Literature DB >> 28578171

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

Tetsuya Kawakita1, Sara N Iqbal2, Chun-Chih Huang3, Uma M Reddy2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of morbid obesity (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2) in women aged 20-39 years was 7.5% in 2009 through 2010. Morbid obesity is associated with an increased risk of stillbirth compared with normal body mass index, especially >39 weeks' gestation. The data regarding increased risk of cesarean delivery associated with nonmedically indicated induction of labor compared to expectant management in morbidly obese women are limited.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the cesarean delivery rate of nonmedically indicated induction of labor with expectant management in morbidly obese women without other comorbidity. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study from the Consortium on Safe Labor of morbidly obese women with singleton, cephalic gestations without previous cesarean, chronic hypertension, or gestational or pregestational diabetes between 37 0/7 and 41 6/7 weeks' gestation. We examined maternal outcomes including cesarean delivery, operative delivery, third- or fourth-degree laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, and composite maternal outcome (any of: transfusion, intensive care unit admission, venous thromboembolism). We also examined neonatal outcomes including shoulder dystocia, macrosomia (>4000 g), neonatal intensive care unit admission, and composite neonatal outcome (5-min Apgar score <5, stillbirth, neonatal death, or asphyxia or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy). Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, controlling for maternal characteristics, hospital type, and simplified Bishop score. Analyses were conducted at early and full term (37 0/7 to 38 6/7 and 39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks' gestation, respectively). Women who delivered between 41 0/7 and 41 6/7 weeks' gestation were included as expectant management group.
RESULTS: Of 1894 nulliparous and 2455 multiparous morbidly obese women, 429 (22.7%) and 791 (32.2%) had nonmedically indicated induction, respectively. In nulliparas, nonmedically indicated induction was not associated with increased risks of cesarean delivery and was associated with decreased risks of macrosomia (2.2% vs 11.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.70) at early term and decreased neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.1% vs 8.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.98) at full term compared with expectant management. In multiparas, nonmedically indicated induction compared with expectant management was associated with a decreased risk of macrosomia at early term (4.2% vs 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.60), cesarean delivery at full term (5.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98), and composite neonatal outcome (0% vs 0.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, <.01-0.89) at full term.
CONCLUSION: In morbidly obese women without other comorbidity, nonmedically indicated induction was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Foley balloon catheter; body mass index; composite neonatal morbidity; dinoprostone; expectant management; macrosomia; misoprostol; morbid obesity; neonatal intensive care unit admission; nonmedically indicated induction of labor; spontaneous labor; stillbirth

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28578171      PMCID: PMC5614804          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.048

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


  23 in total

1.  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

2.  Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bailit; William Grobman; Yuan Zhao; Ronald J Wapner; Uma M Reddy; Michael W Varner; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Jay D Iams; Alan T Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Sean C Blackwell; Jorge E Tolosa; J Peter VanDorsten
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women.

Authors:  Matthew K Hoffman; Anjel Vahratian; Anthony C Sciscione; James F Troendle; Jun Zhang
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  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

5.  Obesity and the risk of stillbirth: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Ruofan Yao; Cande V Ananth; Bo Y Park; Leanne Pereira; Lauren A Plante
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor.

Authors:  Katherine B Wolfe; Rocco A Rossi; Carri R Warshak
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States.

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

8.  Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  Marie I Cedergren
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  The risk of prelabor and intrapartum cesarean delivery among overweight and obese women: possible preventive actions.

Authors:  Monika Hermann; Camille Le Ray; Béatrice Blondel; François Goffinet; Jennifer Zeitlin
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery.

Authors:  S Katherine Laughon; Jun Zhang; James Troendle; Liping Sun; Uma M Reddy
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 7.623

View more
  4 in total

1.  Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management among Obese Women at ≥39 Weeks.

Authors:  Anna Palatnik; Michelle A Kominiarek
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women.

Authors:  William A Grobman; Madeline M Rice; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Elizabeth A Thom; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Annette Perez-Delboy; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Kim A Boggess; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Nonovert disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in pregnancy: a new scoring system for the identification of patients at risk for obstetrical hemorrhage requiring blood product transfusion.

Authors:  Ali Alhousseini; Roberto Romero; Neta Benshalom-Tirosh; Dereje Gudicha; Percy Pacora; Dan Tirosh; Doron Kabiri; Lami Yeo; Jecko Thachil; Chaur-Dong Hsu; Sonia S Hassan; Offer Erez
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2020-02-03

4.  A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour.

Authors:  Dominiek Coates; Angela Makris; Christine Catling; Amanda Henry; Vanessa Scarf; Nicole Watts; Deborah Fox; Purshaiyna Thirukumar; Vincent Wong; Hamish Russell; Caroline Homer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.