Katherine L Grantz1, Victor Gonzalez-Quintero2, James Troendle3, Uma M Reddy4, Stefanie N Hinkle5, Michelle A Kominiarek6, Zhaohui Lu7, Jun Zhang8. 1. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: katherine.grantz@nih.gov. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 3. Office of Biostatistics Research, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 5. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 6. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 7. Glotech Inc, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 8. Ministry of Education-Shanghai Key Lab of Children's Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe labor patterns in women with a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) with normal neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: In a retrospective observational study at 12 US centers (2002 through 2008), we examined time interval for each centimeter of cervical dilation and compared labor progression stratified by spontaneous or induced labor in 2892 multiparous women with TOLAC (second delivery) and 56,301 nulliparous women at 37 0/7 to 41 6/7 weeks of gestation. Analyses were performed including women with intrapartum cesarean delivery, and also limiting only to women who delivered vaginally. RESULTS: Labor was induced in 23.4% of TOLAC and 44.1% of nulliparous women (P < .001). Cesarean delivery rates were 57.7% in TOLAC vs 19.0% in nulliparous women (P < .001). Oxytocin was used in 52.4% of TOLAC vs 64.3% of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor (P < .001) and 89.8% of TOLAC vs 91.6% of nulliparous women with induced labor (P = .099); however, TOLAC had lower maximum doses of oxytocin compared to nulliparous women: median (90th percentile): 6 (18) mU/min vs 12 (28) mU/min, respectively (P < .001). Median (95th percentile) labor duration for TOLAC vs nulliparous women with spontaneous labor from 4-10 cm was 0.9 (2.2) hours longer (P = .007). For women who entered labor spontaneously and achieved vaginal delivery, labor patterns for TOLAC were similar to nulliparous women. For induced labor, labor duration for TOLAC vs nulliparous women from 4-10 cm was 1.5 (4.6) hours longer (P < .001). For women who achieved vaginal delivery, labor patterns were slower for induced TOLAC compared to nulliparous women. CONCLUSION: Labor duration for TOLAC was slower compared to nulliparous labor, particularly for induced labor. By improved understanding of the rates of progress at different points in labor, this new information on labor curves in women undergoing TOLAC, particularly for induction, should help physicians when managing labor. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe labor patterns in women with a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) with normal neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: In a retrospective observational study at 12 US centers (2002 through 2008), we examined time interval for each centimeter of cervical dilation and compared labor progression stratified by spontaneous or induced labor in 2892 multiparous women with TOLAC (second delivery) and 56,301 nulliparous women at 37 0/7 to 41 6/7 weeks of gestation. Analyses were performed including women with intrapartum cesarean delivery, and also limiting only to women who delivered vaginally. RESULTS:Labor was induced in 23.4% of TOLAC and 44.1% of nulliparous women (P < .001). Cesarean delivery rates were 57.7% in TOLAC vs 19.0% in nulliparous women (P < .001). Oxytocin was used in 52.4% of TOLAC vs 64.3% of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor (P < .001) and 89.8% of TOLAC vs 91.6% of nulliparous women with induced labor (P = .099); however, TOLAC had lower maximum doses of oxytocin compared to nulliparous women: median (90th percentile): 6 (18) mU/min vs 12 (28) mU/min, respectively (P < .001). Median (95th percentile) labor duration for TOLAC vs nulliparous women with spontaneous labor from 4-10 cm was 0.9 (2.2) hours longer (P = .007). For women who entered labor spontaneously and achieved vaginal delivery, labor patterns for TOLAC were similar to nulliparous women. For induced labor, labor duration for TOLAC vs nulliparous women from 4-10 cm was 1.5 (4.6) hours longer (P < .001). For women who achieved vaginal delivery, labor patterns were slower for induced TOLAC compared to nulliparous women. CONCLUSION:Labor duration for TOLAC was slower compared to nulliparous labor, particularly for induced labor. By improved understanding of the rates of progress at different points in labor, this new information on labor curves in women undergoing TOLAC, particularly for induction, should help physicians when managing labor. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
first stage of labor; trial of labor after cesarean; vaginal birth after cesarean
Authors: Jun Zhang; Helain J Landy; D Ware Branch; Ronald Burkman; Shoshana Haberman; Kimberly D Gregory; Christos G Hatjis; Mildred M Ramirez; Jennifer L Bailit; Victor H Gonzalez-Quintero; Judith U Hibbard; Matthew K Hoffman; Michelle Kominiarek; Lee A Learman; Paul Van Veldhuisen; James Troendle; Uma M Reddy Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.661
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
Authors: Jun Zhang; James Troendle; Uma M Reddy; S Katherine Laughon; D Ware Branch; Ronald Burkman; Helain J Landy; Judith U Hibbard; Shoshana Haberman; Mildred M Ramirez; Jennifer L Bailit; Matthew K Hoffman; Kimberly D Gregory; Victor H Gonzalez-Quintero; Michelle Kominiarek; Lee A Learman; Christos G Hatjis; Paul van Veldhuisen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 8.661