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


Brief 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.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

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).

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