Body
Introduction
Breech presentation affects 3–4% of singleton term
pregnancies1,2. External cephalic version (ECV) is a
procedure for modifying the fetal position and achieving a cephalic
presentation. The objective of the ECV is to offer an opportunity for
cephalic delivery to occur which, as widely known, is safer than breech
or cesarean section. The use of an external cephalic version in breech
presentation, according to WHO2, certainly reduces the
incidence of cesarean section, which is of special interest in those
units where vaginal breech delivery is not a common practice.
ECV is usually performed before the active labor period begins. Factors
associated with a higher ECV success rate include3–5:
multiparity, a transverse presentation, black race, posterior placenta,
amniotic fluid index higher than 10 cm.
Certain interventions have been related to helping in
ECV6 such as tocolysis or analgesia. Ritodrine has
been reported as a safe tocolytic agent and the drug that improves the
most ECV success rate6,7. Other tocolytic agents
studied in ECV are nifedipine6,
atosiban6, nitroglycerine8, or
others β-agonist8.
Regarding analgesia in ECV, some interventions have been analyzed such
as systemic opioids or neuraxial anesthesia. The use of neuraxial
anesthesia during ECV has been found to increase the rate of successful
ECV by as much as 60%9–12.
When different types of anesthesia (neuraxial, intravenous, or
inhalational) in ECV are compared, neuraxial anesthesia seems to
increase ECV success rate the most13. No differences
are reported in the ECV success rate when systemic opioids, such as
remifentanil, or inhalational anesthesia are
compared9. To the best of our knowledge, ECV results
using propofol as an anesthetic agent have not been previously analyzed,
even though propofol is a common agent used for non-obstetric cases.
The main objective of this study is to analyze ECV results when propofol
is used. As secondary objectives, it was compared the ECV results when
propofol or neuraxial techniques were used. It was also analyzed the
predictors of emergency cesarean section during ECV success. We
hypothesize that propofol is a safe agent for ECV that does not affect
ECV success rate nor severe ECV complications rate.
Methods
It is a longitudinal prospective analysis of ECV performed in ’Virgen de
la Arrixaca’ University Clinical Hospital in Murcia (Spain) between the
1st of January of 2018 and 31st of
December of 2020. This center is the largest maternity department in
Spain with approximately 7.000 births per year. This study was approved
by the Clinical Research Committee of the ’Virgen de la Arrixaca’
University Clinical Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from
all participants. This manuscript adheres to the applicable STROBE
guidelines.
Procedure
ECV procedure was performed by the members of an ECV team. Each
procedure was performed by two obstetricians of the Maternal-Fetal Unit
in the obstetric operating room with the presence of an anesthesiologist
and a midwife. Obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and midwives who are
members of the ECV team were super-specialized professionals and they
had more than 7 years of experience in ECV. Patients were recruited
during the third-trimester obstetric evaluation at 36 week’s gestation.
ECV was offered to every pregnant woman with non-cephalic presentation
and no absolute contraindication for vaginal delivery. Women were deemed
ineligible to undergo ECV in cases of severe preeclampsia, recent
vaginal bleeding, confirmed rupture of membranes, and when an absolute
indication for cesarean section was identified (i.e., placenta previa).
In the consult, all pregnant women were asked about personal and
obstetric history. An ultrasound assessment for studying the fetal
position, fetal biometry, amniotic fluid, and placental position was
performed in the consult.
If the patient was eligible and informed consent was obtained, ECV is
performed at 37 weeks gestation. All patients were asked to fast for 8
hours before the procedure. Before ECV was performed, pregnant women
were evaluated by the anesthesiologist. The patients were asked to empty
their bladder. Just before the procedure, 0.2 mg/min of ritodrine was
intravenously administered for 30 minutes14.
In the operating room, maternal vital signs were monitored (heart rate,
EKG, temperature, noninvasive blood pressure, oxygen saturation). The
patient was positioned in Trendelenburg (15º). The procedure was
performed under anesthesia. Anesthesia procedure (sedation or neuraxial
anesthesia) was elected by the anesthesiologist.
Two ECV attempts following the forward roll technique were performed by
two experienced obstetricians. Immediately after the procedure, fetal
well-being was assessed with a continuous cardiotocograph register
during the following 4 hours. Anti-D was given to rhesus-negative women.
24 hours after the procedure, fetal well-being was reassessed with
continuous monitoring for 1 hour. If any complication occurred
immediately after the procedure, an urgent cesarean section was
performed.
Outcome variables
ECV is considered successful when a cephalic presentation is achieved.
Clinically relevant hypotension was considered if systolic blood
pressure (SBP) was below 90 mmHg or the fall of at least 20% of SBP.
Intraversion cesarean is considered as any cesarean carried out during
the ECV or the first 24 hours after the procedure due to any
complication secondary to it (i.e., fetal compromise, cord prolapse,
vaginal bleeding, …).
Statistical Analysis
Clinical data were recorded prospectively on all referrals. Anesthesia
data were recorded retrospectively. Data on pregnancy outcomes were
collected from hospital obstetric and neonatal records. Continuous
variables were assessed for normality with the Shapiro–Wilk test.
The primary outcome variable was the incidence of external cephalic
version procedural success. The secondary outcome variable was the
incidence of clinically relevant hypotension. The tertiary outcome
variable was the incidence of cesarean section during the following 24
hours. Weight and height at 12 week’s gestation were recorded from the
computed data records. Taking outcome variables: each obstetric history,
anthropometric, estimated fetal weight at 3rd trimester, placental
location, and fetal presentation underwent bivariate analysis using
Student’s t-test or Pearson’s chi-squared test. All variables with
P-value <0.2 in bivariate analysis were considered using a
multivariate analysis logistic regression model. In common with all
logistic regression analyses, this produced a model applicable to the
dataset from which it was generated. Ideally, this model would now be
validated in a separate prospective dataset of equal or greater size to
ensure that the association shown is robust.
Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
Illinois) and RStudio version 1.2.5033: Integrated Development for R
(RStudio, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts), and R version 3.6.2
(https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed February 4, 2021).
Results
242 patients were recruited between the 1st of January
of 2018 and the 31st of December of 2020.
Characteristics of pregnant women who underwent are shown in Table 1.
Although 242 pregnant women underwent ECV, all data were available for
analysis in 153 patients. The mean age was 32.5 years. 62.8% of the
patients were nulliparous. Only nine pregnant women (3.7%) had a
previous cesarean section. The mean estimated fetal weight at the
3rd trimester was 2784 g. The placenta was located in
the anterior wall of the uterus in 52.5% of the patients, posterior in
39.6%, in the fundus in 3.3%, and in the lateral wall in 4.6%. The
mean maternal BMI was 28.0 kg/m2. ECV was performed at
37.4 weeks gestation as an average, and it was indicated because of
breech presentation in 93% or transverse lie in 7%.
Characteristics of anesthesia are shown in Table 2. Meanwhile, sedation
was performed in 136 patients (88.8%), neuraxial anesthesia was carried
out in 17 (11.2%). No differences were found in the characteristics of
pregnant women between both groups. For sedation group, propofol was
used in 131 (96.3%), remifentanil was used in four (2.9%) and Ketamine
was used in one (0.7%). The mean propofol dose was 156.1 mg (SD 6.1).
When neuraxial anesthesia was performed, bupivacaine was used in nine
(52.9%), prilocaine was used in seven (41.2%), and lidocaine just in
one (5.9%).
ECV was successful in 162 pregnant women (66.9%). In nulliparous, a
cephalic presentation was achieved after ECV in 93 (61.2%). In
multiparous, ECV was successful in 69 (76.7%).
Data of delivery was not available for three pregnant women who gave
birth in other hospital. After ECV, the delivery occurred at 38.9 week’s
gestation as an average. The eutocic delivery rate was 35.6%, operative
vaginal delivery rate was 16.3%. Urgent cesarean section was performed
on 28 pregnant women (11.7%). And, finally, elective scheduled cesarean
section due to non-cephalic presentation underwent in 71 patients
(29.7%).
The factors associated with ECV success in the logistic regression
multivariant model (Table 3) were sedation (p=0.044; OR=3.44; CI95%
1.03 to 11.46), multiparity (p=0.004; OR=3.53; CI95% 1.48 to 8.38), BMI
(p=0.006; OR=0.89; CI95% 0.81 to 0.97) and amniotic fluid pocket
(p=0.028; OR=1.03; CI95% 1.01 to 1.06). No statistically significative
differences were found in ECV success rate for previous cesarean section
(p=0.154; OR=0.17; CI95% 0.01 to 1.96). If BMI was categorized (Table
4), patients with BMI above 30 Kg/m2 had reduced
possibilities of ECV success (p=0.015; OR=0.39; 0.18 to 0.83) when they
were compared with those with a BMI below 25 Kg/m2.
Intraversion complications occurred in 31 (12.8%) pregnant women (Table
5): nine (3.7%) non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns, seven (2.9%)
major vaginal bleeding, five (2.1%) minor vaginal bleeding, four
(1.7%) symptomatic uterine contractions during the following 48 hours,
three (1.2%) premature rupture of membranes, two (0.8) cord prolapse
and a (0.4%) maternal bronchoaspiration. An urgent cesarean section
during the first 24 hours after ECV was required in 16 (6.7%) patients.
Although during ECV clinically relevant hypotension occurred in 29
(20.9%) pregnant women, just in four (2.9%) patients vasoactive drugs
were needed. Hypotension was not statistically associated with drug dose
(p>0.05). Hypotension occurred in 24 (17.8%) pregnant
women who underwent sedation and eight (47.1%) patients who underwent
neuraxial techniques. These differences reached statistically
significance (p=0.008; OR=4.11; CI95% 1.44 to 11.74). However, no
differences were found in intraversion complications rate nor urgent
cesarean section rate during the first 24 hours after ECV when
anesthesia techniques (p=0.538 and p=0.516, respectively) or hypotension
(p=0.411 and p=0.289, respectively) during the procedure were compared.
Two newborns were admitted to neonatal unit care and one was admitted to
neonatal ICU. Neither of these three cases was related immediately to
ECV. One pregnant had an operative delivery at 38+1 weeks of gestation,
two weeks after ECV. During the labor, fetal bradycardia required an
operative delivery. The newborn APGAR score was 5/9, the fetal cord pH
were 7.11 and 7.21. The newborn was admitted to neonatal unit care. In
the second case, an urgent cesarean section was performed for
non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern at 37+6 weeks of gestation (5
days after ECV). The newborn APGAR score was 3/5, the fetal cord were
7.08 and 7.12. The newborn was admitted to the neonatal ICU. The last
case was a pregnant with a eutocic delivery at 40+3 weeks of gestation
(3 weeks after ECV). A shoulder dystocia occurred during the delivery.
The newborn weighed 4120 g, the APGAR score was 5/8, fetal cord pH were
7.05 and 7.12. The newborn was admitted to neonatal unit care.
One patient suffered bronchoaspiration. The bronchoaspiration occurred
just after ending the ECV. The patient was admitted to the maternal unit
care with antibiotic treatment. Although a cephalic presentation was
achieved, finally a cesarean section was performed due to the
bronchoaspiration after 7 days with treatment. A female was born with
APGAR 9/10, vein cord pH=7.32. The patient and her newborn were
discharged with no sequelae.
Discussion
Main findings
ECV is a safe and effective procedure for achieving a cephalic
presentation. ECV success rate in this study is 66.9%, which is higher
than those found in the literature (49.0%)3. In
nulliparous, cephalic presentation in this study is achieved after ECV
in 61.2%, which is a higher rate than those found in the bibliography
(40%)3. Equally, in multiparous, ECV in this study is
successful in 76.7% and it is higher than those found in other reports
(64%)3. This difference may be due to the use of
ritodrine, as a tocolytic agent, just before the procedure, the type of
analgesia, the gestational age at which ECV is performed, or the
obstetrician experience.
Interpretation
Other studies, that have performed spinal techniques for analgesia, have
reported lower ECV success rate9–12. Nevertheless,
two recent studies should be noted since the ECV success rate when
neuraxial anesthesia is performed is similar to
this13,15,16. Although C. Weiniger et
al.15 reported an ECV success rate of 87.1% in
pregnant women receiving spinal analgesia, they included the previous
cesarean section neither patients with a BMI above 40
kg/m2. K.S. Khaw et al.16 reported
an ECV success rate of 52.0% in pregnant women receiving spinal
analgesia and 40% in pregnant women receiving intravenous remifentanil.
In our study, remifentanil was rarely used and it is neither
representative nor comparable. Only in 3 patients, remifentanil was
administered, and just one resulted successfully.
In this study, the regression logistic model revealed that sedation
increases ECV success rate (p=0.044; OR=3.44; CI95% 1.03 to 11.46) when
it is compared with neuraxial technique. This result shows that sedation
in ECV is an effective option that may increase the ECV success rate.
In our study, the most used drug administered intravenously was
propofol. To the best of our knowledge, no report using propofol has
been published. It should be highlighted that intravenous analgesia with
remifentanil17–19 has reported a lower ECV success
rate (56.9%, 51.7%, 49% respectively) than propofol sedation which is
used in this report. Burgos et al.18 advised that
although remifentanil did not increase the ECV success rate, the pain
related to the procedure was markedly reduced.
No more than two attempts are proposed to perform ECV in the protocol.
The National Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics
recommends20 no more than 4 attempts with the
objective to avoid abruptio placentae and fetal heart rate disturbance.
Due to tocolysis and sedation, obstetricians might be induced to apply
greater forces, because of that, attempts in this study are limited to 2
in order to be more cautious with the procedure.
In this study, factors associated with ECV success are sedation
(p=0.044; OR=3.44; CI95% 1.03 to 11.46), multiparity (p=0.004; OR=3.53;
CI95% 1.48 to 8.38), BMI (p=0.006; OR=0.89; CI95% 0.81 to 0.97) and
amniotic fluid pocket (p=0.028; OR=1.03; CI95% 1.01 to 1.06). Besides,
multiparity, amniotic fluid pocket, and BMI are recognized as a factor
associated with a higher ECV success rate in other
reports3,4,21. A major effect reducing the ECV success
rate is reported in this study when BMI is above 30
Kg/m2 (OR=0.39, CI95% 0.18 to 0.83) when it is
compared with a BMI below 25
Kg/m2.21
ECV complications rate in this study is 12.8%, which is higher than
those found in other reports (5.39%)3. Other reports
have not reported minor complications such as premature rupture of
membranes, minor vaginal bleeding, or symptomatic uterine contractions
during the following 48 hours. Non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns
occurred in 3.7% of the procedures, this rate is higher than those
reported in the literature (0.9%)3. When an urgent
cesarean section rate during the first 24 hours after ECV is compared in
this study (6.7%) with those found in the literature
(4.7%)16, it is slightly higher. These differences
may be since tocolysis and sedation might induce the obstetricians to
apply greater forces or hypotension caused by anesthesia techniques.
Although hypotension occurred more likely in neuraxial techniques, it
did not cause an increase in urgent cesarean section rate during the
procedure. The optimal dosage of drugs for neuraxial anesthesia that
does not produce clinically relevant hypotension is a difficult goal.
Probably, because of that sedation is more used in our hospital.
Even though a bronchoaspiration is reported, it should be highlighted
that this is the only severe adverse event that occurred during the 7
years we have ECV records (more than 690 procedures). Notwithstanding
that fast are recommended at least during 8 hours before the procedure,
delayed gastric emptying can be delayed during
pregnancy22. Although, this case is rare for a
scheduled procedure it is critical to enhancing pre-anesthesia consult
for obstetrics procedures.
Strengths and Limitations
Some strengths should be highlighted. This study has a large number of
pregnant women recruited. It may be due to the Maternal-Fetal Unit of
this hospital is one of the largest in Spain. All the ECV procedures
were performed by the same obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and
midwives that constitute the ECV working group. This group has more than
7 years of experience in ECV. All the procedures were carried out in the
operating room where an urgent cesarean section can be rapidly
performed.
An important limitation of our study is the loss of information for an
anesthetic procedure. Due to logistic issues, some data for anesthesia
techniques were unavailable for 89 patients. No complications arose in
any of them, but the type of anesthesia technique, drug dose, blood
pressure register, and other relevant information was not available for
analysis for those patients. Despite the loss of anesthetic information,
ECV results when propofol is used are promising.
Another limitation of our study is that the maternal weight was measured
at 12 weeks gestation when the 1st-trimester scan was performed. The
weight modifications during pregnancy were not taken into consideration
with this measure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of this study showed that the administration
of propofol for ECV in pregnant women at term could facilitate a
successful ECV.
Contribution to Authorship:
J Sánchez-Romero, J López-Pérez helped to record data, performing an
ultrasound scan, and to design the study. AB Flores-Muñoz, MJ
Méndez-Martínez, JE Blanco-Carnero, A Nieto-Díaz and ML Sánchez-Ferrer
helped to record data and to design the study. F Araico-Rodríguez and D
Fuentes-García helped to design the study. L Falcón-Araña helped to
record data and to perform anesthesia techniques.
Funding statement:
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical statement: This study was approved on the 30thof April of 2020 by the Clinical Research Committee of the ’Virgen de la
Arrixaca’ University Clinical Hospital (2020-5-6-HCUVA). Written
informed consent was obtained from all participants.
References
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on
Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 161: External
Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;127(2):e54-61.
2. Hindawi I. Value and pregnancy outcome of external cephalic version.
East Mediterr Health J. 2005 Jul;11(4):633–9.
3. Melo P, Georgiou EX, Hedditch A, Ellaway P, Impey L. External
cephalic version at term: a cohort study of 18 years’ experience. BJOG.
2019 Mar;126(4):493–9.
4. Isakov O, Reicher L, Lavie A, Yogev Y, Maslovitz S. Prediction of
Success in External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation at Term.
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133(5):857–66.
5. Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BWJ, van der Post JA. External
cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008
Nov;112(5):1143–51.
6. Cluver C, Gyte GML, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions
for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when
using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb
9;(2):CD000184.
7. Levin G, Ezra Y, Weill Y, Kabiri D, Pollack RN, Rottenstreich A.
Nifedipine versus ritodrine during external cephalic version procedure:
a case control study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Oct 13;1–6.
8. Katz D, Riley K, Kim E, Beilin Y. Comparison of Nitroglycerin and
Terbutaline for External Cephalic Version in Women Who Received
Neuraxial Anesthesia: A Retrospective Analysis. Anesth Analg. 2020
Mar;130(3):e58–62.
9. Sullivan JT, Grobman WA, Bauchat JR, Scavone BM, Grouper S, McCarthy
RJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of combined
spinal-epidural analgesia on the success of external cephalic version
for breech presentation. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2009 Oct;18(4):328–34.
10. Mancuso KM, Yancey MK, Murphy JA, Markenson GR. Epidural analgesia
for cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2000
May;95(5):648–51.
11. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Di Tommaso M, Mele M, Berghella V.
Neuraxial analgesia to increase the success rate of external cephalic
version: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;215(3):276–86.
12. Chalifoux LA, Bauchat JR, Higgins N, Toledo P, Peralta FM, Farrer J,
et al. Effect of Intrathecal Bupivacaine Dose on the Success of External
Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation: A Prospective, Randomized,
Blinded Clinical Trial. Anesthesiology. 2017 Oct;127(4):625–32.
13. Hao Q, Hu Y, Zhang L, Ross J, Robishaw S, Noble C, et al. A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials of Neuraxial,
Intravenous, and Inhalational Anesthesia for External Cephalic Version.
Anesth Analg. 2020 Dec;131(6):1800–11.
14. Sánchez-Romero J, García-Soria V, Araico-Rodríguez F,
Herrera-Giménez J, Blanco-Carnero JE, Nieto-Díaz A, et al. External
Cephalic Version: Is it an Effective and Safe Procedure? J Vis Exp. 2020
Jun 6;(160).
15. Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sela HY, Weissman C, Ezra Y.
Randomized controlled trial of external cephalic version in term
multiparae with or without spinal analgesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010
May;104(5):613–8.
16. Khaw KS, Lee SWY, Ngan Kee WD, Law LW, Lau TK, Ng FF, et al.
Randomized trial of anaesthetic interventions in external cephalic
version for breech presentation. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Jun;114(6):944–50.
17. Wang Z-H, Yang Y, Xu G-P. Remifentanil analgesia during external
cephalic version for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term: A
randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017
Mar;96(11):e6256.
18. Burgos J, Pijoan JI, Osuna C, Cobos P, Rodriguez L, Centeno M del M,
et al. Increased pain relief with remifentanil does not improve the
success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized controlled
trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 May;95(5):547–54.
19. Muñoz H, Guerra S, Perez-Vaquero P, Valero Martinez C, Aizpuru F,
Lopez-Picado A. Remifentanil versus placebo for analgesia during
external cephalic version: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Obstet
Anesth. 2014 Feb;23(1):52–7.
20. Sociedad Española de Ginecologia y Obstetricia (SEGO). Versión
cefálica externa (actualizado marzo de 2014). Progresos de Obstetricia y
Ginecología. 2015 Aug;58(7):337–40.
21. Chaudhary S, Contag S, Yao R. The impact of maternal body mass index
on external cephalic version success. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019
Jul;32(13):2159–65.
22. Simpson KH, Stakes AF, Miller M. Pregnancy delays paracetamol
absorption and gastric emptying in patients undergoing surgery. Br J
Anaesth. 1988 Jan;60(1):24–7.
Tables
Table 1 - Characteristics of the pregnant women who underwent ECV.