Dataset Information

Induction of labor versus expectant management of large-for-gestational-age infants in nulliparous women.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is no apparent consensus on obstetric management, i.e., induction of labor or expectant management of women with suspected large-for-gestational-age (LGA)-fetuses.

Methods and findings

To further examine the subject, a nationwide population-based cohort study from the Swedish Medical Birth Register in nulliparous non-diabetic women with singleton, vertex LGA (>90th centile) births, 1992-2013, was performed. Delivery of a live-born LGA infant induced at 38 completed weeks of gestation in non-preeclamptic pregnancies, was compared to those of expectant management, with delivery at 39, 40, 41, or 42 completed weeks of gestation and beyond, either by labor induction or via spontaneous labor. Primary outcome was mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included obstetric anal sphincter injury, 5-minute Apgar<7 and birth injury. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to control for potential confounding. We found that among the 722 women induced at week 38, there was a significantly increased risk of cesarean delivery (aOR = 1.44 95% CI:1.20-1.72), compared to those with expectant management (n = 44 081). There was no significant difference between the groups in regards to risk of instrumental vaginal delivery (aOR = 1.05, 95% CI:0.85-1.30), obstetric anal sphincter injury (aOR = 0.81, 95% CI:0.55-1.19), nor 5-minute Apgar<7 (aOR = 1.06, 95% CI:0.58-1.94) or birth injury (aOR = 0.82, 95% CI:0.49-1.38). Similar comparisons for induction of labor at 39, 40 or 41 weeks compared to expectant management with delivery at a later gestational age, showed increased rates of cesarean delivery for induced women.

Conclusions

In women with LGA infants, induction of labor at 38 weeks gestation is associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery compared to expectant management, with no difference in neonatal morbidity.

SUBMITTER: Moldeus K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5519027 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Induction of labor versus expectant management of large-for-gestational-age infants in nulliparous women.

Moldéus Karolina K Cheng Yvonne W YW Wikström Anna-Karin AK Stephansson Olof O

PloS one 20170720 7

<h4>Background</h4>There is no apparent consensus on obstetric management, i.e., induction of labor or expectant management of women with suspected large-for-gestational-age (LGA)-fetuses.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>To further examine the subject, a nationwide population-based cohort study from the Swedish Medical Birth Register in nulliparous non-diabetic women with singleton, vertex LGA (>90th centile) births, 1992-2013, was performed. Delivery of a live-born LGA infant induced at 38 complete ...[more]

PMID: 28727729

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough induction of labor of low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks reduces the risk of cesarean delivery compared with expectant management, concern regarding more frequent use of labor induction remains, given that this intervention historically has been thought to incur greater resource utilization.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to determine whether planned elective labor induction at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women, compared with expectant management, was associated with differences in health care resource utilization from the time of randomization through 8 weeks postpartum.Study designThis is a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in which low-risk nulliparous women were assigned to induction of labor at 39 weeks or expectant management. We assessed resource utilization after randomization in 3 time periods: antepartum, delivery admission, and discharge through 8 weeks postpartum.ResultsOf 6096 women with data available, those in the induction of labor group (n = 3059) were significantly less likely in the antepartum period after randomization to have at least 1 ambulatory visit for routine prenatal care (32.4% vs 68.4%), unanticipated care (0.5% vs 2.6%), or urgent care (16.2% vs 44.3%), or at least 1 antepartum hospitalization (0.8% vs 2.2%, P < .001 for all). They also had fewer tests (eg, sonograms, blood tests) and treatments (eg, antibiotics, intravenous hydration) prior to delivery. During the delivery admission, women in the induction of labor group spent a longer time in labor and delivery (median, 0.83 vs 0.57 days), but both women (P = .002) and their neonates (P < .001) had shorter postpartum stays. Women and neonates in both groups had similar frequencies of postpartum urgent care and hospital readmissions (P > .05 for all).ConclusionWomen randomized to induction of labor had longer durations in labor and delivery but significantly fewer antepartum visits, tests, and treatments and shorter maternal and neonatal hospital durations after delivery. These results demonstrate that the health outcome advantages associated with induction of labor are gained without incurring uniformly greater health care resource use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Gestational diabetes (GDM) is one of the most common complications of pregnancies affecting around 7% of women. This clinical condition is associated with an increased risk of developing fetal macrosomia and is related to a higher incidence of caesarean section in comparison to the general population. Strong evidence indicating the best management between induction of labour at term and expectant monitoring are missing. METHODS/DESIGN:Pregnant women with singleton pregnancy in vertex presentation previously diagnosed with gestational diabetes will be asked to participate in a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial between 38+0 and 39+0 gestational weeks. Women will be recruited in the third trimester in the outpatient clinic or in the Day Assessment Unit according to local protocols. Women who opt to take part will be randomized according to induction of labour or expectant management for spontaneous delivery. Patients allocated to the induction group will be admitted to the obstetric ward and offered induction of labour via use of prostaglandins, Foley catheter or oxytocin (depending on clinical conditions). Women assigned to the expectant arm will be sent to their domicile where they will be followed up until delivery, through maternal and fetal wellbeing monitoring twice weekly. The primary study outcome is the Caesarean section (C-section) rate, whilst secondary measurements are maternal and neonatal outcomes. A total sample of 1760 women (880 each arm) will be recruited to identify a relative difference between the two arms equal to 20% in favour of induction, with concerns to C-section rate. Data will be collected until mothers and newborns discharge from the hospital. Analysis of the outcome measures will be carried out by intention to treat. DISCUSSION:The present trial will provide evidence as to whether or not, in women affected by gestational diabetes, induction of labour between 38+0 and 39+0 weeks is an effective management to ameliorate maternal and neonatal outcomes. The primary objective is to determine whether caesarean section rate could be reduced among women undergoing induction of labour, in comparison to patients allocated to expectant monitoring. The secondary objective consists of the assessment and comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes in the two study arms. .

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop models to predict vaginal delivery in low-risk, nulliparous women contemplating elective induction of labor or expectant management at 39 weeks of gestation.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of planned elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women. Two groups were included for this analysis: 1) women who were randomized to the induction of labor group and underwent elective induction at 39 0/7-39 4/7 weeks of gestation and 2) women who were randomized to the expectant management group who experienced spontaneous labor or medically indicated delivery (including postterm). Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for each group using patient characteristics that would be available at the time of counseling. Model selection was based on k-fold cross-validation using backward elimination and variables that remained significant at P<.05 were retained. To compare estimated with observed rates, the elective induction of labor model was then applied to each woman in both groups to estimate individualized predicted probabilities of vaginal delivery with elective induction of labor.ResultsOf 6,106 women enrolled in the trial, 4,661 met criteria for this analysis. Vaginal delivery occurred in 80.6% of the 2,153 women in the elective induction of labor group and 77.2% of the 2,508 women in the expectant management group (P=.005). The final elective induction of labor model included age, height, weight, and modified Bishop score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.72, 95% CI 0.70-0.75). The same variables were included in the final expectant management model (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.72). Across the range of predicted probability deciles derived from the elective induction of labor model, almost all women who underwent elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation had a higher observed chance of vaginal delivery than expectant management.ConclusionIrrespective of the individual predicted chance of vaginal delivery from elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, vaginal delivery is generally more frequent if elective induction of labor is undertaken rather than expectant management. These data can be used to counsel nulliparous women regarding their "customized" chances of vaginal delivery as they choose between elective induction of labor or expectant management at 39 weeks of gestation.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women randomized to elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation or expectant management.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of women randomized during the 38th week to induction at 39 weeks of gestation or expectant management. Deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation and those not adherent to study protocol or with fetal anomalies were excluded. A composite of adverse outcomes (perinatal death or severe neonatal complications), third- or fourth-degree lacerations, and postpartum hemorrhage were evaluated. Log binomial regression models estimated relative risks and 95% CIs for associations of outcomes with patient characteristics including randomly assigned treatment group. Interactions between patient characteristics and treatment group were tested.ResultsOf 6,096 women with outcome data, 5,007 (82.1%) met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Frequency of the perinatal composite was 252 (5.0%), 166 (3.3%) for third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration, and 237 (4.7%) for postpartum hemorrhage. In multivariable analysis, intended labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with a reduced perinatal composite outcome (4.1% vs 6.0%; adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.90), whereas increasing body mass index (BMI) was associated with an increased perinatal composite outcome (aRR 1.04/unit increase; 95% CI 1.02-1.05). Decreased risk of third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration was observed with increasing BMI (aRR 0.96/unit increase; 95% CI 0.93-0.98) and in Black women compared with White women (1.2% vs 3.9%; aRR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19-0.60). Increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage was observed in Hispanic women compared with White women (6.3% vs 4.0%; aRR 1.64; 95% CI 1.18-2.29). Patient characteristics associated with adverse outcomes were similar between treatment groups (P for interaction >.05).ConclusionCompared with expectant management, intended induction at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with reduced risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Patient characteristics associated with adverse outcomes were few and similar between groups.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

Project description:A recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that induction of labour at 39 weeks of gestational age has no short-term adverse effect on the mother or infant among nulliparous women aged ?35 years. However, the trial was underpowered to address the effect of routine induction of labour on the risk of perinatal death. We aimed to determine the association between induction of labour at ?39 weeks and the risk of perinatal mortality among nulliparous women aged ?35 years.We used English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data collected between April 2009 and March 2014 to compare perinatal mortality between induction of labour at 39, 40, and 41 weeks of gestation and expectant management (continuation of pregnancy to either spontaneous labour, induction of labour, or caesarean section at a later gestation). Analysis was by multivariable Poisson regression with adjustment for maternal characteristics and pregnancy-related conditions. Among the cohort of 77,327 nulliparous women aged 35 to 50 years delivering a singleton infant, 33.1% had labour induced: these women tended to be older and more likely to have medical complications of pregnancy, and the infants were more likely to be small for gestational age. Induction of labour at 40 weeks (compared with expectant management) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital perinatal death (0.08% versus 0.26%; adjusted risk ratio [adjRR] 0.33; 95% CI 0.13-0.80, P = 0.015) and meconium aspiration syndrome (0.44% versus 0.86%; adjRR 0.52; 95% CI 0.35-0.78, P = 0.002). Induction at 40 weeks was also associated with a slightly increased risk of instrumental vaginal delivery (adjRR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11, P = 0.020) and emergency caesarean section (adjRR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, P = 0.019). The number needed to treat (NNT) analysis indicated that 562 (95% CI 366-1,210) inductions of labour at 40 weeks would be required to prevent 1 perinatal death. Limitations of the study include the reliance on observational data in which gestational age is recorded in weeks rather than days. There is also the potential for unmeasured confounders and under-recording of induction of labour or perinatal death in the dataset.Bringing forward the routine offer of induction of labour from the current recommendation of 41-42 weeks to 40 weeks of gestation in nulliparous women aged ?35 years may reduce overall rates of perinatal death.

Project description:BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring women with >24 h of PPROM between 34(+0) and 37(+0) wk of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to induction of labor (IoL) or expectant management (EM) using block randomization. The main outcome was neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and chorioamnionitis. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to randomization status. We updated a prior meta-analysis on the effect of both interventions on neonatal sepsis, RDS, and cesarean section rate. From 1 January 2007 to 9 September 2009, 776 patients in 60 hospitals were eligible for the study, of which 536 patients were randomized. Four patients were excluded after randomization. We allocated 266 women (268 neonates) to IoL and 266 women (270 neonates) to EM. Neonatal sepsis occurred in seven (2.6%) newborns of women in the IoL group and in 11 (4.1%) neonates in the EM group (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 1.6). RDS was seen in 21 (7.8%, IoL) versus 17 neonates (6.3%, EM) (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.3), and a cesarean section was performed in 36 (13%, IoL) versus 37 (14%, EM) women (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.50). The risk for chorioamnionitis was reduced in the IoL group. No serious adverse events were reported. Updating an existing meta-analysis with our trial results (the only eligible trial for the update) indicated RRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) for neonatal sepsis (eight trials, 1,230 neonates) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.65) for cesarean section (eight trials, 1,222 women) for IoL compared with EM. CONCLUSIONS: In women whose pregnancy is complicated by late PPROM, neither our trial nor the updated meta-analysis indicates that IoL substantially improves pregnancy outcomes compared with EM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29313500

Dataset Information

Induction of labor versus expectant management of large-for-gestational-age infants in nulliparous women.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Induction of labor versus expectant management of large-for-gestational-age infants in nulliparous women.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure