Literature DB >> 17520395

Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery.

C Le Ray1, M Carayol, G Bréart, F Goffinet.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Estimate the frequency of failure to follow the French consensus guidelines for elective induction, and assess how failure affects the rate of cesarean delivery.
METHODS: We compared cesarean rates according to mode of onset of labor among 5,046 low-risk patients. Violation of the guidelines was defined as induction before 38 weeks or with a Bishop score <5 or with prostaglandins. The cesarean risk was analysed with a bivariable and then a multivariable analysis, which used a multilevel logistic model.
RESULTS: Women with electively induced and spontaneous labor had identical cesarean rates (4.1%). The guidelines were not followed in 23.2% of elective inductions. The risk of cesarean was higher after induction with a Bishop score <5, than after spontaneous labor (adjusted OR=4.1, 95% CI [1.3-12.9]), while elective induction with a favourable cervix did not increase the cesarean risk. In nulliparas, failure to follow the guidelines tripled the risk of cesarean (adjusted OR=3.2 [1.0-10.2]). On the other hand, elective induction of labor for women with a favourable cervix did not increase the risk of cesarean over the risk with spontaneous labor.
CONCLUSION: Elective induction does not appear to increase the cesarean rate when the guidelines are met. Electively inducing labor with a low Bishop score increased the risk of cesarean, especially in nulliparas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17520395     DOI: 10.1080/00016340701245427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Ning-Shiuan Ting; Dah-Ching Ding; Yu-Chi Wei
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-19       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 3.  Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: what does the evidence tell us?

Authors:  Jennifer Moore; Lisa Kane Low
Journal:  J Perinat Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.638

4.  Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Cesarean Delivery After Labor Induction.

Authors:  Valery A Danilack; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Elizabeth W Triche; David D Dore; Janet H Muri; Maureen G Phipps; David A Savitz
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Induction of labor and risk of postpartum hemorrhage in low risk parturients.

Authors:  Imane Khireddine; Camille Le Ray; Corinne Dupont; René-Charles Rudigoz; Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle; Catherine Deneux-Tharaux
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Teaching and performing audits on caesarean delivery reduce the caesarean delivery rate.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Lesieur; Julie Blanc; Anderson Loundou; Arnaud Claquin; Michele Marcot; Helene Heckenroth; Florence Bretelle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eva Rydahl; Lena Eriksen; Mette Juhl
Journal:  JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep       Date:  2019-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.