PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(01): 045-052
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1648228
SMFM Fellowship Series Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Nonmedically Indicated Induction of Labor Compared with Expectant Management in Nulliparous Women Aged 35 Years or Older

Tetsuya Kawakita
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Katherine Bowers
2   Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
Jane C. Khoury
2   Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
3   Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
› Institutsangaben Funding The data included in this article were obtained from the Consortium on Safe Labor, supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NICHD, NIH through contract number HHSN267200603425C. This project was funded in part with Federal funds (Grant # UL1TR000101 previously UL1RR031975) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program (CTSA), a trademark of DHHS, part of the Roadmap Initiative, “Re-Engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise.”
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

13. November 2017

22. März 2018

Publikationsdatum:
03. Mai 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article compares maternal and neonatal outcomes in women aged ≥ 35 years who experienced nonmedically indicated induction of labor (NMII) versus expectant management.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of nulliparas aged ≥ 35 years with a singleton and cephalic presentation who delivered at term. Outcomes were compared between women who underwent NMII at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks' gestation and those with expectant management that week. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, controlling for predefined covariates.

Results Of 3,819 nulliparas aged ≥ 35 years, 1,409 (36.9%) women underwent NMII. Overall at 39 weeks' gestation or later, maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar or improved with NMII. At 37, 38, and 39 weeks' gestation, NMII compared with expectant management was associated with decreased odds of cesarean delivery at 37, 38, and 39 weeks' gestation. At 40 weeks' gestation, NMII compared with expectant management was associated with an increased odds of operative vaginal delivery and a decreased odds of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.

Conclusion In nulliparous women aged ≥ 35 years, NMII was associated with decreased odds of cesarean delivery at 37 to 39 weeks' gestation and decreased odds of NICU admission at 40 weeks' gestation compared with expectant management.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - expectant management - induction of labor - macrosomia - neonatal intensive care unit

Note

This study was approved by the MedStar Institutional Review Board (#2016–071, April 20, 2016). This study was presented as a poster presentation at the SMFM 37th Annual Meeting–The pregnancy meeting, Las Vegas, NV, January 23–28, 2017.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK. , et al. Births: preliminary data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 63, No 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S. Births: final data for 2004. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006; 55 (01) 1-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104 (04) 727-733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Timofeev J, Reddy UM, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Landy HJ, Laughon SK. Obstetric complications, neonatal morbidity, and indications for cesarean delivery by maternal age. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (06) 1184-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Page JM, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Doss AE, Rosenstein MG, Caughey AB. The risk of stillbirth and infant death by each additional week of expectant management stratified by maternal age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (04) 375.e1-375.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nicholson JM, Kellar LC, Kellar GM. The impact of the interaction between increasing gestational age and obstetrical risk on birth outcomes: evidence of a varying optimal time of delivery. J Perinatol 2006; 26 (07) 392-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (04) 698-704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (04) 690-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (02) 287-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Cheng YW, Lyell DJ, Washington AE. Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (03) 700-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bailit JL, Grobman W, Zhao Y. , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (01) 103.e1-103.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M. , et al; 35/39 Trial Group. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (09) 813-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (06) 486.e1-486.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (04) 805-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ. , et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 252-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (06) 502.e1-502.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (03) 249.e1-249.e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM. Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (04) 992-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Snowden JM, Muoto I, Darney BG. , et al. Oregon's Hard-Stop Policy Limiting Elective Early-Term Deliveries: association with obstetric procedure use and health outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 1389-1396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar