Literature DB >> 15916205

Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes.

J Christopher Glantz1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors and outcomes associated with elective medical induction of labor as compared with spontaneous labor in low-risk women. STUDY
DESIGN: Using a birth certificate database including 11,849 low-risk, laboring women, univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and obstetric factors associated with elective labor induction. Low risk was defined as singleton, vertex, 37-41 weeks' gestation, no prior cesarean section, and no presenting medical/obstetric diagnoses considered indications for cesarean or induction. Adverse neonatal outcome was defined as 1- or 5-minute Apgar score < 7, neonatal intensive care unit admission or respiratory distress. Spontaneously laboring women (n = 10,608) were compared with women who underwent induced labor for no apparent medical/obstetric reason (n = 1,241). Interventions and outcomes during and after labor induction were adjusted for relevant associated variables.
RESULTS: Odds ratios for epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery and diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns were independently increased following elective induction; odds ratios for cephalopelvic disproportion, instrumental delivery and adverse neonatal outcome were not. Maternal length of stay was 0.34 days longer with induction than with spontaneous labor (p < 0.0001). Slightly more induced labors ended before midnight.
CONCLUSION: As compared with spontaneous labor, elective labor induction is independently associated with more intrapartum interventions, more cesarean deliveries and longer maternal length of stay. Neonatal outcome is unaffected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15916205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Reprod Med        ISSN: 0024-7758            Impact factor:   0.142


  12 in total

1.  An open source software project for obstetrical procedure scheduling and occupancy analysis.

Authors:  Mark W Isken; Timothy J Ward; Steven J Littig
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2010-10-27

2.  Care practice #1: labor begins on its own.

Authors:  Debby Amis
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2007

3.  Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America.

Authors:  Gláucia Virgínia Guerra; José Guilherme Cecatti; João Paulo Souza; Aníbal Faúndes; Sirlei Siani Morais; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Renato Passini; Mary Angela Parpinelli; Guillermo Carroli
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 9.408

4.  A Statewide Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Non-Medically Indicated Scheduled Deliveries.

Authors:  Marilyn A Kacica; J Christopher Glantz; Kuangnan Xiong; Eileen P Shields; Peter H Cherouny
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2017-04

Review 5.  Timing of delivery in women with diabetes in pregnancy.

Authors:  Howard Berger; Nir Melamed
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2014-01-15

6.  Physiologic partograph to improve birth safety and outcomes among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset.

Authors:  Jeremy L Neal; Nancy K Lowe
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 1.538

7.  Association between hospital-level obstetric quality indicators and maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Howell; Jennifer Zeitlin; Paul L Hebert; Amy Balbierz; Natalia Egorova
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jessica A Ellis; Carolyn M Brown; Brian Barger; Nicole S Carlson
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.388

9.  Timing of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.

Authors:  Maisa N Feghali; Steve N Caritis; Janet M Catov; Christina M Scifres
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study.

Authors:  Sarah J Stock; Evelyn Ferguson; Andrew Duffy; Ian Ford; James Chalmers; Jane E Norman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-05-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.