Prediction of Success of External Cephalic Version after 36 Weeks

ABSTRACT

We aimed to develop a predictive model for the chance of a successful external cephalic version (ECV). We performed a prospective cohort study of women with a singleton fetus in breech presentation with a gestational age of 36 weeks or more. Data on parity, maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, gestational age, placental location, fetal position, estimated fetal weight, and amniotic fluid were recorded in all participants. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with a stepwise backward selection procedure was used to construct a prediction model for the occurrence of successful ECV. We included a total of 310 women. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that multiparity, increasing estimated fetal weight, and normal amniotic fluid were favorable predictors of successful ECV. Anterior placenta location was an unfavorable predictor for ECV outcome. Discrimination of the model was fair (area under the curve 0.71), and the calibration of the model was acceptable. Our prediction model appears to discriminate between women with a poor chance of successful ECV (less than 20%) and women with a good chance of success (more than 60%). When this model is validated externally, it could be used for patient counseling and clinical decision making.

KEYWORDS

External cephalic version - prognosis - prediction model - breech

REFERENCES

• 1 Collaris R J, Oei S G. External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;  83 511-518
• 2 Hofmeyr G J, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;  (2) CD000083
• 3 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Guidelines .External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation. Green-top Guidelines No. 20a, 2008. Available at http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/GT20aExternalCephalica2006.pdf
• 4 ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice . ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  108 235-237
• 5 Raynes-Greenow C H, Roberts C L, Barratt A, Brodrick B, Peat B. Pregnant women's preferences and knowledge of term breech management, in an Australian setting.  Midwifery. 2004;  20 181-187
• 6 Yogev Y, Horowitz E, Ben-Haroush A, Chen R, Kaplan B. Changing attitudes toward mode of delivery and external cephalic version in breech presentations.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;  79 221-224
• 7 Leung T Y, Lau T K, Lo K W, Rogers M S. A survey of pregnant women's attitude towards breech delivery and external cephalic version.  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;  40 253-259
• 8 Bewley S, Robson S C, Smith M, Glover A, Spencer J A. The introduction of external cephalic version at term into routine clinical practice.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993;  52 89-93
• 9 Caukwell S, Joels L A, Kyle P M, Mills M S. Women's attitudes towards management of breech presentation at term.  J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;  22 486-488
• 10 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, van der Post J, Opmeer B, Mol B W. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  199 630.e1-630.e7 discussion e1-e5
• 11 Aisenbrey G A, Catanzarite V A, Nelson C. External cephalic version: predictors of success.  Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  94 (5 Pt 1) 783-786
• 12 Fortunato S J, Mercer L J, Guzick D S. External cephalic version with tocolysis: factors associated with success.  Obstet Gynecol. 1988;  72 59-62
• 13 Lau T K, Lo K W, Wan D, Rogers M S. Predictors of successful external cephalic version at term: a prospective study.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;  104 798-802
• 14 Newman R B, Peacock B S, VanDorsten J P, Hunt H H. Predicting success of external cephalic version.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;  169 (2 Pt 1) 245-249 discussion 249-250
• 15 Kok M, Bais J M, van Lith J M et al.. Nifedipine as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial.  Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  112 (2 Pt 1) 271-276
• 16 Hadlock F P, Harrist R B, Sharman R S, Deter R L, Park S K. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;  151 333-337
• 17 Little R JA, Rublin D B. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley; 1987
• 18 Schafer J L. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997
• 19 Schafer J L, Graham J W. Missing data: our view of the state of the art.  Psychol Methods. 2002;  7 147-177
• 20 Steyerberg E W, Eijkemans M J, Habbema J D. Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;  52 935-942
• 21 Mol B W, van Wely M, Steyerberg E W. Using prognostic models in clinical infertility.  Hum Fertil (Camb). 2000;  3 199-202
• 22 Altman D G, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?.  Stat Med. 2000;  19 453-473