Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2018; 35(12): 1186-1191
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1642045
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Duration of Spontaneous Active Labor and Perinatal Outcomes Using Contemporary Labor Curves

Kara K. Hoppe
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Melissa A. Schiff
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
3   Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Thomas J. Benedetti
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Shani Delaney
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
› Author Affiliations Funding Intramural funding was provided by University of Washington's Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Further Information

Publication History

12 October 2017

15 March 2018

Publication Date:
25 April 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Evaluate the association between spontaneous active labor duration utilizing contemporary labor curves and risk of adverse outcomes.

Materials and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study from January 2012 to January 2015. Subjects were nulliparous, 18 to 44 years, with a cephalic, singleton ≥37 weeks in spontaneous labor. Subjects were placed into three subgroups, defined by active labor duration from 6 to 10 cm as less than the median, the median-95th, and >95th percentile based on contemporary labor curves published by Zhang et al. We evaluated the association between subgroups and cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, estimated blood loss, Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes, and neonatal intensive care unit admission using logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results Six-hundred forty two women met the inclusion criteria. Compared with women whose active labor was less than the median, the risk of cesarean was higher in the median-95th percentile ([adjusted OR, aOR] 3.1, 95% CI 1.8–5.5) and the >95th percentile ([aOR] 6.8, 95% CI 3.9–11.7) subgroups. There was an increased odds of chorioamnionitis in the median-95th percentile subgroup ([aOR] 2.5, 95% CI 1.1–5.9).

Conclusion Chorioamnionitis and cesarean delivery increased significantly as labor duration exceeded the median. This study provides a better understanding regarding the potential risk of cesarean and chorioamnionitis using contemporary labor curves.

Keywords

spontaneous labor - active labor duration - adverse perinatal outcomes - cesarean delivery - chorioamnionitis

Note

This manuscript was presented at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Annual Meeting. Atlanta, Georgia. 2016.


 

  • References

  • 1 Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68 (06) 1568-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Friedman EA. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6 (06) 567-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Friedman EA. Labor in multiparas; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1956; 8 (06) 691-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Perils of the new labor management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 420-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 (04) 824-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW. , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1281-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cahill AG, Tuuli MG. Labor in 2013: the new frontier. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (06) 531-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1181-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Fawole B. , et al. Progression of the first stage of spontaneous labour: a prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries. PLoS Med 2018; 15 (01) e1002492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rosenbloom JI, Stout MJ, Tuuli MG. , et al. New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (06) 689.e1-689.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Henry DE, Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Kaimal AJ, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Perinatal outcomes in the setting of active phase arrest of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (05) 1109-1115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kjaergaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Dykes AK. Incidence and outcomes of dystocia in the active phase of labor in term nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88 (04) 402-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Selin L, Wallin G, Berg M. Dystocia in labour - risk factors, management and outcome: a retrospective observational study in a Swedish setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87 (02) 216-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chelmow D, Kilpatrick SJ, Laros Jr RK. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81 (04) 486-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mi Lee S, Romero R, Lee KA. , et al. The frequency and risk factors of funisitis and histologic chorioamnionitis in pregnant women at term who delivered after the spontaneous onset of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24 (01) 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Friedman EA. Labor: Clinical Evaluation and Management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bryant AS, Caughey AB. Length of the first stage of labor and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (05) 1127-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Harper LM, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Cahill AG. Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (06) 536.e1-536.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rouse DJ, Landon M, Leveno KJ. , et al; National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The maternal-fetal medicine units cesarean registry: chorioamnionitis at term and its duration-relationship to outcomes. Am J ObstetGynecol 2004; 191 (01) 211-216
    PubMedGoogle Scholar