OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether biochemical (fetal fibronectin assay) or biophysical (cervical assessment by transvaginal ultrasound) tests may have more value than digital examination in predicting successful induction of labor at term. STUDY DESIGN: The study enrolled prospectively 134 women undergoing labor induction at term caused by several obstetric conditions. All participants submitted to digital examination, fetal fibronectin assay, and transvaginal ultrasound for measurement of the cervical length and detection of funneling. The performance of each test in predicting delivery within 24 hours of labor induction was evaluated. Cox multiple regression analysis was performed to identify, among clinical and laboratory tests, which variables were independently associated with the duration of the latent phase and with the total duration of induced labor. RESULTS: The likelihood ratios for positive results (predicting that delivery would occur within 24 hours) were 6.61 (95% CI, 1.7-25.8) for a positive obstetric history (previous vaginal delivery), 2.61 (95% CI, 1.6-4.3) for a "favorable" digital examination, 1.41 (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) for a positive fetal fibronectin test, 1.61 (95% CI, 0.9-3.0) for cervical length, and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.1-4.4) for the presence of funneling at transvaginal ultrasound. The likelihood ratios for negative results were 1.81 (1.3-2.5) for obstetric history, 4.34 (2.5-7.7) for digital examination, 1.41 (0.9-2.1) for fetal fibronectin, 1.29 (1.0-1.7) for cervical length, and 1.48 (1.1-2.0) for funneling. On multiple regression, the only variables independently associated with the duration of the latent phase and with the total duration of induced labor were obstetric history and digital examination. CONCLUSION: Only obstetric history and digital examination predicted accurately vaginal delivery within 24 hours and were independently associated with labor duration. Fetal fibronectin and ultrasound measurements failed to predict accurately the outcome of induced labor.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether biochemical (fetal fibronectin assay) or biophysical (cervical assessment by transvaginal ultrasound) tests may have more value than digital examination in predicting successful induction of labor at term. STUDY DESIGN: The study enrolled prospectively 134 women undergoing labor induction at term caused by several obstetric conditions. All participants submitted to digital examination, fetal fibronectin assay, and transvaginal ultrasound for measurement of the cervical length and detection of funneling. The performance of each test in predicting delivery within 24 hours of labor induction was evaluated. Cox multiple regression analysis was performed to identify, among clinical and laboratory tests, which variables were independently associated with the duration of the latent phase and with the total duration of induced labor. RESULTS: The likelihood ratios for positive results (predicting that delivery would occur within 24 hours) were 6.61 (95% CI, 1.7-25.8) for a positive obstetric history (previous vaginal delivery), 2.61 (95% CI, 1.6-4.3) for a "favorable" digital examination, 1.41 (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) for a positive fetal fibronectin test, 1.61 (95% CI, 0.9-3.0) for cervical length, and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.1-4.4) for the presence of funneling at transvaginal ultrasound. The likelihood ratios for negative results were 1.81 (1.3-2.5) for obstetric history, 4.34 (2.5-7.7) for digital examination, 1.41 (0.9-2.1) for fetal fibronectin, 1.29 (1.0-1.7) for cervical length, and 1.48 (1.1-2.0) for funneling. On multiple regression, the only variables independently associated with the duration of the latent phase and with the total duration of induced labor were obstetric history and digital examination. CONCLUSION: Only obstetric history and digital examination predicted accurately vaginal delivery within 24 hours and were independently associated with labor duration. Fetal fibronectin and ultrasound measurements failed to predict accurately the outcome of induced labor.
Authors: L Funghi; M Torricelli; R Novembri; S Vannuccini; G Cevenini; M Di Tommaso; F M Severi; F Petraglia Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Peter Widschwendter; Krisztian Lato; Thomas W P Friedl; Wolfgang Janni; Ulrike Friebe-Hoffmann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 2.915