RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation may lead to more favorable perinatal outcomes than expectant management, however, how to weigh the pros and cons of elective labor induction at 39 weeks, the expectation of spontaneous delivery at 40 or 41 weeks, or delayed labor induction at 40 or 41 weeks on neonatal and maternal outcomes remains a practical challenge in clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: We compared the neonatal and maternal outcomes between elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation and expectant management in a real-world setting. We also divided the expectantly managed group and compared outcomes of the spontaneous delivery at 40 or 41 weeks' gestation group and the induced group at 40 or 41 weeks' gestation with those of the elective induction at 39 weeks' gestation group. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included 21,282 participants who delivered between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022. Participants were initially categorized into 3 groups at 39 weeks' gestation, namely elective induction of labor, spontaneous delivery, and expectant management, for the primary analysis in which elective induction was compared with expectant management. Subsequently, the expectant management group at 39 weeks' gestation was divided into 3 groups at 40 weeks, and participants who underwent expectant management at 40 weeks were then divided into 2 groups at 41 weeks' gestation, namely elective induction and spontaneous delivery. In total, 6 groups were compared in the secondary analysis with the elective induction at 39 weeks' gestation group serving as the reference group. RESULTS: At 39 weeks' gestational age, participants who underwent elective induction of labor had a significantly lower risk for the primary composite outcomes than participants who were managed expectantly (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.95), and there was no significant difference in the risk for cesarean delivery between the 2 groups. After further dividing the expectantly managed group and comparing them with participants who underwent elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation, those who underwent spontaneous delivery at 40 weeks' gestation had significantly lower risks for cesarean delivery (0.61; 0.52-0.71) and chorioamnionitis (0.78; 0.61-1.00) but a higher risk for fetal distress (1.39; 1.22-1.57); those with spontaneous delivery at 41 weeks' gestation had a significantly higher risk for fetal distress (1.44; 1.16-1.79), postpartum hemorrhage (1.83; 1.26-2.66), and prolonged or arrested labor (1.61; 1.02-2.54). Moreover, when compared with participants who underwent elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation, participants who were induced later in gestation had significantly higher risks for adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes, especially at 40 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation was significantly associated with lower risks for adverse short-term neonatal and maternal outcomes when compared with expectant management. Moreover, our study highlights the nuanced trade-offs in risks and benefits between elective induction at 39 weeks' gestation and waiting for spontaneous labor or delayed induction at 40 or 41 weeks' gestation, thus providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making in practice.

RESUMEN

Background: The increased demand for induction of labour (IOL) at 39 weeks' gestation in normal-risk nulliparous patients creates significant logistical challenges for busy maternity units. A potential innovation is commencing induction by means of outpatient cervical ripening, using either a vaginal prostaglandin preparation (Propess) or an osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S). Methods: A Phase III, open label, single centre non-inferiority trial (EudraCT number 2019-004697-25) randomised healthy nulliparous women who chose elective IOL at 39 weeks to one of three methods of initial cervical ripening, specifically 12 h of Dilapan-S(D12), 24 h of Dilapan-S(D24), or 24 h of Propess(P24) between November 2020 and July 2023. After initial administration of the IOL agent in the hospital, participants returned home for 12 or 24 h, before readmission to complete delivery. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery achieved at any time, and this was compared in a non-inferiority analysis of Dilapan-S compared to Propess, within a 10% non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included pairwise comparisons for each induction agent, and a range of logistical factors, such as time to delivery, the need for an additional cervical ripening agent, and length of hospital stay. Findings: Of the 327 women randomised at 38 weeks, 271 (83%) completed the induction intervention. The D24 and P24 groups showed similarly high rates of vaginal delivery, 75% and 76% respectively. D12 had a lower vaginal delivery rate of 64% and consequently the overall comparison of Dilapan-S to Propess did not demonstrate non-inferiority (difference = -6%, 95% CI = -17%, 5%) because the lower 95% CI exceeded the -10% threshold of non-inferiority. The majority of participants across all groups were delivered by any means within 72 h of starting the induction process, inclusive of time spent at home (89% of the D24 group, 98% of the D12 group, 95% of the P24 group). There were no differences in rates of adverse events between groups. Interpretation: There were similarly high vaginal delivery rates for D24 and P24, with at least 75% of patients successfully delivering vaginally following outpatient cervical ripening, with no significant adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Funding: The Rotunda Foundation, Medicem Technology s.r.o.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present open label randomized controlled trial was to compare the rate of cesarean section (CS) after elective induction with that of expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial from a tertiary maternity care center enrolled low risk nulliparous pregnant women at 38-38+4 weeks between April 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. Participants were randomized into either the elective induction group (e-IOL) or the expectant management (EM) group though computer generated block randomization. The primary outcome was cesarean rate and the secondary outcome include adverse maternal and perinatal outcome between e-IOL and EM groups. We performed intention to treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 360 women were enrolled into the present study. Analysis was performed for 179 women in the e-IOL group and 180 women in the EM group. The baseline demographic characteristics including Bishop score were comparable between the groups. The CS rate in both groups was 17.3% (31/179) and 25% (45/180), which is comparable (P = 0.08). There was one intrapartum stillbirth in the e-IOL group, and two babies succumbed in the neonatal period in the EM group. The maternal and perinatal outcomes between the groups were not found to be significantly different. CONCLUSION: Elective induction of low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks was not associated with increased cesarean section rate. The maternal and perinatal outcomes were comparable. Large, multicentric real time randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the benefit of elective induction in low-risk nulliparous women. This should include centers with large volume of deliveries especially from emerging countries also.

RESUMEN

Background: With the increasing popularity of elective induction after 39 + 0 weeks, the question of whether induction of labor (IOL) is safe in women with isolated polyhydramnios has become more relevant. We aimed to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes associated with IOL among women with and without isolated polyhydramnios. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort that included women who underwent induction of labor at term. The study compared women who underwent IOL due to isolated polyhydramnios to low-risk women who underwent elective IOL due to gestational age only. The main outcome measure was a composite adverse maternal outcome, while the secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal adverse pregnancy outcomes. Results: During the study period, 1004 women underwent IOL at term and met inclusion and exclusion criteria; 162 had isolated polyhydramnios, and 842 had a normal amount of amniotic fluid. Women who had isolated polyhydramnios had higher rates of the composite adverse maternal outcome (28.7% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.02), prolonged hospital stay, perineal tear grade 3/4, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal hypoglycemia. Multivariate analyses revealed that among women with IOL, polyhydramnios was significantly associated with adverse composite maternal outcome [aOR 1.98 (1.27-3.10), p < 0.01]. Conclusions: IOL in women with isolated polyhydramnios at term was associated with worse perinatal outcomes compared to low-risk women who underwent elective IOL. Our findings suggest that the management of women with polyhydramnios cannot be extrapolated from studies of low-risk populations and that clinical decision-making should take into account the individual patient's risk factors and preferences.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone tablet and continuous vaginal insert (Propess®) in low-risk nulliparous women at term with insufficient cervical ripening receiving elective induction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted between March 2020 and February 2022 and included 230 women who underwent elective induction with dinoprostone tablet or vaginal insert. The primary endpoint was failure of induction. Secondary endpoints included time to vaginal delivery, vaginal delivery rate, as well as maternal and neonatal complications and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the main outcome measures; however, the high responders had a significant higher proportion of hyperstimulation and non-reassuring fetal status. The high responder in the Propess group was statistically significant younger (31.68 ± 4.73 vs. 33.82 ± 4.39, p = 0.027), while they had a significantly lower BMI at delivery time of the tablet group (24.49 ± 2.24 vs. 27.42 ± 4.32, p = 0.024). Factors associated with success of vaginal delivery within 24 h (p = 0.015, OR = 0.9, 95%CI = 0.82-0.98) and the Cesarean section (p < 0.001, OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 1.08-1.27) was BMI at delivery time. CONCLUSION: Slow-release vaginal insert and dinoprostone tablet had similar efficacy and safety for elective induction in low risk nulliparous women at term. Women with younger maternal age or lower BMI at delivery time may have a better response to dinoprostone and had a significantly higher proportion of hyperstimulation and non-reassuring fetal status.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To investigate whether the early initiation of neuraxial analgesia prolongs the duration of electively induced labor in Japanese multiparous women. METHODS: This retrospective study included multiparous term women who underwent elective induction of labor using combined spinal-epidural analgesia at the Showa University Hospital between October 2018 and March 2021. The participants were divided into two groups: early and late. If neuraxial analgesia was initiated when the cervical dilation was ≤3 cm, the patient was included in the early group. The remaining patients were included in the late group. The obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was the duration of delivery. The secondary outcomes were the rates of instrumental and cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-seven women (early group = 139, late group = 158) were included in the analysis. The duration of the first stage of labor did not differ significantly between the early and late groups (median: 232 vs. 260 min, p = 0.35). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage (37 vs. 40 min, p = 0.20). Moreover, the rates of instrumental and cesarean deliveries did not differ significantly between the groups, and the neonatal outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of neuraxial analgesia in the elective induction of parous Japanese women did not prolong the duration of delivery. Our results suggest that neuraxial analgesia may be initiated whenever a parturient desires it.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) at 39 weeks has been shown to decrease maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Given the growing demand for 39-week IOL, it is imperative that effective methods be assessed for induction in the outpatient setting. The aim of this study is to answer the clinical question as to whether Dilapan-S® vs Propess® as a method of cervical ripening is non-inferior in the outpatient setting at 39 weeks and to ascertain whether Dilapan-S® 12 h is non-inferior to Dilapan-S® 24 h. METHODS: This study is an open-label parallel group single-centre randomised trial. Participants are normal risk nulliparous women who have no pregnancy-related or medical contraindication to IOL. Women will be randomised to one of three induction groups-Dilapan-S® (12-h insertion or 24-h insertion) or Propess. Induction will be initiated between 39+0 and 39+4 weeks' gestation and participants will return home for either 12 or 24 h. They will be readmitted 12/24 h later in order to continue with induction of labour. Patient recruitment will take place over 30 months within a single centre. The study will recruit a maximum 109 women for each study arm. Total duration of participants' involvement in the trial will be 8 weeks to allow for postpartum follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will definitively answer whether Dilapan-S is non-inferior to Propess® as a method of induction of labour in the outpatient setting and whether cervical ripening with Dilapan-S over a 12-h timeframe is non-inferior to cervical ripening with Dilapan-S over a 24-h timeframe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2019-004697-25 Registered 14 September 2020.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses have demonstrated the cost effectiveness of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation for healthy nulliparous people. However, elective induction of labor is resource intensive, and optimal resource allocation requires a thorough understanding of which subgroups of patients will benefit most. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is more cost-effective in patients with favorable or unfavorable cervical examinations. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed 2 decision analysis models using TreeAge software: one modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group of nulliparous patients with unfavorable cervical examinations and the other modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group with favorable cervical examinations. Estimates of cost, probability, and health state utility were derived from the literature. Based on previous literature, we assumed that people with favorable cervical examinations would have a lower baseline rate of cesarean delivery and higher rates of spontaneous labor. RESULTS: In our base case analysis, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was 50-fold lower for people with unfavorable cervical examinations ($2150 vs $115,100). Induction of labor resulted in 3885 fewer cesarean deliveries and 58 fewer stillbirths per 100,000 patients for those with unfavorable examinations, whereas induction of labor resulted in 2293 fewer cesarean deliveries and 48 fewer stillbirths with labor induction for those with favorable cervical examinations. The results were sensitive to multiple inputs, including the likelihood of cesarean delivery, the cost of induction, the cost of vaginal or cesarean delivery, and the probability of spontaneous labor. In Monte Carlo analysis, the base case findings held true for 64.1% of modeled scenarios for patients with unfavorable cervixes and 55.4% of modeled scenarios for patients with favorable cervixes. CONCLUSION: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation may be cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. This result was driven by the likelihood of labor in patients with favorable cervical examinations, and the resultant avoidance of prolonged pregnancy and its complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and stillbirths. Health systems may wish to prioritize patients with unfavorable cervical examinations for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, which may be opposite to common practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that elective induction of labor (eIOL) at 39 weeks is protective of levator ani muscle injury (LAMI) and is associated with decreased pelvic symptoms at 6 weeks postpartum compared to expectant management of labor. METHODS: Prospective cohort pilot study of uncomplicated, primiparous women with a singleton, vertex gestation enrolled immediately post-vaginal delivery (VD). Subjects were dichotomized into two groups based on labor management: eIOL without complication defined by the ARRIVE trial versus spontaneous VD between 39 weeks0/7 and 42 weeks5/7 or no indication for IOL prior to 40 weeks5/7. The primary outcome was LAMI at 6 weeks postpartum as evidenced by any of the following ultrasound measures: (1) increased levator hiatal area (LHA) > 2500 mm2, (2) increased elasticity index (EI, > 75th quartile) or (3) levator enthesis avulsion. RESULTS: Analysis represents 45/102 consented women from July 2019-October 2020 (eIOL n = 22 and spontaneous VD, n = 23). Neither maternal, clinical, sociodemographic characteristics nor pelvic symptoms differed between groups. Fewer women had LAMI as defined by the primary outcome with eIOL (n = 5, 23.8%) compared to spontaneous VD (n = 15, 65.2%), p = 0.008. Levator enthesis was more deformable (increased EI) with spontaneous VD as compared to the eIOL [10.66 (8.99) vs. 5.68 (2.93), p = 0.046]. On univariate logistic regression women undergoing spontaneous VD had unadjusted OR of 6.0 (1.6-22.5, p = 0.008) of sustaining LAMI compared to those undergoing eIOL. CONCLUSIONS: Composite measures of LAMI though not pelvic floor symptoms were markedly increased in women undergoing spontaneous VD compared to those undergoing eIOL at 39 weeks.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the United States, the ARRIVE trial, has indicated that induction of labor (IOL) in low-risk nulliparous women with a gestational age (GA) of 39 weeks compared to expectant management (EM) resulted in a significant lower rate of cesarean deliveries. The Dutch maternity care system is different compared to the United States with, among other factors, an overall significantly lower percentage of caesarean sections (CS). To investigate whether IOL has a favorable outcome in the Dutch maternity care system, a new trial is advised. In this questionnaire-based study we aim to evaluate whether Dutch low-risk pregnant women would be willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks to EM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey in 2020 in the Netherlands. Respondent recruitment took place both in outpatient clinics at hospitals and midwife practices and via social media. Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with singleton gestation, GA ≤ 39 weeks, age 18 years or older and residency in the Netherlands. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation, a history of a CS, planned IOL or CS in current pregnancy and GA > 39 weeks. A subgroup was formed of low risk (receiving primary care) nulliparous women with a gestational age between 34 and 39 weeks, comparable with the ARRIVE trial. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty respondents participated. Of all respondents (nulli- and multiparous), 47 (12.4%) would be willing to participate in the hypothetical RCT and 70 (18.4%) might be willing to participate. Amongst the 70 women in the subgroup 11 women (15.7%) would be willing to participate and 17 (24.3%) might be willing to participate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Calculating sample size in a country with a low CS rate, in relation to 69.2% of women are not willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks with EM, would require >18.000 women to be counselled for participation. We believe such a study is a challenge in the Netherlands.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: As induction of labor (IOL) becomes more common, hospitals must adjust to accommodate longer length of stays on labor and delivery. An alternative to reduce the length of time spent on labor and delivery during an IOL is to perform cervical ripening on an antepartum unit. However, this may affect patient satisfaction and knowledge about the birthing process. This study aimed to evaluate whether cervical ripening conducted in an antepartum unit, rather than on a labor and delivery unit, was associated with changes in patient satisfaction with birth experience and baseline knowledge about IOL. Additionally, the study aimed to understand how patients would prefer to receive education on the IOL process. METHODS: This prospective observational study recruited English and Spanish-speaking patients at or after 39 weeks and 0 days gestation who were admitted for IOL. Consenting patients completed a preliminary survey containing sociodemographic and obstetric information as well as a previously validated survey on IOL knowledge on admission. Within 48 h of delivery, patients completed a follow-up survey including a validated birth satisfaction survey, the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised, and questions eliciting their preferred IOL education method. Data analyses compared patients who were admitted to antepartum for IOL to those admitted directly to labor and delivery. Multivariate analyses adjusted for sociodemographic and obstetric differences between the two groups. The primary outcomes were scores on the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised and on a test examining IOL knowledge. Secondary outcomes included preferred method of IOL education, obstetric outcomes, and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 277 eligible patients were approached from October 2020 to March 2021. Of the 216 (78%) that consented, 159 (74%) completed the follow-up survey and were subsequently included in this analysis. Individuals admitted directly to antepartum (n = 122) more commonly self-identified as Latina, Latin American, or Hispanic (27.9% vs. 8.1%, p = .01) and were nulliparous (68.0% vs. 21.6%, p < .001) compared to participants admitted to labor and delivery for IOL (n = 37). Patients admitted to labor and delivery were more likely to undergo elective induction (29.7% vs. 9.8%, p = .006). Admission unit was not associated with differences in birth satisfaction scores or obstetric or neonatal outcomes. However, after controlling for potential confounders, patients admitted to the antepartum unit correctly answered a greater percentage of questions assessing IOL knowledge compared to patients admitted to labor and delivery (73.9% vs. 62.3%, adjusted mean difference (aMD) 12.6 [95% CI 7.2, 18.0]). Patients in both groups indicated preference for reviewing an induction checklist with a provider during prenatal care (59.1%) or using a technology-based intervention (37.1%) over attending in-person classes (3.1%) to learn more about IOL. CONCLUSION: Unit of admission for IOL is not associated with satisfaction with birth experience but is associated with patient knowledge of IOL. This suggests that IOL may be initiated in less acute units than labor and delivery without altering birth experience and may potentially allow for increased patient knowledge. Additionally, IOL checklists or technology-based education may help to further increase patient knowledge about IOL.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Induction of labor is an increasingly common component of intrapartum care in the United States. This rise is fueled by a nationwide escalation in both medically indicated and elective inductions at or beyond term, supported by recent research showing some benefits of induction over expectant management. However, induction of labor medicalizes the birth experience and may lead to a complex cascade of interventions. The purpose of this Clinical Bulletin is twofold: (1) to guide clinicians on the use of person-centered decision-making when discussing induction of labor and (2) to review evidence-based practice recommendations for intrapartum midwifery care during labor induction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence supports elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk pregnancies to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. This evidence includes the ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management). However, concerns have been raised on the external validity of the ARRIVE trial, especially with regard to the demographic and clinical characteristics of the pregnant women recruited. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the outcomes in a cohort of consecutive pregnant women, who fulfilled the criteria of the ARRIVE trial and were managed expectantly in an Italian referral academic hospital, with those reported in the expectant and induction arms of the ARRIVE trial. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective single-center study. Consecutive low-risk nulliparous women who fulfilled the ARRIVE trial criteria were evaluated for eligibility at 36-38 weeks of gestation. Those who neither developed complications nor delivered spontaneously before 39 weeks were eligible for this comparative analysis. Maternal and fetal growth and wellbeing were screened and monitored from 36 to 38 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: A total of 1696 patients met the established criteria at recruitment. Of these, 343 spontaneously delivered in <39 weeks, 82 delivered because of maternal indication, and 37 for fetal indication. A total of 1234 pregnant women were eligible for comparison with the elective induction and the expectant management groups of the ARRIVE trial. The socioeconomic status was significantly better, maternal age was significantly higher, and body mass index was significantly lower in our cohort. Cesarean section rate in our cohort was lower than that of the expectant group of the ARRIVE trial (18.7 vs. 22.2%; p = 0.02) and similar to that of the elective induction group (18.7 vs. 18.6%). A new diagnosis of hypertensive disorders during expectant management was noted in 1.6% in our cohort vs. 14.1% in the ARRIVE arm. Among the different obstetric outcomes, only the prevalence of postpartum hemorrhage was not significantly lower in our cohort. The primary perinatal composite outcome was significantly better in our cohort than in both arms of the ARRIVE trial (2.1 vs. 5.4% in the expectant group and 4.3% in the induction group). We did not record cases with an Apgar score ≤ 3 or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, expectant management in low-risk pregnancies with late preterm screening of feto-maternal well-being seemed to achieve better maternal and perinatal outcomes than a universal policy of induction at 39 weeks. The results of the ARRIVE trial should be carefully evaluated in different demographic and clinical settings and cannot be extended to the general population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Induction of labor may be indicated to minimize maternal and fetal risks. The rate of induction is likely to increase as recent evidence supports elective induction at 39 weeks gestation. We review methods of induction and then analgesic options as they relate to indications and methods to induce labor. We specifically focus on parturients at high risk for anesthetic complications including those requiring anticoagulation, and those with cardiac disease, obesity, chorioamnionitis, prior spinal instrumentation, elevated intracranial pressure, known or anticipated difficult airway, thrombocytopenia, and preeclampsia. Guidelines regarding timing of anticoagulation dosing with neuraxial anesthetic techniques have been defined through consensus statements. Early epidural placement may be beneficial in patients with cardiac disease, obesity, anticipated difficult airway, and HELLP syndrome. Questions remain regarding how early is too early for epidural placement, what options are safest for patients with bacteremia, and what pain relief should be offered to those unable to tolerate cervical exams in early labor.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor continues to become more common. We analyzed induction of labor and timing of obstetric and anesthesia work to create a model to predict the induction-anesthesia interval and the induction-delivery interval in order to co-ordinate workload to occur when staff are most available. METHODS: Patients who underwent induction of labor at a single medical center were identified and multivariable linear regression was used to model anesthesia and delivery times. Data were collected on date of birth, race/ethnicity, body mass index, gestational age, gravidity, parity, indication for labor induction, number of prior deliveries, time of induction, induction agent, cervical dilation, effacement, and fetal station on admission, date and time of anesthesia administration, date and time of delivery, and delivery type. RESULTS: A total of 1746 women met inclusion criteria. Associations which significantly influenced time from induction of labor to anesthesia and delivery included maternal age (anesthesia P <0.001, delivery P =0.002), body mass index (both P <0.001), prior vaginal delivery (both P <0.001), gestational age (anesthesia P <0.001, delivery P <0.018), simplified Bishop score (both P <0.001), and first induction agent (both P <0.001). Induction of labor of nulliparous women at 02:00 h and parous women at 04:00 or 05:00 h had the highest estimated probability of the mother having her first anesthesia encounter and delivering during optimally staffed hours when our institution's specialty personnel are most available. CONCLUSIONS: Time to obstetric and anesthesia tasks can be estimated to optimize induction of labor start times, and shift anesthesia and delivery workload to hours when staff are most available.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is currently not a medical indication for elective induction of labor although obese patients may not be eligible for expectant management after 41 W G. Few data on labor and complications in this population undergoing prolonged pregnancy are known. The objective of our study was to evaluate labor, mode of delivery, maternal and fetal outcomes in prolonged pregnancy in obese patients compared to normal body mass index (BMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a retrospective cohort study in patients who, after prolonged pregnancy gave birth to a single fetus, in cephalic presentation, between the first of January 2002 and December 31, 2018 in the Caen University Hospital Center. Patient's characteristics were compared within each BMI class using uni- and multivariate analysis with regression logistics models. RESULTS: Overall, 9159 patients were included. Term of birth and spontaneous labor calculated rates were significantly increased in case of obesity (p < 0.001). The adjusted Odds Ratio (ORa) for induced labor in class III obesity was 1.73 [1.13-2.66]. After induction of labor, 83.0 % patients with normal BMI delivered vaginally versus 61.8 % in case of class III obesity (p < 0.001). The ORa for an emergency cesarean was 3.39 [2.04-5.63] and 1.78 [1.06-2.99] for neonatal morbidity in class III obesity. CONCLUSION: Morbid obese patients do not belong to a low risk patient's group when pregnancy is prolonged. Elective induction in case of morbid obesity may entail less risk than allowing the pregnancy to progress after 41 W G or even 39 W G. Further randomized prospective studies are nevertheless required.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation on children's educational outcomes as measured using the Australian National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests in school year 3 (∼8 years of age), compared with expectant management. METHODS: We merged perinatal data on all infants born in South Australia from 1999 to 2008 with children's school assessment data from NAPLAN. The study population included all singleton infants born without a malformation at 39-42 weeks in vertex presentation. Children who had undertaken the NAPLAN test in school year 3 were included. We excluded births to women who had a contraindication to vaginal delivery and those with a condition possibly justifying elective delivery before 39 weeks. The outcome of interest was children's educational outcome as measured using NAPLAN, which includes five learning domains (reading, writing, spelling, grammar and numeracy). Each domain was categorized according to performance at or below vs above the national minimum standard (NMS). Average treatment effects (ATEs) of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management on the proportion of children performing at/below the NMS for each domain were estimated using the augmented inverse-propensity-weighted estimator, accounting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 53 843 children born at 39-42 weeks in vertex presentation from 1999 to 2008 and who were expected to participate in the year-3 NAPLAN from 2008 to 2015, a total of 31 120 had at least one year-3 NAPLAN domain. Of these, 1353 children were delivered after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks while 29 767 children were born following expectant management. The ATEs (mean differences) of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management on the proportion of children scoring at/below the NMS on each domain were 0.01 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03) for reading, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00-0.04) for writing, 0.01 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04) for spelling, 0.02 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04) for grammar and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.00-0.05) for numeracy. CONCLUSION: Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks did not affect children's standardized literacy and numeracy testing outcomes at 8 years of age when compared with expectant management. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The global rise in the rate of induction of labor and cesarean birth shows considerable unexplained variation both within and between countries. Prior research suggests that the extent to which women are engaged in the decision-making process about birth options, such as elective cesarean, induction of labor, or use of fetal monitoring, is heavily influenced by clinician beliefs and preferences. The aim of this study was to investigate the beliefs about labor interventions and birth options held by midwives and obstetric medical staff from 8 Sydney hospitals and assess how the health care providers' beliefs were associated with discipline or years of experience. METHODS: This is a survey study of midwives and obstetric staff that was distributed between November 2018 and July 2019. Modified from the previously validated birth attitudes survey for the Australian context, survey domains include (1) maternal choice and woman's role in birth, (2) safety by mode or place of birth, (3) attitudes toward cesarean birth for preventing urinary incontinence, (4) approaches to decrease cesarean birth rates, and (5) fears of birth mode. Responses were compared between professions and within professions by years of experience using Mann-Whitney U testing. RESULTS: A total of 217 midwives and 58 medical staff completed the survey (response rate, 30.5%). Midwifery staff responses generally favored a physiologic approach to birth, versus beliefs more in favor of intervention (particularly cesarean birth) among medical staff. There was interprofessional discrepancy on most items, particularly regarding safety of mode or place of birth and approaches to decrease cesarean birth rates. Within disciplines, there was more variation in medical staff attitudes than within the midwifery staff. No clinically important differences in beliefs by years of experience were noted. DISCUSSION: Clinicians need to be aware of their own beliefs and preferences about birth as a potential source of bias when counselling women, particularly when there are a range of treatment options and the evidence may not strongly favor one option over another. As both groups had similar perceptions about the importance of women's autonomy, shared decision-making training could help bridge belief gaps and improve care around birth decisions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The rate of induction of labor in the U.S. has risen from 9.6% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2018, including 31.7% of first-time births. Recent studies that have examined inductions have been small qualitative studies or relied on either medical records or administrative data. This study examines induction from the perspective of those women who experienced it, with a particular focus on the prevalence and predictors of inductions for nonmedical indications, women's experience of pressure to induce labor and the relationship between the attempt to medically initiate labor and cesarean section. METHODS: Study data are drawn from the 2119 respondents to the Listening to Mothers in California survey who were planning to have a vaginal birth in 2016. Mothers were asked if there had been an attempt to medically initiate labor, if it actually started labor, if they felt pressured to have the induction, if they had a cesarean and the reason for the induction. Reasons for induction were classified as either medically indicated or elective. RESULTS: Almost half (47%) of our respondents indicated an attempt was made to medically induce their labor, and 71% of those attempts initiated labor. More than a third of the attempts (37%) were elective. Attempted induction overall was most strongly associated with giving birth at 41+ weeks (aOR 3.28; 95% C.I. 2.21-4.87). Elective inductions were more likely among multiparous mothers and in pregnancies at 39 or 40 weeks. The perception of being pressured to have labor induced was related to higher levels of education, maternal preference for less medical intervention in birth, having an obstetrician compared to a midwife and gestational ages of 41+ weeks. Cesarean birth was more likely in the case of overall induction (aOR 1.51; 95% C.I. 1.11-2.07) and especially following a failed attempt at labor induction (aOR 4.50; 95% C.I. 2.93-6.90). CONCLUSION: Clinicians counselling mothers concerning the need for labor induction should be aware of mothers' perceptions about birth and engage in true shared decision making in order to avoid the maternal perception of being pressured into labor induction.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)