Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Complete Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation. London (UK): Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG); 2006 Dec. 8 p. (Guideline; no. 20a). [44 references]

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

COMPLETE SUMMARY CONTENT

 
SCOPE
 METHODOLOGY - including Rating Scheme and Cost Analysis
 RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 BENEFITS/HARMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS
 CONTRAINDICATIONS
 QUALIFYING STATEMENTS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINE
 INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (IOM) NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT CATEGORIES
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

SCOPE

DISEASE/CONDITION(S)

Pregnancy with breech presentation

GUIDELINE CATEGORY

Counseling
Management
Treatment

CLINICAL SPECIALTY

Family Practice
Obstetrics and Gynecology

INTENDED USERS

Advanced Practice Nurses
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians

GUIDELINE OBJECTIVE(S)

To summarize the evidence regarding the routine use of external cephalic version for breech presentation

TARGET POPULATION

Pregnant women with breech presentation

INTERVENTIONS AND PRACTICES CONSIDERED

  1. External cephalic version (ECV)
    • With or without tocolysis using beta-sympathomimetics
    • Counseling patients on the benefits and risks of ECV
    • Timing of ECV
  2. Development of an ECV service, including policies to increase the number of women offered and undergoing ECV

MAJOR OUTCOMES CONSIDERED

  • Proportion of women with a breech presentation offered external cephalic version (ECV)
  • Success rates of ECV
  • Incidence of breech presentation at delivery
  • Complications of/after ECV
  • Rate of obstetric intervention during labor
  • Caesarean section rate

METHODOLOGY

METHODS USED TO COLLECT/SELECT EVIDENCE

Searches of Electronic Databases

DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO COLLECT/SELECT THE EVIDENCE

Evidence-based medicine reviews, including the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, were searched, together with the TRIP database for relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A search of Medline and PubMed (electronic databases) from 1966 to 2005 was also carried out. Search words included "breech," "external cephalic version," "fetal," "tocolysis," and "tocolytic agents," and the search was limited to humans and English language.

NUMBER OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Not stated

METHODS USED TO ASSESS THE QUALITY AND STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE

Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)

RATING SCHEME FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE

Levels of Evidence

Ia: Evidence obtained from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Ib: Evidence obtained from at least one randomised controlled trial

IIa: Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomisation

IIb: Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study

III: Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies, and case studies

IV: Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities

METHODS USED TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE

Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review with Evidence Tables

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE

Not stated

METHODS USED TO FORMULATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Expert Consensus

DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO FORMULATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Not stated

RATING SCHEME FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations were graded according to the level of evidence upon which they were based. The grading scheme used was based on a scheme formulated by the Clinical Outcomes Group of the National Health Service Executive.

Grade A - Requires at least one randomised controlled trial as part of a body of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. (Evidence levels Ia, Ib)

Grade B - Requires the availability of well controlled clinical studies but no randomised clinical trials on the topic of recommendations. (Evidence levels IIa, IIb, III)

Grade C - Requires evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experiences of respected authorities. Indicates an absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality. (Evidence level IV)

COST ANALYSIS

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

METHOD OF GUIDELINE VALIDATION

External Peer Review
Internal Peer Review

DESCRIPTION OF METHOD OF GUIDELINE VALIDATION

Following discussion in the Guidelines and Audit Committee, each green-top guideline is formally peer reviewed. At the same time the draft guideline is published on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Web site for further peer review discussion before final publication.

The names of author(s) and nominated peer reviewers are included in the original guideline document.

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to these evidence-based recommendations, the guideline development group also identifies points of best clinical practice in the original guideline document.

Levels of evidence (Ia-IV) and grading of recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

External Cephalic Version (ECV)

What Is the Impact of ECV on the Incidence of Breech Presentation at Delivery?

A - Women should be counselled that ECV reduces the chance of breech presentation at delivery.

What is the Effect of ECV on the Caesarean Section Rate?

A - Women with a breech baby should be informed that attempting ECV lowers their chances of having a caesarean section.

B - Labour with a cephalic presentation following ECV is associated with a higher rate of obstetric intervention than when ECV has not been required.

What is the Success Rate of ECV and What Influences It?

B - Women should be counselled that, with a trained operator, about 50% of ECV attempts will be successful but this rate can be individualised for them.

Does the Use of Tocolysis Improve the Success Rate of ECV?

A - The use of tocolysis with beta-sympathomimetics may be offered to women undergoing ECV as it has been shown to increase the success rate.

A simple protocol is to offer a slow intravenous or subcutaneous bolus of salbutamol or terbutaline either routinely or if an initial ECV attempt has failed. Women should be advised of the adverse effects of tocolysis with beta-2 agonists. (Evidence level Ia)

When Should ECV Be Offered?

B - ECV should be offered from 36 weeks in nulliparous women and from 37 weeks in multiparous women.

Is ECV safe?

B - Women should be counselled that ECV has a very low complication rate.

ECV should be performed where ultrasound to enable fetal heart rate visualisation, cardiotocography and theatre facilities are available. Cardiotocography should be performed after the procedure. Kleihauer testing is unnecessary but anti-D immunoglobulin is normally offered to rhesus-negative women. Given the low complication rate, particularly when compared with labour, starvation, anaesthetic premedication, and intravenous access are all unnecessary.

Is ECV Painful?

ECV can be painful, with few women experiencing no discomfort and around 5% reporting high pain scores. The procedure may need to be stopped because of this.

What Are Contraindications to ECV?

C - There are few absolute contraindications to ECV.

Absolute contraindications for ECV that are likely to be associated with increased mortality or morbidity:

  • Where caesarean delivery is required
  • Antepartum haemorrhage within the last 7 days
  • Abnormal cardiotocography
  • Major uterine anomaly
  • Ruptured membranes
  • Multiple pregnancy (except delivery of second twin)

Relative contraindications where ECV might be more complicated:

  • Small-for-gestational-age fetus with abnormal Doppler parameters
  • Proteinuric pre-eclampsia
  • Oligohydramnios
  • Major fetal anomalies
  • Scarred uterus
  • Unstable lie

Increasing the Uptake of ECV

B - Local policies should be implemented to actively increase the number of women offered and undergoing ECV.

Alternatives To ECV

A - There is insufficient evidence to support the use of postural management as a method of promoting spontaneous version over ECV.

A - Moxibustion should not be recommended as a method of promoting spontaneous version over ECV.

Developing An ECV Service

C - An ECV service, provided by appropriately trained clinicians, should be available to all women with a breech presentation at term.

Definitions:

Grading of Recommendations

Grade A - Requires at least one randomised controlled trial as part of a body of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. (Evidence levels Ia, Ib)

Grade B - Requires the availability of well controlled clinical studies but no randomised clinical trials on the topic of recommendations. (Evidence levels IIa, IIb, III)

Grade C - Requires evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experiences of respected authorities. Indicates an absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality. (Evidence level IV)

Levels of Evidence

Ia: Evidence obtained from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Ib: Evidence obtained from at least one randomised controlled trial

IIa: Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomisation

IIb: Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study

III: Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies, and case studies

IV: Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations" field).

BENEFITS/HARMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Appropriate use of external cephalic version may reduce the chance of breech presentation at term and therefore the associated risks, particularly of avoidable cesarean section.

POTENTIAL HARMS

  • External cephalic version (ECV) has a very low complication rate. A few case reports exist of complications such as placental abruption, uterine rupture, and fetomaternal haemorrhage.
  • ECV does not appear to promote labour, but is associated with alterations in fetal parameters. These include a fetal bradycardia and a nonreactive cardiotocograph that are almost invariably transient, alterations in umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery waveforms, and an increase in amniotic fluid volume. The significance of these is unknown.
  • ECV can be painful, with few women experiencing no discomfort and around 5% reporting high pain scores.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Absolute contraindications for external cephalic version (ECV) that are likely to be associated with increased mortality or morbidity:

  • Where caesarean delivery is required
  • Antepartum haemorrhage within the last 7 days
  • Abnormal cardiotocography
  • Major uterine anomaly
  • Ruptured membranes
  • Multiple pregnancy (except delivery of second twin)

Relative contraindications where ECV might be more complicated:

  • Small-for-gestational-age fetus with abnormal Doppler parameters
  • Proteinuric pre-eclampsia
  • Oligohydramnios
  • Major fetal anomalies
  • Scarred uterus
  • Unstable lie

QUALIFYING STATEMENTS

QUALIFYING STATEMENTS

  • These guidelines are "systematically developed statements which assist clinicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate treatment for specific conditions." Each guideline is systematically developed using a standardised methodology. Exact details of this process can be found in Clinical Governance Advice No. 1: Guidance for the Development of RCOG Green-top Guidelines (See the "Availability of Companion Documents" field in this summary.)
  • These recommendations are not intended to dictate an exclusive course of management or treatment. They must be evaluated with reference to individual patient needs, resources and limitations unique to the institution and variations in local populations. It is hoped that this process of local ownership will help to incorporate these guidelines into routine practice. Attention is drawn to areas of clinical uncertainty where further research may be indicated.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

An implementation strategy was not provided.

IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS

Audit Criteria/Indicators

For information about availability, see the "Availability of Companion Documents" and "Patient Resources" fields below.

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (IOM) NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT CATEGORIES

IOM CARE NEED

Getting Better
Staying Healthy

IOM DOMAIN

Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation. London (UK): Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG); 2006 Dec. 8 p. (Guideline; no. 20a). [44 references]

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

2006 Dec

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists - Medical Specialty Society

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Guidelines and Audit Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Authors: Mr LWM Impey, MRCOG, Oxford and Professor GJ Hofmeyr, FRCOG, East London, South Africa

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Guideline authors are required to complete a "declaration of interests" form.

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Web site.

Print copies: Available from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Bookshop, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RG; Telephone: +44 020 7772 6276; Fax, +44 020 7772 5991; e-mail: bookshop@rcog.org.uk. A listing and order form are available from the RCOG Web site.

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

The following are available:

Additionally, auditable standards can be found in section 8 of the original guideline document.

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on November 29, 2007.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo