Literature DB >> 24361789

Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Lorie M Harper1, Aaron B Caughey2, Kimberly A Roehl3, Anthony O Odibo3, Alison G Cahill3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the threshold for defining abnormal labor that is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. STUDY
DESIGN: This study consisted of a retrospective cohort of all consecutive women admitted at a gestation of 37.0 weeks or longer from 2004 to 2008 who reached the second stage of labor. The 90th, 95th, and 97th percentiles for progress in the first stage of labor were determined specific for parity and labor onset. Women with a first stage above and below each centile were compared. Maternal outcomes were cesarean delivery in the second stage, operative delivery, prolonged second stage, postpartum hemorrhage, and maternal fever. Neonatal outcomes were a composite of the following: admission to level 2 or 3 nursery, 5 minute Apgar less than 3, shoulder dystocia, arterial cord pH of less than 7.0, and a cord base excess of -12 or less.
RESULTS: Of the 5030 women, 4534 experienced first stage of less than the 90th percentile, 251 between the 90th and 94th percentiles, 102 between the 95th and 96th percentiles, and 143 at the 97th percentile or greater. Longer labors were associated with an increased risk of a prolonged second stage, maternal fever, the composite neonatal outcome, shoulder dystocia, and admission to a level 2 or 3 nursery (P < .01). Depending on the cutoff used, 29-30 cesarean deliveries would need to be performed to prevent 1 shoulder dystocia.
CONCLUSION: Although women who experience labor dystocia may ultimately deliver vaginally, a longer first stage of labor is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, in particular shoulder dystocia. This risk must be balanced against the risks of cesarean delivery for labor arrest.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  first stage of labor; labor dystocia

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24361789      PMCID: PMC4076788          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  22 in total

1.  Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; James F Troendle; Michael K Yancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: Dystocia and augmentation of labor.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  ACOG practice bulletin: Shoulder dystocia. Number 40, November 2002. (Replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997).

Authors:  Robert J Sokol; Sean C Blackwell
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.561

4.  Normal first stage of labor in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Anna S Graseck; Anthony O Odibo; Methodius Tuuli; Kimberly A Roehl; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-06-04       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Brachial plexus palsy and shoulder dystocia: obstetric risk factors remain elusive.

Authors:  Joseph G Ouzounian; Lisa M Korst; David A Miller; Richard H Lee
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2-hour minimum.

Authors:  D J Rouse; J Owen; K G Savage; J C Hauth
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase.

Authors:  D Chelmow; S J Kilpatrick; R K Laros
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Is abnormal labor associated with shoulder dystocia in nulliparous women?

Authors:  Shobha H Mehta; Emmanuel Bujold; Sean C Blackwell; Yoram Sorokin; Robert J Sokol
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Normal progress of induced labor.

Authors:  Lorie M Harper; Aaron B Caughey; Anthony O Odibo; Kimberly A Roehl; Qiuhong Zhao; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  4 in total

1.  The transition from latent to active labor and adverse obstetrical outcomes.

Authors:  Joshua I Rosenbloom; Candice L Woolfolk; Leping Wan; Molly J Stout; Methodius G Tuuli; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Determination of antepartum and intrapartum risk factors associated with neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Authors:  Angela P H Burgess; Justin Katz; Joanna Pessolano; Jane Ponterio; Michael Moretti; Nisha A Lakhi
Journal:  J Perinat Med       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 1.901

3.  Assessing maternal thyroid function and its relationship to duration of the first stage of labor.

Authors:  Hongcheng Wei; Quanquan Guan; Qiurun Yu; Ting Chen; Xu Wang; Yankai Xia
Journal:  Eur Thyroid J       Date:  2022-03-17

4.  The impact of stage of labor on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Li Wang; Hongxia Wang; Lu Jia; Wenjie Qing; Fan Li; Jie Zhou
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.007

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.