Development of a regression model for the prediction of a success of external cephalic version

Background: The success of external cephalic version was affected by a series of factors. Development of a regression model incorporating multiple important factors will help prediction of success of external cephalic version. Here, we describe the development of a logistic regression model for predicting the success of external cephalic version for breech presentation in pregnancy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 100 pregnant women who were pregnant with breech presentation during 37-40 weeks of gestation, and who were admitted in Fujian Provincial Maternity and Children’s Hospital affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from Jan 2016 to Jan 2017. They were without other indications for cesarean section and ready to receive external cephalic version. The clinical data of the subjects were subjected to univariate analyses for selecting variables to be included in the logistic regression model. AUC of the regression model was calculated for estimate of the accuracy of the model. Independent variables with P≤0.1 in the multivariate analysis were selected for establishment of a scoring system of risk factors. External cephalic version success rate was compared between groups that were divided according to a scoring system. ROC curve analysis was employed to convert the quantitative variables into bi-categorical variables to be included as independent variables in the multivariate logistic regression model. Results: The success rate of external cephalic version was 62% (62/100), and 48 cases (80%) underwent vaginal delivery at the end. The following variables were included in the regression model: parity, the sum of uterine height and presentation height, amniotic fluid volume, spontaneous transposition times during pregnancy and fetal head holding. The AUC of the model was 0.929 (95% CI: 0.878-0.981). The comparison between groups divided by scoring revealed groups with higher scores had higher success ECV rate. Conclusion: Our regression model showed a good performance for predicting ECV success for breech presentation in single pregnancy.

[1]  Jun Yang,et al.  Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of spinal myxopapillary ependymomas , 2019, Neurosurgical Review.

[2]  B. Mol,et al.  Effect of a two-stage intervention package on the cesarean section rate in Guangzhou, China: A before-and-after study , 2019, PLoS medicine.

[3]  H. Barros,et al.  Mode of delivery and mortality and morbidity for very preterm singleton infants in a breech position: A European cohort study. , 2019, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[4]  H. Sago,et al.  The outcomes and risk factors of fetal bradycardia associated with external cephalic version , 2019, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[5]  Alyssa R. Hersh Prediction of Success in External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation at Term: Correction. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  Gayle Olson Koutrouvelis Role of External Cephalic Version in Reducing the Cesarean Delivery Rate. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  C. Raut,et al.  Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in six cases of malignant tenosynovial giant cell tumor: initial experience of molecularly targeted therapy , 2018, BMC Cancer.

[8]  B. Mol,et al.  Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for external cephalic version. , 2018, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[9]  F. Ebner,et al.  Predictors for a successful external cephalic version: a single centre experience , 2016, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[10]  N. Clode,et al.  Prediction of Success in External Cephalic Version under Tocolysis: Still a Challenge. , 2015, Acta medica portuguesa.

[11]  B. Kaneshiro,et al.  Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis , 2015, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[12]  M. Faridi,et al.  Genital injuries in neonates following breech presentation. , 2015, Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine.

[13]  C. Weissman,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of external cephalic version in term multiparae with or without spinal analgesia. , 2010, British journal of anaesthesia.

[14]  Jonathan M. Tan,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation , 2010, BMC pregnancy and childbirth.

[15]  J. Cnossen,et al.  Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta‐analysis , 2009, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[16]  J. Cnossen,et al.  Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  Z. Memish,et al.  Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on wound infection after cesarean section in a situation of expected higher risk. , 2001, American journal of infection control.

[18]  W. Eiermann,et al.  [Prognostic factors in the indication for labor induction after previous delivery by cesarean section]. , 1988, Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie.

[19]  E. Zackai,et al.  High cesarean section rate in trisomy 18 births: a potential indication for late prenatal diagnosis. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.