Literature DB >> 24983681

Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women.

Jennifer L Bailit1, William Grobman2, Yuan Zhao3, Ronald J Wapner4, Uma M Reddy5, Michael W Varner6, Kenneth J Leveno7, Steve N Caritis8, Jay D Iams9, Alan T Tita10, George Saade11, Yoram Sorokin12, Dwight J Rouse13, Sean C Blackwell14, Jorge E Tolosa15, J Peter VanDorsten16.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with nonmedically indicated inductions at term vs those expectantly treated. STUDY
DESIGN: Data were obtained from maternal and neonatal charts for all deliveries on randomly selected days across 25 US hospitals over a 3-year period. A low-risk subset of nulliparous women with vertex nonanomalous singleton gestations who delivered 38 0/7 to 41 6/7 weeks were selected. Maternal and neonatal outcomes for nonmedically indicated induction within each week were compared with women who did not undergo nonmedically indicated induction during that week. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for hospital, maternal age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, cigarette use, and insurance status.
RESULTS: We found 31,169 women who met our criteria. Neonatal complications were either less frequent with nonmedically indicated induction or no different between groups. Nonmedically indicated induction was associated with less frequent peripartum infections (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.98) at 38 weeks of gestation and less frequent third- and fourth-degree lacerations (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86) and less frequent peripartum infections (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.90) at 39 weeks of gestation. Nonmedically indicated induction was associated with a longer admission-to-delivery time by approximately 3-4 hours and increased odds of cesarean delivery at 38 (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and 40 weeks (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46) of gestation.
CONCLUSION: At 39 weeks of gestation, nonmedically indicated induction is associated with lower maternal and neonatal morbidity than women who are expectantly treated.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  induction; nonmedically indicated induction; nulliparous women

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24983681      PMCID: PMC4275393          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.054

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


  19 in total

1.  Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model.

Authors:  David A Luthy; Judith A Malmgren; Rosalee W Zingheim; Christopher J Leininger
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey; James M Nicholson; Yvonne W Cheng; Deirdre J Lyell; A Eugene Washington
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.

Authors:  Francis P J M Vrouenraets; Frans J M E Roumen; Cary J G Dehing; Eline S A van den Akker; Maureen J B Aarts; Esther J T Scheve
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data.

Authors:  Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Michael E Schembri; Janet M Keyzer; William M Gilbert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Perinatal outcomes related to induction of labor: a call for randomized trials.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Elective induction of labour is associated with decreased perinatal mortality and lower odds of caesarean section at 40 and 41 weeks.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2012-10-20

7.  Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix.

Authors:  Sarah Osmundson; Robin J Ou-Yang; William A Grobman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Term labor induction compared with expectant management.

Authors:  J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Respiratory morbidity in late preterm births.

Authors:  Judith U Hibbard; Isabelle Wilkins; Liping Sun; Kimberly Gregory; Shoshana Haberman; Matthew Hoffman; Michelle A Kominiarek; Uma Reddy; Jennifer Bailit; D Ware Branch; Ronald Burkman; Victor Hugo Gonzalez Quintero; Christos G Hatjis; Helain Landy; Mildred Ramirez; Paul VanVeldhuisen; James Troendle; Jun Zhang
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Authors:  Blair G Darney; Jonathan M Snowden; Yvonne W Cheng; Lorie Jacob; James M Nicholson; Anjali Kaimal; Sascha Dublin; Darios Getahun; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  9 in total

1.  Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Tetsuya Kawakita; Sara N Iqbal; Chun-Chih Huang; Uma M Reddy
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  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

3.  Term elective induction of labour and perinatal outcomes in obese women: retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  V R Lee; B G Darney; J M Snowden; E K Main; W Gilbert; J Chung; A B Caughey
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 4.  A novel misoprostol delivery system for induction of labor: clinical utility and patient considerations.

Authors:  Megan L Stephenson; Deborah A Wing
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 4.162

5.  Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study.

Authors:  Malin Dögl; Pål Romundstad; Line Dahlgaard Berntzen; Oliv Camilla Fremgaarden; Katrine Kirial; Anne Molne Kjøllesdal; Benedicte S Nygaard; Line Robberstad; Thorbjørn Steen; Christian Tappert; Cecilie Fredvik Torkildsen; Magdalena R Vaernesbranden; Alexander Vietheer; Runa Heimstad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Associated with Amniotomy among Nulliparous Women Undergoing Labor Induction at Term.

Authors:  Ashley N Battarbee; Grecio Sandoval; William A Grobman; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Ronald J Wapner; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Benefits and risks of induction of labor at 39 or more weeks in uncomplicated nulliparous women: a retrospective, observational study.

Authors:  Hye In Kim; Sung Pil Choo; Sang Won Han; Eui Hyeok Kim
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2018-11-28

8.  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

9.  Re-examining the Meis Trial for Evidence of False-Positive Results.

Authors:  Baha Sibai; George R Saade; Anita F Das
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 7.623

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.