Success rate of ECV was 72.0% in the preterm ECV group vs. 71.5% in the term ECV group, p = 0.93. Proportion of preterm delivery was higher among the preterm ECV group (8% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), so does the proportion of early term deliveries (36.0% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.03). The rate of low birth weight was higher among the preterm ECV group (10.0% vs. 3.11%, p = 0.01). Rates of Apgar score at 5 min ≤ 8 were higher in the preterm ECV (4.0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.007). Vaginal delivery and intrapartum cesarean delivery rates did not differ between study groups (72.0% vs. 73.2%, p = 0.83 and 10% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Initiating ECV before term is associated with increased rate of preterm delivery, early term delivery and low birth weight. No effect was found in mode of delivery, intrapartum cesarean delivery, reversion and spontaneous version. We advocate against preterm ECV until future prospective trials will better delineate the effect of preterm ECV on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

External cephalic version at term: A 6-year single-operator experience.

BACKGROUND: External cephalic version (ECV) should be offered for patients presenting with a noncephalic pregnancy that are willing to deliver vaginally. Various reports have evaluated predictors for successful ECV. Yet, none have reported a single-operator large cohort experience. We aim to analyze the outcome of referrals for ECV. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. We performed a multivariate analysis of data with respect to ECV procedures performed by a single operator in a 6-year period. Maternal and fetal characteristics were compared between ECV success and failure groups. RESULTS: Six hundred and two women underwent ECV. Of them, ECV was successful in 432 (71.7%). A multivariate binary logistic regression model demonstrated that high liquor volume was a predictor of ECV success (Adj OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.09-1.26]). Failure of ECV was correlated with anterior placenta (0.44 [0.56-0.76]) and nulliparity (0.21 [0.11-0.36]). Adverse events were rare and mostly minor, occurring in 1% of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: ECV has a high success rate and a low complication rate, enabling vaginal birth and avoiding cesarean. The role of manipulation of modifiable determinants such as liquor volume should be further assessed in future studies.

The role of bladder volume in the success of external cephalic version.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies have evaluated the factors associated with ECV success. Yet, bladder volume has never been examined. We hypothesize that maternal bladder volume may affect ECV success rate. We aim to evaluate the role of maternal bladder volume during external cephalic version (ECV) on the procedure success rates. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed prospective collected data of all patients who underwent ECV at our center during 2001-2012. The study group included 100 patients that underwent ECV with bladder volume below 400 ml. These patients were matched to 400 patients that underwent ECV with bladder volume equal or above 400 ml which composed the control group. Maternal and fetal characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: ECV was successfully performed in 80/100 (80.0%) of patients in the study group as compared to 257/400 (64.3%) in the control group (P = 0.002). Factors associated with ECV success were older age (P = 0.003), having prior delivery (P < 0.0001), higher amniotic fluid index (AFI) (P = 0.001) and placenta located in the posterior wall (P = 0.001). In a logistic regression analysis, bladder volume was found to be an independent predictor of ECV success Odds radio (OR) for ECV success 2.5 (CI 1.42-4.34). Posterior placenta and higher AFI were found to be an independent predictors of ECV success as well; OR 2.7 (CI 1.74-4.34) and OR 1.07 (CI 1.02-1.13) respectively. CONCLUSION: ECV is more successful in patient with bladder volume below 400 ml. Amniotic fluid volume and placental location were found as independent predictors of ECV outcome as well.

The efficacy and safety of external cephalic version after a previous caesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: External cephalic version (ECV) in the presence of a uterine scar is still considered a relative contraindication despite encouraging studies of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. We present our experience with this patient population, which is the largest cohort published to date. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ECV in the setting of a prior caesarean delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 158 patients with a fetus presenting as breech, who had an unscarred uterus, had an ECV performed. Similarly, 158 patients with a fetus presenting as breech, and who had undergone a prior caesarean delivery also underwent an ECV. Outcomes were compared. RESULTS: ECV was successfully performed in 136/158 (86.1%) patients in the control group. Of these patients, 6/136 (4.4%) delivered by caesarean delivery. In the study group, 117/158 (74.1%) patients had a successful ECV performed. Of these patients, 12/117 (10.3%) delivered by caesarean delivery. There were no significant complications in either of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: ECV may be successfully performed in patients with a previous caesarean delivery. It is associated with a high success rate, and is not associated with an increase in complications.