Lisa D Levine1, Katheryne L Downes2, Rebecca F Hamm1, Sindhu K Srinivas1. 1. Maternal and Child Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Foundation for Orthopedic Research and Education, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a standardized induction protocol on reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity in women undergoing an induction with an unfavorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study of women undergoing an induction from May 2013 to June 2015. Women who were ≥18 years, ≥37 weeks with intact membranes and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score of ≤6 and cervical dilation ≤2 cm) with no prior cesarean were included. We compared the following outcomes between women managed with the labor protocol versus women in an observation group, managed at the discretion of the provider: Labor length, cesarean delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and neonatal intensive care unit admission for >48 hours. Multivariable models incorporated confounders specific to each outcome. RESULTS: 855 women were included (491: labor protocol group; 364: observational group). Women in the labor protocol group had a shorter time to delivery (15.7 hours vs. 18.0 hours, p < .001), a decrease in maternal morbidity (7.3% vs. 11.5%, p = .04), lower rates of NICU admission >48 hours (3.5% vs 8%, p = .005), and a lower neonatal morbidity (3.0% vs. 7.7%, p = .003) compared to women in the observational group. There was no difference in rate of cesarean between the labor protocol and observational groups (27.7% vs. 32.7%, p = .13). When adjusting for confounders, women in the labor protocol group had a 60% reduction in NICU admission >48 hours (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.76) and a 70% reduction in neonatal morbidity (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.70). Time to delivery and maternal morbidity were not significantly different in adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Utilization of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a significant reduction in neonatal morbidity without increasing the risk of cesarean or maternal morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a standardized induction protocol on reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity in women undergoing an induction with an unfavorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study of women undergoing an induction from May 2013 to June 2015. Women who were ≥18 years, ≥37 weeks with intact membranes and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score of ≤6 and cervical dilation ≤2 cm) with no prior cesarean were included. We compared the following outcomes between women managed with the labor protocol versus women in an observation group, managed at the discretion of the provider: Labor length, cesarean delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and neonatal intensive care unit admission for >48 hours. Multivariable models incorporated confounders specific to each outcome. RESULTS: 855 women were included (491: labor protocol group; 364: observational group). Women in the labor protocol group had a shorter time to delivery (15.7 hours vs. 18.0 hours, p < .001), a decrease in maternal morbidity (7.3% vs. 11.5%, p = .04), lower rates of NICU admission >48 hours (3.5% vs 8%, p = .005), and a lower neonatal morbidity (3.0% vs. 7.7%, p = .003) compared to women in the observational group. There was no difference in rate of cesarean between the labor protocol and observational groups (27.7% vs. 32.7%, p = .13). When adjusting for confounders, women in the labor protocol group had a 60% reduction in NICU admission >48 hours (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.76) and a 70% reduction in neonatal morbidity (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.70). Time to delivery and maternal morbidity were not significantly different in adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Utilization of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a significant reduction in neonatal morbidity without increasing the risk of cesarean or maternal morbidity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active management; cesarean delivery; induction of labor protocol; maternal morbidity; neonatal morbidity
Authors: Steven Clark; Michael Belfort; George Saade; Gary Hankins; Darla Miller; Donna Frye; Janet Meyers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Methodius G Tuuli; Lucy Liu; Ryan E Longman; Anthony O Odibo; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: O Asıcıoglu; K Güngördük; G Yildirim; B Besımoglu Asıcıoglu; O Çelikkol Güngördük; C Ark; T Günay; N Yenigül Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 1.246