Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-1906-8919
Original Article

Association of Prostaglandin Use for Cervical Ripening with Mode of Delivery in Small for Gestational Age versus Non–Small for Gestational Age Neonates

Alexis G. Bridges
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Amanda A. Allshouse
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Dana R. Canfield
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Bryan W. Grover
3   University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Shannon L. Son
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Brett D. Einerson
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Robert M. Silver
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
David M. Haas
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
William A. Grobman
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Hyagriv N. Simhan
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Robert C. Day
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California–Irvine, Irvine, California
,
Nathan R. Blue
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by grant funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant nos.: 1K12 HD085816, U10 HD063020, U10 HD063037, U10 HD063041, U10 HD063046, U10 HD063047, U10 HD063048, U10 HD063053, and U10 HD063072).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Prostaglandins (PGs) use for cervical ripening with small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses is controversial since it remains uncertain if use increases the chance of cesarean delivery (CD). We aimed to assess the association between PG use for cervical ripening and mode of delivery between SGA and appropriate for gestational age (AGA) neonates.

Study Design Secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b), a prospective observational cohort study of 10,038 nulliparas. We included women undergoing induction with nonanomalous fetuses in the cephalic presentation. Women with >2 cm cervical dilation or prior uterine scar were excluded. We assessed the association of PG use with CD among women with SGA and AGA neonates. SGA was defined as birth weight <10th percentile for gestational age and sex. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders and test for interaction. Secondary outcomes included adverse neonatal outcomes, indication for CD, maternal hemorrhage, and chorioamnionitis.

Results Among 2,353 women eligible, PGs were used in 54.8%, SGA occurred in 15.1%, and 35.0% had CD. The association between PG use and CD differed significantly (interaction p = 0.018) for SGA versus AGA neonates; CD occurred more often in SGA neonates exposed to PGs than not (35 vs. 22%, p = 0.009). PG use was not associated with CD among AGA neonates (36 vs. 36%, p = 0.8). This effect remained significant when adjusting for body mass index, race/ethnicity, and cervical dilation. Among SGA neonates, CD for “nonreassuring fetal status” was similar between PG groups. Among SGA neonates, PG use was not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes or postpartum hemorrhage but had a higher rate of chorioamnionitis (7.0 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.048).

Conclusion PG use was associated with a higher rate of CD in SGA but not AGA neonates; however, further studies are needed before PG use is discouraged with SGA neonates.

Key Points

  • PGs are commonly used for cervical ripening.

  • PG use was associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery in SGA neonates.

  • PG use was not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes.

Keywords

labor Induction - prostaglandins - small for gestational age - fetal growth restriction - cesarean delivery


Publication History

Received: 15 October 2021

Accepted: 05 July 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 July 2022

Article published online:
16 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jarvis S, Glinianaia SV, Torrioli M-G. et al; Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE) collaboration of European Cerebral Palsy Registers. Cerebral palsy and intrauterine growth in single births: European collaborative study. Lancet 2003; 362 (9390): 1106-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 de Onis M, Blössner M, Villar J. Levels and patterns of intrauterine growth retardation in developing countries. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998; 52 (Suppl. 01) S5-S15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1967; 71 (02) 159-163
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hoffman HJ, Stark CR, Lundin Jr FE, Ashbrook JD. Analysis of birth weight, gestational age, and fetal viability, U. S. births, 1968. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1974; 29 (09) 651-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (01) 16-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (Replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (04) B2-B17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Black RE. Global prevalence of small for gestational age births. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser 2015; 81: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pilliod RA, Page JM, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The growth-restricted fetus: risk of mortality by each additional week of expectant management. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (03) 442-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gardosi J, Madurasinghe V, Williams M, Malik A, Francis A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ 2013; 346: f108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99 (03) 490-496
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Church S, Van Meter A, Whitfield R. Dinoprostone compared with misoprostol for cervical ripening for induction of labor at term. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009; 54 (05) 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ten Eikelder MLG, Mast K, van der Velden A, Bloemenkamp KWM, Mol BW. Induction of labor using a Foley catheter or misoprostol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2016; 71 (10) 620-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (04) 633-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK. et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016; 123 (03) 346-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Haas DM, Parker CB, Wing DA. et al; NuMoM2b study. A description of the methods of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 539.e1-539.e24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (02) 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Horowitz KM, Feldman D. Fetal growth restriction: risk factors for unplanned primary cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28 (18) 2131-2134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boers KE, van der Post JA, Mol BW, van Lith JM, Scherjon SA. Labour and neonatal outcome in small for gestational age babies delivered beyond 36+0 weeks: a retrospective cohort study. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 293516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Foeller ME, Cruz MO, Kominiarek MA, Hibbard JU. Does induction with misoprostol impact the small for gestational age neonate?. Am J Perinatol 2015; 32 (14) 1311-1317
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rosenbloom JI, Rhoades JS, Woolfolk CL. et al. Prostaglandins and cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status in patients delivering small-for-gestational age neonates at term. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021; 34 (03) 366-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chavakula PR, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Londhe V, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews JE. Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labor in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 129 (02) 152-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 386-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Amorosa JMH, Stone J, Factor SH, Booker W, Newland M, Bianco A. A randomized trial of Foley Bulb for Labor Induction in Premature Rupture of Membranes in Nulliparas (FLIP). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (03) 360.e1-360.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Miller NR, Cypher RL, Foglia LM, Pates JA, Nielsen PE. Elective induction of labor compared with expectant management of nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (06) 1258-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 1357-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cahill AG, Srinivas SK, Tita ATN. et al. Effect of immediate vs delayed pushing on rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery among nulliparous women receiving neuraxial analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 320 (14) 1444-1454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Macones GA, Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO. The efficacy of early amniotomy in nulliparous labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (05) 403.e1-403.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Glickman H, Kaplan B, Hod M, Bar J. Mode of delivery in pregnancies with suspected fetal growth restriction following induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83 (01) 52-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Villalain C, Herraiz I, Quezada MS. et al. Labor induction in late-onset fetal growth restriction: Foley balloon versus vaginal dinoprostone. Fetal Diagn Ther 2019; 46 (01) 67-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Duro-Gómez J, Garrido-Oyarzún MF, Rodríguez-Marín AB, de la Torre González AJ, Arjona-Berral JE, Castelo-Branco C. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol, dinoprostone and Cook's balloon for labour induction in women with foetal growth restriction at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296 (04) 777-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Rossi RM, Warshak CR, Masters HR, Regan JK, Kritzer SA, Magner KP. Comparison of prostaglandin and mechanical cervical ripening in the setting of small for gestational age neonates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (22) 3841-3846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar