Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(14): 1485-1491
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1677866
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Using Cervical Dilation to Predict Labor Onset: A Tool for Elective Labor Induction Counseling

Danielle M. Panelli
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Julian N. Robinson
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Anjali J. Kaimal
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Kathryn L. Terry
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Jiaxi Yang
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Mark A. Clapp
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Sarah E. Little
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was partially supported by an Expanding the Boundaries grant through Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Further Information

Publication History

29 August 2018

31 December 2018

Publication Date:
29 January 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether cervical dilation predicts the timing and likelihood of spontaneous labor at term.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort of nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies who delivered at term from 2013 to 2015. Outpatient cervical examinations performed after 37 weeks and prior to labor onset were collected. Survival analysis was used to analyze time to spontaneous labor with cervical dilation as the primary predictor, modeled as continuous and categorical variables (<1 cm, 1 cm, >1 cm).

Results Our cohort included 726 women; 407 (56%) spontaneously labored, 263 (36%) were induced, and 56 (8%) had an unlabored cesarean delivery. Women with >1-cm dilation were three times more likely to spontaneously labor (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4–4) than those with <1-cm dilation. At 39 weeks, 60% of women with >1-cm dilation went into spontaneous labor as compared with only 28% of those with <1-cm dilation (aHR: 2.9; 95% CI: 2–4.4).

Conclusion In our cohort of nulliparous women at term, those with cervical dilation > 1 cm were significantly more likely to go into labor in the following week. This information can aid in counseling about elective induction of labor.

Keywords

cervical dilation - elective induction - labor
 

  • References

  • 1 Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ. , et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2009; (176) 1-257
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Osterman MJKS MJ. NCHS Data Brief No. 155: recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. Centers Dis Control Prev 2014; 14 (01) 25-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Grobman WA. Elective induction: When? Ever?. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 50 (02) 537-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100 (01) 164-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 561: non-medically indicated early-term deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (04) 911-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 Ananth CV, Wilcox AJ, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Obstetrical interventions for term first deliveries in the US. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013; 27 (05) 442-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Saccone G, Berghella V. Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (05) 629-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 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
  • 12 Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women's perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour--a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 123 (01) 56-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zanardo V, Bertin M, Sansone L, Felice L. The adaptive psychological changes of elective induction of labor in breastfeeding women. Early Hum Dev 2017; 104: 13-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Choosing Wisely Campaign. Ten Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2016 . Available at: https://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Patient-Safety-and-Quality-Improvement/Choosing-WiselyOct2016.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20180217T0255163464 . Accessed February 17, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Hessabi M. Comparison of the Bishop score, ultrasonographically measured cervical length, and fetal fibronectin assay in predicting time until delivery and type of delivery at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182 (1 Pt 1): 108-113
    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 Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P. , et al. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (05) 1361-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Raghuraman N, Stout MJ, Young OM. , et al. Utility of the simplified Bishop score in spontaneous labor. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (12) 1176-1181
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (03) 583-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Donelan EA, Grobman WA, Miller ES. Association of second-trimester cervical length with prolonged pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (03) 534-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Denison FC, Price J, Graham C, Wild S, Liston WA. Maternal obesity, length of gestation, risk of postdates pregnancy and spontaneous onset of labour at term. BJOG 2008; 115 (06) 720-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hermesch AC, Allshouse AA, Heyborne KD. Body mass index and the spontaneous onset of parturition. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (05) 1033-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Oken E, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards J, Gillman MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC Pediatr 2003; 3: 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee opinion no. 548: weight gain during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (01) 210-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Marquette GP, Hutcheon JA, Lee L. Predicting the spontaneous onset of labour in post-date pregnancies: a population-based retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36 (05) 391-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 San Román GA. Concerns regarding a validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean delivery after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (04) 421-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Grobman WA. Predictors of induction success. Semin Perinatol 2012; 36 (05) 344-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Forty weeks and beyond: pregnancy outcomes by week of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 (02) 291-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Am G, Ca C, Middleton P. , et al. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term (Review) Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (06) 1-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar