| Literature DB >> 28344957 |
Yoo Min Kim1, Ju Young Park1, Ji-Hee Sung1, Suk-Joo Choi1, Soo-Young Oh1, Cheong-Rae Roh1, Jong-Hwa Kim1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prostaglandin (PG) E2 for preterm labor induction and to investigate the predictive factors for the success of vaginal delivery.Entities:
Keywords: Dinoprostone; Labor, induced; Premature birth; Vaginal delivery; Vaginal pessary
Year: 2017 PMID: 28344957 PMCID: PMC5364098 DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2017.60.2.163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obstet Gynecol Sci ISSN: 2287-8572
Demographic and clinical characteristic of study patients
| Factor | Vaginal delivery (n=89) | Cesarean section (n=66) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal age (yr) | 31.49±0.433 | 32.62±0.465 | 0.082 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.30 (20–38) | 24.82 (20–39) | 0.585 |
| Multiparity | 35 (39.3) | 12 (12.2) | 0.005 |
| Hypertensive disorder | 26 (29.2) | 41 (62.1) | 0.000 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 5 (5.6) | 3 (4.5) | 1.000 |
| Gestational age at induction (day) | 247.0 (174–258) | 242.5 (181–258) | 0.013 |
| Gestational age at delivery (day) | 249.0 (174–260) | 244.5 (182–262) | 0.006 |
| Induction to delivery time (min) | 1,205 (121–4,302) | 1,251 (130–5,040) | 0.198 |
| Ruptured membranesa) | 26 (29) | 5 (7.5) | 0.001 |
| No. of prostaglandin E2 | 0.707 | ||
| 1 | 71 (79.8) | 51 (77.3) | |
| 2 | 18 (20.2) | 15 (22.7) | |
| Birth weight (g) | 2,198±598 | 1,896±456 | 0.001 |
| Sex (male) | 45 (50.6) | 33 (50.0) | 0.945 |
| Apgar score | |||
| 1-min Apgar score <4 | 1 (1.1) | 2 (3.0) | 0.394 |
| 5-min Apgar score <7 | 1 (1.1) | 3 (4.5) | 0.184 |
| Cord pH | 7.300 (7.031–7.538) | 7.290 (6.926–7.408) | 0.543 |
| <7.0 | 0 | 2 (3) | 0.098 |
| <7.2 | 9 (10) | 8 (12) | 0.692 |
| Base excess | −4.15 (−15.4–1.9) | −3.10 (−16.9–5.0) | 0.002 |
| <−12.0 | 3 (3) | 3 (4.5) | 0.708 |
| Neonatal intensive care unit admission | 16 (18) | 37 (56) | 0.000 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, median (minimum–maximum), or number (%).
a)Ruptured membranes at the time of induction.
Fig. 1Success rate of vaginal delivery according to gestational age at induction.
Cervical status and Bishop score at time of labor induction
| Vaginal delivery (n=89) | Cesarean section (n=66) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cervical dilatation (cm) | 0.179 | ||
| 0 | 44 (49.4) | 42 (64.6) | |
| 1 | 40 (44.9) | 20 (30.8) | |
| 2 | 5 (5.6) | 3 (4.6) | |
| Cervical effacement (%) | 0.191 | ||
| 0 | 43 (48.3) | 42 (64.6) | |
| 25 | 30 (33.7) | 16 (24.6) | |
| 50 | 15 (16.9) | 7 (10.8) | |
| 75 | 1 (1.1) | 0 | |
| Bishop score | 0.218 | ||
| 0 | 23 (25.8) | 19 (28.8) | |
| 1 | 21 (23.6) | 24 (36.4) | |
| 2 | 21 (23.6) | 12 (18.2) | |
| 3 | 17 (19.1) | 6 (9.1) | |
| 4 | 7 (7.9) | 4 (6.1) | |
| Change of Bishop score (≥1) | 52 (65.0) | 28 (35.0) | 0.060 |
Values are presented as number (%).
The success rate of vaginal delivery and reason for cesarean section according to indication of preterm delivery
| All | Hypertensive disorder | Fetal growth restriction | PPROM | Oligohydramnios | Maternal indications | Fetal anomaly | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mode of delivery | ||||||||
| Vaginal delivery | 89 (57.0) | 26 (38.8) | 17 (60.7) | 24 (85.7) | 6 (60.0) | 12 (80.0) | 4 (57.1) | 0.001 |
| Cesarean section after induction | 66 (43.0) | 41 (61.2) | 11 (39.3) | 4 (14.3) | 4 (40.0) | 3 (20.0) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Reason for cesarean section | 0.076 | |||||||
| Induction failure | 35 (54.0) | 24 (60.0) | 6 (54.5) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | |
| Failure to progress | 9 (14.0) | 2 (5.0) | 2 (18.2) | 3 (75.0) | 0 | 1 (33.3) | 1 (33.3) | |
| Nonreassuring fetal heart rate | 18 (28.0) | 11 (27.5) | 3 (27.3) | 0 | 3 (75.0) | 0 | 1 (33.3) | |
| Aggravation of maternal state | 3 (4.0) | 3 (7.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Values are presented as number (%).
PPROM, premature preterm rupture of membranes.
Fig. 2Multiple logistic regression analyses of success of vaginal delivery. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.