Abstract
Purpose
In spite of several policies aiming to decrease cesarean rates and related complications such as uterine rupture, data show that uterine rupture and associated morbidity are increasing along the years. Whether previously unidentified risk factors are currently playing an important role on these trends is unknown. We analyze current risks of uterine rupture and main preceding factors from more recent years compared to former data.
Methods
All uterine rupture cases in the US from 2011–2012 were selected, with matched non-uterine rupture cases selected as controls. Variables considered for analysis included demographics, maternal morbidity, and obstetric complications. Likelihood forward selection was used to identify main risk factors of uterine rupture. Medians of main factors identified were used to simulate groups at risk and calculate odds ratios of uterine rupture.
Results
From ~8 million births, 1925 presented uterine rupture. In patients with no prior cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, chronic hypertension and chorioamnionitis presented the highest odds of uterine rupture, with the combination of these factors increasing the odds of rupture 59 times (~1%). In women with prior cesarean delivery, induction/augmentation and chorioamnionitis were the most significant predictors, with the combination increasing the odds 33 times (~3%).
Conclusions
Despite policies implemented and changes in clinical practice, uterine rupture remains an important issue. Previously unidentified risk factors are playing now an important role, information that should be considered during patient counseling and clinical practice. Combinations of some of these factors may increase the risk of uterine rupture significantly enough to modify clinical care.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Uterine rupture is one of the most serious obstetric emergencies and a life-threatening event. It is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for mothers and their newborns [1,2,3]. Based on reported risk factors from older studies, researchers have attempted to create predictive tools to avert this serious complication. Unfortunately, to date there is still no useful clinical tool for predicting this fearful complication [4,5,6]. Many institutions have created policies to decrease cesarean rates and consequently uterine rupture risk in future pregnancies [7, 8]. However, despite all this research, economic investment and effort in creating policies, data suggests that uterine rupture rates have actually increased over the years [9]. It is unknown whether the increase in uterine rupture rates is due to effects of recent changes in obstetric practice or other preceding factors not previously identified in former studies.
Since uterine rupture is a rare event, analysis of national data from recent years may aid in the identification of new risk factors related to the increasing rates of this fearful complication. In this study, we analyze main risk factors for uterine rupture from more recent years after significant changes in policies and clinical practice have been implemented.
Methods
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. All reported obstetric deliveries in the United States from 2011 to 2012 complicated by uterine rupture were selected from the birth data files containing vital statistics data provided by The National Center for Health Statistics—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For each uterine rupture case identified, two non-uterine rupture cases matched by delivery in temporal and geographic proximity were selected as controls, using a methodology that has been previously described [10].
Variables selected for analysis included demographics (maternal age, maternal race, ethnicity, body mass index, socio-economic status, tobacco use), obstetric history (plurality, parity, interval since last birth, number of prior cesarean births), maternal morbidity (pregestational diabetes, gestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, eclampsia), and labor complications (induction/augmentation of labor, precipitous labor, prolonged labor, chorioamnionitis, fetal intolerance). Cases were categorized according to uterine rupture status and history of prior cesarean delivery. Rates were represented as number of cases per 10,000 deliveries. Categorical variables were represented as the number of cases with percentages, and compared with Pearson’s Chi square test. Numerical variables were represented as means with standard deviation and compared with independent t test.
To isolate the main predictors of uterine rupture from variables containing information prior to delivery (preceding factors), likelihood ratio forward selection was used to regress specific variables against uterine rupture using multivariable logistic regression models. Using the medians of the variables that most significantly predict uterine rupture, the final logistic regression model was used to create simulated groups with an average- and high-risk of uterine rupture; and combined odds ratios of uterine rupture according to history of prior cesarean were calculated. A p value < 0.05 with confidence intervals not crossing one was used to indicate statistical significance.
Results
During 2011–2012, there were 7,922,016 births in the US Among these, 1925 were complicated by uterine rupture (baseline frequency of 2.4 × 10,000 births). Using these cases, the algorithm identified 3765 non-rupture cases (final case–control ratio 1:1–2). Cases according to history of previous cesarean delivery are shown in Fig. 1. The frequency of uterine rupture in cases without and with history of previous cesarean delivery was 1.8 and 8.9 per 10,000 births, respectively. For all cases, demographic information is shown in Table 1. Cases complicated by uterine rupture were predominantly older, African–American, had a lower socio-economic status, and had higher-order gestation, less interval since last birth, higher BMI and higher number of prior cesarean deliveries. There were no other demographic differences between groups.
For all cases, from all preceding risk factors analyzed, the model retained ten predictors, with chorioamnionitis, history of previous cesarean and pregestational diabetes as the most significant predictors of uterine rupture (Table 2). Using the medians of the most significant demographic factors, an average-risk group for uterine rupture was defined as age = 25, BMI = 24, parity = 1; and a high-risk group as age = 25, BMI = 24, plurality >1, parity = 6, number of previous cesarean deliveries ≥1. The odds of uterine rupture in the high-risk group was 78.5 fold higher compared to an average-risk group, increasing the uterine rupture absolute risk from 2.4 to 189.2 per 10,000 births (Fig. 2).
In cases without a history of previous cesarean delivery, from all possible preceding risk factors analyzed, the model retained only seven factors, with multiple gestation, chronic hypertension and chorioamnionitis being the most significant predictors (Table 3). Compared to an average-risk patient (defined as cases of age = 27, parity = 2 without other risk factors), the combination of multiple gestation, chronic hypertension and chorioamnionitis increased the odds of uterine rupture in a high-risk group 59 fold, increasing the uterine rupture absolute risk from 1.8 to 107.0 per 10,000 births (Fig. 2).
In cases with history of previous cesarean delivery, from all possible preceding risk factors analyzed, the model retained only six factors, with induction and/or augmentation of labor and chorioamnionitis being the most significant predictors (Table 4). Compared to an average-risk patient (defined as cases of parity = 2, BMI = 26, interval since last birth 37 months), the combination of oxytocin use and chorioamnionitis increased the odds of uterine rupture in the high-risk group 33 fold (almost 3% of cases), increasing the uterine rupture absolute risk from 0.8 to 27.6 per 10,000 births (Fig. 2).
Discussion
This study reveals that, although uterine rupture is a rare event, and in spite of numerous guidelines aiming to decrease cesarean rates, it is still a significant issue in obstetric practice. New risks factors, previously unrelated to uterine rupture, are now playing an important role in its occurrence. If some of these occur in combination, they may increase the risk of rupture significantly, and may be considered in the clinical evaluation of labor management and delivery route.
The frequency of uterine rupture depends on several factors such as gestational age, socio-economic status, geographic location, history of prior cesarean, type of prior incision, number of previous deliveries, and type of labor [11]. Former nationwide population-based studies reported an overall incidence of uterine rupture of 2.5 per 10,000 births [9]. In women without previous cesarean, a study reported an incidence of 0.7 per 10,000 births [12]. In patients with prior cesarean, another study reported an incidence of 37.1 per 10,000 births [9]. A study performed in Massachusetts reported incidences of 5.1 and 0.8 per 10,000 women with and without uterine scar, respectively [13]. Over the years, the rates have not decreased [9] and our results support those findings. In fact, a recent study reported an incidence of uterine rupture of 5.6/10,000 deliveries. [14] Thus, current guidelines on uterine rupture occurrence and its implications on maternal and neonatal morbidity–mortality may be revisited.
Changes in obstetric practice and rise in cesarean and induction of labor rates [15] suggest that analysis of previously unidentified risk factors [9] should be considered. In contrast to previous studies showing lower rates of uterine rupture in African–Americans [16], or no increased risk in higher-order gestations [17], we observed that these factors are now strongly associated with uterine rupture. The effect of race/ethnicity in perinatal outcomes after repeat cesarean or induction of labor has been previously demonstrated [18,19,20]. Further, we found that lower socio-economic status presents increased uterine rupture rates, similar to former studies [21]. Also, we found that short interpregnancy interval is still a significant risk factor as described before [22].
Although pregnancy complications such as diabetes and obesity are strongly related to adverse outcomes [10, 23] [24], their effect in the risk of uterine rupture has not been fully studied. Similarly, chorioamnionitis has not been previously associated uterine rupture. We found that these factors are significantly associated with uterine rupture, probably due to the association with protracted labor.
Uterine rupture in the unscarred uterus is rare [25]; therefore, it has been difficult to find significant risk factors [26]. We found that multiparity was significantly associated with uterine rupture, which conflicts with current evidence [27]. We also found chronic hypertension to be strongly associated with uterine rupture. Although former studies have showed increased risk of failed trial of labor in cases with chronic hypertension [28], research focusing on its effects in uterine rupture is limited. The relation of hypertension with protracted labor [29] might be a possible explanation.
Most of our findings agree with previous studies showing increased risk of uterine rupture in laboring women with prior cesarean having received oxytocin for either induction or augmentation of labor. The question is, therefore, whether to induce these patients at term or await for spontaneous labor. This issue was assessed in a study that showed increased risks of uterine rupture but higher chances of successful vaginal delivery [30].
The strengths of this study are rooted in its population-based methodology, being one of the largest series of uterine rupture in the literature. In addition, we were able to provide evidence of the strong association of formerly unrelated factors with uterine rupture. However, this study is not without limitations. Its retrospective nature, based on birth registry records, carries risks of potential coding errors.
In conclusion, based on national data, uterine rupture is still a major issue to be considered in pre-labor counseling and labor management. Due to changes in obstetric practice, previously unidentified risk factors may now be playing an important role. The combination of some of these risks factors may increase the risk enough to influence clinical practice and prevent potentially devastating complications, resulting in improved health of mothers and babies.
References
Chauhan SP, Martin JN Jr, Henrichs CE, Morrison JC, Magann EF (2003) Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(2):408–417 (PubMed PMID: 14520209)
Vilchez G, Hoyos LR, Maldonado MC, Lagos M, Kruger M, Bahado-Singh R (2016) Risk of neonatal mortality according to gestational age after elective repeat cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(1):77–81. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3955-z (PubMed PMID: 26590575)
Ronel D, Wiznitzer A, Sergienko R, Zlotnik A, Sheiner E (2012) Trends, risk factors and pregnancy outcome in women with uterine rupture. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(2):317–321. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-1977-8 (PubMed PMID: 21735183)
Landon MB (2010) Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Semin Perinatol 34(4):267–271. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2010.03.005 (PubMed PMID: 20654777)
Vlemminx MW, de Lau H, Oei SG (2017) Tocogram characteristics of uterine rupture: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(1):17–26. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4214-7 (PubMed PMID: 27722806; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5225169)
Matsubara S (2012) “Masked uterine rupture”: key to diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286(4):1075–1076. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2370-y (PubMed PMID: 22569717)
American College of O, Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal M, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM et al (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210(3):179–193. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026. (PubMed PMID: 24565430)
Eshkoli T, Weintraub AY, Baron J, Sheiner E (2015) The significance of a uterine rupture in subsequent births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(4):799–803. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3715-0 (PubMed PMID: 25864097)
Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsen L, Daltveit AK, Vangen S (2015) Uterine rupture: trends over 40 years. BJOG. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13394 (PubMed PMID: 25846698)
Vilchez GA, Dai J, Hoyos LR, Gill N, Bahado-Singh R, Sokol RJ (2015) Labor and neonatal outcomes after term induction of labor in gestational diabetes. J Perinatol 35(11):924–929. doi:10.1038/jp.2015.103 (PubMed PMID: 26313053)
Gupta A, Nanda S (2011) Uterine rupture in pregnancy: a five-year study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(3):437–441. doi:10.1007/s00404-010-1357-9 (PubMed PMID: 20107824)
Barger MK, Nannini A, DeJoy S, Wisner K, Markenson G (2013) Maternal and newborn outcomes following uterine rupture among women without versus those with a prior cesarean. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 26(2):183–187. doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.725790 (PubMed PMID: 22954425)
Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J (2009) Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG. 116(8):1069–1078. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x (discussion 78–80; PubMed PMID: 19515148)
Colmorn LB, Petersen KB, Jakobsson M, Lindqvist PG, Klungsoyr K, Kallen K et al (2015) The Nordic Obstetric Surveillance Study: a study of complete uterine rupture, abnormally invasive placenta, peripartum hysterectomy, and severe blood loss at delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(7):734–744. doi:10.1111/aogs.12639 (PubMed PMID: 25828911)
Uddin SF, Simon AE (2013) Rates and success rates of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2009. Matern Child Health J 17(7):1309–1314. doi:10.1007/s10995-012-1132-6 (PubMed PMID: 22991012)
Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Peipert J, Stevens E, Macones GA (2008) Racial disparity in the success and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):654–658. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318163be22 (PubMed PMID: 18310368)
Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Pare E, Peipert JP, Stevens EJ, Nelson DB et al (2005) Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) attempt in twin pregnancies: is it safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(3 Pt 2):1050–1055. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.038 (PubMed PMID: 16157110)
Vilchez G, Dai J, Gill N, Lagos M, Bahado-Singh R, Sokol RJ (2016) Racial disparities in the optimal for induction of labor in low-risk term pregnancies: a national population-based study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29(8):1279–1282. doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1045865 (PubMed PMID: 26004983)
Vilchez G, Chelliah A, Bratley E, Bahado-Singh R, Sokol R (2015) Decreased risk of prematurity after elective repeat cesarean delivery in Hispanics. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28(2):141–145. doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.907781 (PubMed PMID: 24660899)
Vilchez G, Chelliah A, Argoti P, Jeelani R, Bahado-Singh R (2014) Maternal race and neonatal outcomes after elective repeat cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 27(4):368–371. doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.818649 (PubMed PMID: 23796068)
Berhe Y, Wall LL (2014) Uterine rupture in resource-poor countries. Obstet Gynecol Surv 69(11):695–707. doi:10.1097/OGX.0000000000000123 (PubMed PMID: 25409161)
Stamilio DM, DeFranco E, Pare E, Odibo AO, Peipert JF, Allsworth JE et al (2007) Short interpregnancy interval: risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1075–1082. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000286759.49895.46 (PubMed PMID: 17978122)
Hoyos LR, Malik M, Najjar M, Rodriguez-Kovacs J, Abdallah M, Vilchez G et al (2017) Morbid obesity and outcome of ectopic pregnancy following capped single-dose regimen methotrexate. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(2):375–381. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4229-0 (PubMed PMID: 27844211)
Oboro V, Adewunmi A, Ande A, Olagbuji B, Ezeanochie M, Oyeniran A (2010) Morbidity associated with failed vaginal birth after cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(9):1229–1232. doi:10.3109/00016349.2010.499448 (PubMed PMID: 20804350)
Dai J, Vilchez G, Gill N, Chelliah A, Hoyos L, Sokol R (2015) Rupture of the unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(1 Suppl):S322–S323
Walsh CA, Baxi LV (2007) Rupture of the primigravid uterus: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 62(5):327–334. doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000261643.11301.56 (quiz 53-4)
Hochler H, Yaffe H, Schwed P, Mankuta D (2014) Safety of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in grandmultiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 123(2 Pt 1):304–308. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000082 (PubMed PMID: 24402589)
d’Orsi E, Chor D, Giffin K, Barbosa GP, Angulo-Tuesta AJ, Gama AS et al (2001) Factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean in a maternity hospital of Rio de Janeiro. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97(2):152–157 (PubMed PMID: 11451540)
Myles TD, Santolaya J (2003) Maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with a prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 102(1):52–58 (PubMed PMID: 12850607)
Palatnik A, Grobman WA (2015) Induction of labor versus expectant management for women with a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 212(3):358 e1–358 e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.026 (PubMed PMID: 25725658)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GV: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing—review and editing. SN: investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing. KK: investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing. MW: investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing. JD: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. RS: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent
This is a retrospective population-based study of de-identified data so informed consent was not possible/required.
Funding
This study was not funded.
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vilchez, G., Nazeer, S., Kumar, K. et al. Contemporary epidemiology and novel predictors of uterine rupture: a nationwide population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296, 869–875 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4508-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4508-4