Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;132(2):365–370. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002699

Table 2.

Obstetric outcomes of women who attempted an external cephalic version procedure compared to those who did not (expectant management)

Characteristic ECV attempted (n=1263) ECV not attempted ‘Expectant management’ (n=2854) p-value
Gestational age at delivery (w) 38.9±1.1 39.0±1.0 0.01
Cesarean delivery 839 (66.4) 2832 (99.2) <0.001
Indication for cesarean delivery* <0.001
 Malpresentation 713 (84.6) 2722 (96.1) <0.001
 Non-reassuring fetal status 64 (7.6) 100 (3.5) <0.001
 Labor dystocia or failed induction 57 (6.7) 0 (0) <0.001
 Failed forceps or vacuum attempt 3 (0.4) 0 (0) 0.001
 Cord prolapse 6 (0.7) 10 (0.3) 0.16

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%)

ECV, external cephalic version

*

Indication for cesarean delivery data are based on 839 women who underwent cesarean in the ECV attempted group and 2832 women who underwent cesarean in the ECV not-attempted group