Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for severe pre‐eclampsia

Background Pre‐eclampsia is a very frequent complication of pregnancy, and anticipation of birth is often necessary. However, the best mode of giving birth remains to be established, although observational studies suggest better maternal and perinatal outcomes with vaginal birth. Objectives To assess the effects of a policy of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with severe pre‐eclampsia on mortality and morbidity for mother and baby. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We planned to include all randomised trials of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for pregnant women with severe pre‐eclampsia. Quasi‐randomised and non‐randomised studies are not eligible for inclusion in this review. The focus of this review is severe pre‐eclampsia; studies of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in pregnant women with eclampsia are not eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. We excluded two studies. Main results There are no included studies in this review. Authors' conclusions There is a lack of robust evidence from randomised controlled trials that can inform practice regarding planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with severe pre‐eclampsia. There is a need for high‐quality randomised controlled trials to assess the short‐ and long‐term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth for these women and their babies.