Abstract
Objective The majority of breech fetuses are delivered by Cesarean birth as few physicians are trained in vaginal breech birth. An external cephalic version (ECV) can prevent Cesarean delivery and the associated morbidity in these patients. Current guidelines recommend all patients with breech presentation be offered an ECV attempt. Not all attempts are successful, and an attempt does carry some risks so shared decision-making is necessary. To aid in patient counseling, over a dozen prediction models to predict ECV success have been proposed in the last few years. However, very few models have been externally validated, and thus none have been adopted into clinical practice. This study aims to use data from a United States hospital to provide further data on ECV prediction models.
Study Design This study retrospectively gathered data from Carle Foundation Hospital and used it to test six models previously proposed to predict ECV success. These models were Dahl 2021, Bilgory 2023, López Pérez 2020, Kok 2011, Burgos 2010, and Tasnim 2012 (GNK-PIMS score).
Results 125 patients undergoing 132 ECV attempts were included. 69 attempts were successful (52.2%). Dahl 2021 had the greatest predictive value (AUC 0.779), while Tasnim 2012 performed the worst (AUC 0.626). The remaining models had similar predictive values as each other (AUC 0.68-0.71). Bootstrapping confirmed that all models except Tasnim 2012 had confidence intervals not including 0.5. The bootstrapped 95% AUC confidence interval for Dahl 2021 was 0.71-0.84. In terms of calibration, Dahl 2021 was well calibrated with predicted probabilities matching observed probabilities. Bilgory 2023 and López Pérez were poorly calibrated.
Conclusion Multiple prediction tools have now been externally validated for ECV success. Dahl 2021 is the most promising prediction tool.
Key Points
Prediction models can be powerful tools for patient counseling
The odds of ECV success can estimated based on patient factors and clinical findings
Of the 6 tested models, only Dahl 2021 appears to have good predictive value and calibration
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The IRB of Carle Foundation Hospital gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplement.
