Literature DB >> 31039597

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

Anna Palatnik1, Michelle A Kominiarek2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Maternal obesity is associated with many adverse obstetric outcomes including cesarean delivery. It is unclear whether induction of labor can reduce these risks. Previous studies report conflicting results on the outcomes of elective induction of labor among obese women. This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between obese women undergoing elective induction of labor and those undergoing expectant management at ≥39 weeks. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study from the Consortium on Safe Labor of obese women (defined by prepregnancy body mass index≥ 30kg/m2) with singleton gestations at ≥39 weeks without medical comorbidities from 2002 through 2008. Women scheduled for medically indicated induction of labor were excluded. The primary outcome of cesarean delivery was compared between obese women undergoing elective induction of labor and expectant management during 39th, 40th, and 41st weeks using univariable and multivariable analyses, stratifying by parity.
RESULTS: In all, 7,298 nulliparous and 9,789 parous women were eligible for analysis. After controlling for potential confounders, elective induction of labor during 39th week in nulliparous and parous women was associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery (39.1 vs. 41.6%, adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.74 for nulliparous and 5.5 vs. 10.1%, adjusted OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.61 for parous women) compared with expectant management. Elective induction of labor during 40th and 41st weeks was not associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery. In addition, macrosomia was reduced in nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor during the 40th week (12.1 vs. 18.5%, adjusted OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.87) and in parous women undergoing elective induction of labor during 39th (11.6 vs. 17.6%, adjusted OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66) and 40th weeks (16.4 vs. 22.2%, adjusted OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36-0.78).
CONCLUSION: Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks, when compared with expectant management, was associated with lower cesarean deliveries in obese nulliparous and parous women. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31039597      PMCID: PMC7191996          DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Perinatol        ISSN: 0735-1631            Impact factor:   1.862


  37 in total

1.  Induction of labor versus expectant management for women with a prior cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Anna Palatnik; William A Grobman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Examining the effect of maternal obesity on outcome of labor induction in patients with preeclampsia.

Authors:  Christopher J Robinson; Elizabeth G Hill; Mark C Alanis; Eugene Y Chang; Donna D Johnson; Jonas S Almeida
Journal:  Hypertens Pregnancy       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.108

3.  Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix.

Authors:  Sarah S Osmundson; Robin J Ou-Yang; William A Grobman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Practice Bulletin No. 173: Fetal Macrosomia.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Evaluating the Obstetrical Implications of Antenatal Testing for Women with Morbid Obesity: Maternal and Fetal Outcomes of Increased Surveillance.

Authors:  P Kaitlyn Edelson; Jamie A Bastek; Lisa D Levine
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Is obesity still increasing among pregnant women? Prepregnancy obesity trends in 20 states, 2003-2009.

Authors:  S C Fisher; S Y Kim; A J Sharma; R Rochat; B Morrow
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 9.  Maternal body mass index and the risk of fetal death, stillbirth, and infant death: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dagfinn Aune; Ola Didrik Saugstad; Tore Henriksen; Serena Tonstad
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

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
  2 in total

1.  Effects of maternal age on the mode of delivery following induction of labor in nulliparous term pregnancies: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Seyedeh Hajar Sharami; Roya Kabodmehri; Fatemeh Hosseinzadeh; Sina Montazeri; Maryam Ghalandari; Seyedeh Fatemeh Dalil Heirati; Sarvenaz Ershadi
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-19

2.  Induction of labour at 39 weeks versus expectant management in low-risk obese women: study protocol for a randomised controlled study.

Authors:  Lise Qvirin Krogh; Sidsel Boie; Tine Brink Henriksen; Jim Thornton; Jens Fuglsang; Julie Glavind
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 2.692

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.