Am J Perinatol 2014; 31(04): 315-320
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348951
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Normal First Stage of Preterm Labor

Janine E. Spain
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Methodius Tuuli
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Aaron B. Caughey
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Kimberly A. Roehl
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Qiuhong Zhao
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Alison G. Cahill
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

14 April 2013

22 May 2013

Publication Date:
17 June 2013 (online)

Abstract

Objective To compare first-stage labor patterns in women in preterm labor to those in labor at term.

Study Design We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive women admitted from 2004 to 2008 with viable (≥24 weeks) vertex singleton gestations who reached the second stage of labor. Labor curves for preterm and term labor were created using a repeated-measures analysis with polynomial modeling. Interval-censored regression was used to estimate and compare median time of progression of labor. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for smoking, obesity (body mass index ≥30), induction, and nulliparity. The adjusted model was stratified by parity and induction of labor.

Results Of 5,612 consecutive births, 224 were preterm (<37 weeks) and 5,388 were term (≥37 weeks). Preterm first-stage labor progressed significantly faster than term labor (median time 4 to 10 cm: 3.3 hours versus 4.5 hours, p < 0.01). When stratified by parity, preterm labor progressed significantly more rapidly than term labor in both nulliparous and multiparous women (median time 4 to 10 cm: 3.7 hours versus 4.9 hours [p = 0.04] in nulliparous women and 2.5 hours versus 4.3 hours [p = 0.01] in multiparous women).

Conclusion Women in preterm labor progress more rapidly through the first stage of labor than women at term.

 
  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ , et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011; 60: 1-70
  • 2 Callaghan WM, MacDorman MF, Rasmussen SA, Qin C, Lackritz EM. The contribution of preterm birth to infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics 2006; 118: 1566-1573
  • 3 Berkman ND, Thorp Jr JM, Lohr KN , et al. Tocolytic treatment for the management of preterm labor: a review of the evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1648-1659
  • 4 Werner EF, Savitz DA, Janevic TM , et al. Mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes in preterm, small-for-gestational-age newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 560-564
  • 5 Durie DE, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK, Mackley AB, Paul DA. Mode of delivery and outcomes in very low-birth-weight infants in the vertex presentation. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28: 195-200
  • 6 Riskin A, Riskin-Mashiah S, Bader D , et al. Delivery mode and severe intraventricular hemorrhage in single, very low birth weight, vertex infants. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 21-28
  • 7 Bettegowda VR, Dias T, Davidoff MJ, Damus K, Callaghan WM, Petrini JR. The relationship between cesarean delivery and gestational age among US singleton births. Clin Perinatol 2008; 35: 309-323 , v–vi
  • 8 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: 1281-1287
  • 9 Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 705-710
  • 10 Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 824-828
  • 11 Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68: 1568-1575
  • 12 Friedman EA. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6: 567-589
  • 13 Vahratian A, Troendle JF, Siega-Riz AM, Zhang J. Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2006; 20: 72-78
  • 14 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Hasling J, Troendle JF, Klebanoff MA, Thorp Jr JM. The effect of early epidural versus early intravenous analgesia use on labor progression: a natural experiment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 259-265
  • 15 Graseck AS, Odibo AO, Tuuli M, Roehl KA, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Normal first stage of labor in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 732-736
  • 16 Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Zhao Q, Cahill AG. Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 1113-1118
  • 17 Goldenberg RL, McClude EM. The epidemiology of preterm birth. In: Preterm Birth: Prevention and Management. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010
  • 18 Tucker J, McGuire W. Epidemiology of preterm birth. BMJ 2004; 329: 675-678
  • 19 Cunningham FG, Williams JW. Williams Obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2005
  • 20 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 1445-1454
  • 21 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: 1181-1193