Literature DB >> 27208913

Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia.

Michel Boulvain1, Olivier Irion, Therese Dowswell, Jim G Thornton.   

Abstract

Editorial note: It has been brought to the authors' attention that there may be an error in the data (Analysis 1.9). This is currently under investigation, and a correction will be made if the data are found to be incorrect. Details can be found in the comments.
BACKGROUND: Women with a suspected large-for-dates fetus or a fetus with suspected macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) are at risk of operative birth or caesarean section. The baby is also at increased risk of shoulder dystocia and trauma, in particular fractures and brachial plexus injury. Induction of labour may reduce these risks by decreasing the birthweight, but may also lead to longer labours and an increased risk of caesarean section.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or shortly before term (37 to 40 weeks) for suspected fetal macrosomia on the way of giving birth and maternal or perinatal morbidity. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), contacted trial authors and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. For key outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN
RESULTS: We included four trials, involving 1190 women. It was not possible to blind women and staff to the intervention, but for other 'Risk of bias' domains these studies were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias.Compared to expectant management, there was no clear effect of induction of labour for suspected macrosomia on the risk of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.09; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13; 1190 women; four trials, low-quality evidence). Shoulder dystocia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence), and fracture (any) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; 1190 women; four studies, high-quality evidence) were reduced in the induction of labour group. There were no clear differences between groups for brachial plexus injury (two events were reported in the control group in one trial, low-quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of any difference between groups for measures of neonatal asphyxia; low five-minute infant Apgar scores (less than seven) or low arterial cord blood pH (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.02; 858 infants; two trials, low-quality evidence; and, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; 818 infants; one trial, moderate-quality evidence, respectively). Mean birthweight was lower in the induction group, but there was considerable heterogeneity between studies for this outcome (mean difference (MD) -178.03 g, 95% CI -315.26 to -40.81; 1190 infants; four studies; I(2) = 89%). In one study with data for 818 women, third- and fourth-degree perineal tears were increased in the induction group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.17).For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we based our downgrading decisions on high risk of bias from lack of blinding and imprecision of effect estimates. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia has not been shown to alter the risk of brachial plexus injury, but the power of the included studies to show a difference for such a rare event is limited. Also antenatal estimates of fetal weight are often inaccurate so many women may be worried unnecessarily, and many inductions may not be needed. Nevertheless, induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia results in a lower mean birthweight, and fewer birth fractures and shoulder dystocia. The unexpected observation in the induction group of increased perineal damage, and the plausible, but of uncertain significance, observation of increased use of phototherapy, both in the largest trial, should also be kept in mind.Findings from trials included in the review suggest that to prevent one fracture it would be necessary to induce labour in 60 women. Since induction of labour does not appear to alter the rate of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, it is likely to be popular with many women. In settings where obstetricians can be reasonably confident about their scan assessment of fetal weight, the advantages and disadvantages of induction at or near term for fetuses suspected of being macrosomic should be discussed with parents.Although some parents and doctors may feel the evidence already justifies induction, others may justifiably disagree. Further trials of induction shortly before term for suspected fetal macrosomia are needed. Such trials should concentrate on refining the optimum gestation of induction, and improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of macrosomia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27208913      PMCID: PMC7032677          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000938.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  20 in total

1.  ACOG issues guidelines on fetal macrosomia. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Authors:  J Chatfield
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 3.292

2.  Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus.

Authors:  C D Friesen; A M Miller; W F Rayburn
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements.

Authors:  L S Chitty; D G Altman; A Henderson; S Campbell
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1994-02

4.  Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Michel Boulvain; Marie-Victoire Senat; Franck Perrotin; Norbert Winer; Gael Beucher; Damien Subtil; Florence Bretelle; Elie Azria; Dominique Hejaiej; Françoise Vendittelli; Marianne Capelle; Bruno Langer; Richard Matis; Laure Connan; Philippe Gillard; Christine Kirkpatrick; Gilles Ceysens; Gilles Faron; Olivier Irion; Patrick Rozenberg
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Hong Ju; Yogesh Chadha; Tim Donovan; Peter O'Rourke
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.100

Review 6.  Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  G L Malin; G J Bugg; Y Takwoingi; J G Thornton; N W Jones
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Maternal pregravid body mass index and child hospital admissions in the first 5 years of life: results from an Australian birth cohort.

Authors:  C M Cameron; R Shibl; R J McClure; S-K Ng; A P Hills
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 5.095

8.  Pregnancy outcome following ultrasound diagnosis of macrosomia.

Authors:  E H Delpapa; E Mueller-Heubach
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Fetal macrosomia: does antenatal prediction affect delivery route and birth outcome?

Authors:  J W Weeks; T Pitman; J A Spinnato
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Fetal macrosomia: risk factors, maternal, and perinatal outcome.

Authors:  A Mohammadbeigi; F Farhadifar; N Soufi Zadeh; N Mohammadsalehi; M Rezaiee; M Aghaei
Journal:  Ann Med Health Sci Res       Date:  2013-10
View more
  20 in total

1.  Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Gordon Cs Smith; Alexandros A Moraitis; David Wastlund; Jim G Thornton; Aris Papageorghiou; Julia Sanders; Alexander Ep Heazell; Stephen C Robson; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Edward Cf Wilson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies.

Authors:  Suneet P Chauhan; Madeline Murguia Rice; William A Grobman; Jennifer Bailit; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Mona Prasad; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 3.  Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

Authors:  Arpita Ghosh; Katherine R Lattey; Anthony J Kelly
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-05

4.  Biparietal diameter measurements using the outer-to-outer versus outer-to-inner measurement: A question of pedantry?

Authors:  Lufee Wong; Eldho Paul; Hamsaveni Km Murday; Jing Fang; Ilona Lavender; Peter R Coombs; Mark Teoh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2018-04-16

5.  What is an appropriate caesarean delivery rate for China: a multicentre survey.

Authors:  Y Zhang; A P Betran; X Li; D Liu; N Yuan; L Shang; W Lin; S Tu; L Wang; X Wu; T Zhu; Y Zhang; Z Lu; L Zheng; C Gu; J Fang; Z Liu; L Ma; Z Cai; X Yang; H Li; H Zhang; X Zhao; L Yan; L Wang; X Sun; Q Luo; L Liu; J Zhu; W Qin; Q Yao; S Dong; Y Yang; Z Cui; Y He; X Feng; L He; H Zhang; L Zhang; X Wang; J P Souza; H Qi; T Duan; J Zhang
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 7.331

6.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy.

Authors:  Shannon M Bates; Anita Rajasekhar; Saskia Middeldorp; Claire McLintock; Marc A Rodger; Andra H James; Sara R Vazquez; Ian A Greer; John J Riva; Meha Bhatt; Nicole Schwab; Danielle Barrett; Andrea LaHaye; Bram Rochwerg
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

Review 7.  Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants.

Authors:  Linda M Biesty; Aoife M Egan; Fidelma Dunne; Valerie Smith; Pauline Meskell; Eugene Dempsey; G Meabh Ni Bhuinneain; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-09

Review 8.  Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants.

Authors:  Linda M Biesty; Aoife M Egan; Fidelma Dunne; Eugene Dempsey; Pauline Meskell; Valerie Smith; G Meabh Ni Bhuinneain; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-01-05

9.  Influence of Foetal Macrosomia on the Neonatal and Maternal Birth Outcome.

Authors:  Tamara Margit Jutta Pahlitzsch; Laura Hanne; Wolfgang Henrich; Alexander Weichert
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 2.915

10.  External validation and clinical usefulness of first-trimester prediction models for small- and large-for-gestational-age infants: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Lje Meertens; Ljm Smits; Smj van Kuijk; R Aardenburg; Ima van Dooren; J Langenveld; I M Zwaan; Mea Spaanderman; Hcj Scheepers
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 6.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.