Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Authors: N. Chaillet, E. Bujold, B. Masse, W. A. Grobman, P. Rozenberg, J. C. Pasquier, A. Shorten, M. Johri, F. Beaudoin, H. Abenhaim, S. Demers, W. Fraser, M. Dugas, S. Blouin, E. Dubé, R. Gauthier, PRISMA Trial Research Group

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Rates of cesarean delivery are continuously increasing in industrialized countries, with repeated cesarean accounting for about a third of all cesareans. Women who have undergone a first cesarean are facing a difficult choice for their next pregnancy, i.e.: (1) to plan for a second cesarean delivery, associated with higher risk of maternal complications than vaginal delivery; or (b) to have a trial of labor (TOL) with the aim to achieve a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and to accept a significant, but rare, risk of uterine rupture and its related maternal and neonatal complications. The objective of this trial is to assess whether a multifaceted intervention would reduce the rate of major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean.

Methods/design

The study is a stratified, non-blinded, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial of a multifaceted intervention. Hospitals in Quebec are the units of randomization and women are the units of analysis. As depicted in Figure 1, the study includes a 1-year pre-intervention period (baseline), a 5-month implementation period, and a 2-year intervention period. At the end of the baseline period, 20 hospitals will be allocated to the intervention group and 20 to the control group, using a randomization stratified by level of care. Medical records will be used to collect data before and during the intervention period. Primary outcome is the rate of a composite of major perinatal morbidities measured during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes include major and minor maternal morbidity; minor perinatal morbidity; and TOL and VBAC rate. The effect of the intervention will be assessed using the multivariable generalized-estimating-equations extension of logistic regression. The evaluation will include subgroup analyses for preterm and term birth, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Discussion

The intervention is designed to facilitate: (1) women’s decision-making process, using a decision analysis tool (DAT), (2) an estimate of uterine rupture risk during TOL using ultrasound evaluation of low-uterine segment thickness, (3) an estimate of chance of TOL success, using a validated prediction tool, and (4) the implementation of best practices for intrapartum management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN15346559. Registered on 20 August 2015.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian perinatal health report. Ottawa; 2008.
2.
Health system performance: health indicators. Ottawa: CIHI, 2005.
3.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Giving birth in Canada: regional trends from 2001-2002 to 2005-2006. Ottawa; 2007.
4.
Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:477–82.PubMed
5.
Zanardo V, Simbi AK, Franzoi M, Solda G, Salvadori A, Trevisanuto D. Neonatal respiratory morbidity risk and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean delivery. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:643–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2005;54:1–116.
7.
Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:439–42.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Giving birth in Canada: the costs. Ottawa; 2007.
9.
Rowe AK, de Savigny D, Lanata CF, Victora CG. How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in low-resource settings? Lancet. 2005;366:1026–35.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: final data for 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2007;56:1–103.PubMed
11.
Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BK, Helfand M. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ. 2004;329:19–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326–30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes Jr WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:689–95.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:3–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010;191:1-397.
17.
Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Wen SW, Rusen ID, Walker M, et al. Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial of labor and elective cesarean section among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1263–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Penna L, Arulkumaran S. Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82:399–409.CrossRefPubMed
20.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Caesarean Delivery Rates. Evaluation of Caesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000.
21.
Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL. A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:751–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Greene MF. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section--is the risk acceptable? N Engl J Med. 2001;345:54–5.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Dugas M, Shorten A, Dube E, Wassef M, Bujold E, Chaillet N. Decision aid tools to support women’s decision making in pregnancy and birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:1968–78.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:806–12.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Does information available at admission for delivery improve prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean? Am J Perinatol. 2009;26:693–701.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Chaillet N, Bujold E, Dube E, Grobman WA. Validation of a prediction model for vaginal birth after caesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:119–24.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):320. e1–6.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:321–7.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bujold E, Jastrow N, Gauthier RJ, et al. Measurement of the lower uterine segment: are we ready for a clinical application? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:339–40.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334:1305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Frost J, Shaw A, Montgomery A, Murphy DJ. Women’s views on the use of decision aids for decision making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: qualitative interview study. BJOG. 2009;116:896–905.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Glazier R, Goel V, Holzapfel S, Summers A, Pugh P, Yeung M. Written patient information about triple-marker screening: a randomized, controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:769–74.CrossRefPubMed
34.
O'Cathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ, Kirkham M. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. BMJ. 2002;324:643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Stewart A, Sodhi V, Harper N, Yentis SM. Assessment of the effect upon maternal knowledge of an information leaflet about pain relief in labour. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:1015–9.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Wong SS, Thornton JG, Gbolade B, Bekker HL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women’s choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG. 2006;113:688–94.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hunter AG, Cappelli M, Humphreys L, et al. A randomized trial comparing alternative approaches to prenatal diagnosis counseling in advanced maternal age patients. Clin Genet. 2005;67:303–13.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Secker-Walker RH, Solomon LJ, Flynn BS, Skelly JM, Mead PB. Reducing smoking during pregnancy and postpartum: physician’s advice supported by individual counseling. Prev Med. 1998;27:422–30.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Bekker HL, Hewison J, Thornton JG. Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2004;24:265–75.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Gates E, et al. Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:53–63.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Nassar N, Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, Barratt A, Peat B, Decision Aid for Breech Presentation Trial C. Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN14570598]. BJOG. 2007;114:325–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth. 2005;32:252–61.CrossRefPubMed
44.
O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003, Issue 1:CD001431.
45.
Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:311–4.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Costantine MM, Fox K, Byers BD, et al. Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1029–33.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Costantine MM, Fox KA, Pacheco LD, et al. Does information available at delivery improve the accuracy of predicting vaginal birth after cesarean? Validation of the published models in an independent patient cohort. Am J Perinatol. 2011;28:293–8.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:56. e1–6.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Jastrow N, Demers S, Chaillet N, et al. Lower uterine segment thickness to prevent uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcomes: a multicenter prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):604. e1–6.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Boutin A, Jastrow N, Girard M, et al. Reliability of two-dimensional transvaginal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness using video sequences. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(07):527–32.
51.
Boutin A, Jastrow N, Roberge S, et al. Reliability of 3-dimensional transvaginal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:933–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lavender T, Hart A, Smyth RM. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD005461.
53.
Society of Obstetrician and Gynaecologist of Canada. Managing obstetric risk efficiently. 2004.
54.
Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter? Health Econ. 2005;14:669–78.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Ottawa Decision Support Framework, Patient decision aids. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). 2009. (https://​decisionaid.​ohri.​ca/​methods.​html.​ Accessed 15 Dec 2011).
56.
57.
Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;87:215–9.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FM, Nastri CO, Filho FM. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:301–6.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Bujold E, Girard M, Jastrow N , Brassard N. OP15.08: Comparison between transvaginal and abdominal sonography of lower uterine segment thickness near term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:109–10.
60.
Bujold E, Francoeur D. Neonatal morbidity and decision-delivery interval in patients with uterine rupture. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27:671–3. author reply 3.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Guise JM, Berlin M, McDonagh M, Osterweil P, Chan B, Helfand M. Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:420–9.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Guise JM, Hashima J, Osterweil P. Evidence-based vaginal birth after Caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19:117–30.CrossRefPubMed
63.
64.
Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1710–21.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
66.
Pinol A, Piaggio G. ACluster: design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. 2nd ed. Geneva: Worl Health Organization; 2000.
67.
Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1934–40.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:1049–60.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Abrahamowicz M, Beauchamp ME, Fournier P, Dumont A. Evidence of subgroup-specific treatment effect in the absence of an overall effect: is there really a contradiction? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:1178–88.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Dumont A, Fournier P, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;382:146–57.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. Canada; 2006.
72.
Guidance document for the costing of health care resources in the Canadian setting: 2nd edition. Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.
73.
Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, Edmunds WJ. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:209–20.CrossRefPubMed
74.
O'Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. StatMethods MedRes. 2002;11:455–68.
75.
Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11:415–30.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis [see comments]. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:S68–80.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:722–32.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Browne WJ. MCMC Estimation in MLwiN, v2.26. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol; 2012.
79.
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779–87.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves--facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13:405–15.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Rasbash J, Charlton C, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B. MLwiN Version 2.10. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol; 2009.
82.
Stata 14.1. College Station, TX: Stata Corp; 2015.
Metadata
Title
A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Authors
N. Chaillet
E. Bujold
B. Masse
W. A. Grobman
P. Rozenberg
J. C. Pasquier
A. Shorten
M. Johri
F. Beaudoin
H. Abenhaim
S. Demers
W. Fraser
M. Dugas
S. Blouin
E. Dubé
R. Gauthier
PRISMA Trial Research Group
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Euiiyin-tang in the treatment of obesity: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Review

Sharing interim trial results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board with those responsible for the trial’s conduct and progress: a narrative review

Study protocol

Early versus late BCG vaccination in HIV-1-exposed infants in Uganda: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Commentary

Benefits and challenges of using the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design for testing an intervention for depression

Study protocol

Bracelet- and self-directed observational therapy for control of tuberculosis: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

School-based cognitive behavioral interventions for anxious youth: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial