Indications for induction of labour and mode of delivery in nulliparous term women with an unfavourable cervix

Yannie YY CHAN; Tsz-Kin LO; Ellen LM YU; Lai-Fong HO

doi:10.12809/hkjgom.21.2.04

Authors

Yannie YY CHAN
Tsz-Kin LO
Ellen LM YU
Lai-Fong HO

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.21.2.04

Keywords:

Cervix uteri, Delivery, obstetric, Labor, induced

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the association between indications for induction of labour (IOL) and mode of delivery in nulliparous women with unfavourable cervix.
Methods: We identified nulliparous singleton term women with an unfavourable cervix who underwent IOL between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 in an obstetrics unit. Clinical data of patients and their neonates were collected. The primary outcome was the mode of delivery (vaginal vs caesarean). Secondary outcomes were the instrumental delivery rate, indications for caesarean section, and maternal and neonatal complication stratified by indications of IOL.
Results: 1156 women were included for analysis. The IOL success (vaginal delivery) rate was 66.4%, the instrumental delivery rate was 19.2%, and the caesarean delivery rate was 33.6%. After controlling the confounding factors (maternal age, stature, weight gain during pregnancy, and Bishop score), indications for IOL independently associated with the mode of delivery were post-date pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]=2.30, p<0.001), diabetes mellitus diseases (ORadj=1.67, p=0.015), hypertensive disorders (ORadj=1.72, p=0.015), and large-for-gestational-age fetus (ORadj=2.32, p=0.001). Maternal age ≥35 years, body mass index ≥25 kg/m2, more weight gain during pregnancy were associated with caesarean section, whereas taller stature and a more favourable Bishop score were associated with vaginal delivery.
Conclusion: Different indications for IOL affect the mode of delivery differently. Post-date pregnancy, diabetes mellitus diseases, hypertensive disorders, and large-for-gestational-age fetus are independent risk factors for caesarean delivery.

References

Humphrey T, Tucker JS. Rising rates of obstetric interventions: exploring the determinants of induction of labour. J Public Health (Oxf) 2009;31:88-94.

The Hong Kong College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Territory-wide audit in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2014.

Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, Crowther CA, Gomersall JC. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;7:CD004945.

Levine LD, Downes KL, Parry S, Elovitz MA, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:254 e1-e7.

Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Salazar F, et al. Variables that predict the success of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:1093-7.

Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:573-84.

Gibson KS, Waters TP. Measures of success: prediction of successful labor induction. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:475-82.

Gabbay-Benziv R, Hadar E, Ashwal E, Chen R, Wiznitzer A, Hiersch L. Induction of labor: does indication matter? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:1195-201.

Parkes I, Kabiri D, Hants Y, Ezra Y. The indication for induction of labor impacts the risk of cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:224-8.

Gerli S, Favilli A, Giordano C, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Single indications of induction of labor with prostaglandins and risk of cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013;39:926-31.

de Vries BS, Barratt A, McGeechan K, et al. Outcomes of induction of labour in nulliparous women at 38 to 39 weeks pregnancy by clinical indication: an observational study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019;59:484-92.

Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Hyperglycaemia First Detected in Pregnancy: a World Health Organization Guideline. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014;103:341-63.

Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:122 e1-e8.

Boriboonhirunsarn D, Waiyanikorn R. Emergency cesarean section rate between women with gestational diabetes and normal pregnant women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2016;55:64-7.

Gorgal R, Goncalves E, Barros M, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus: a risk factor for non-elective cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38:154-9.

Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:261-7.

Crane JM, Delaney T, Butt KD, Bennett KA, Hutchens D, Young DC. Predictors of successful labor induction with oral or vaginal misoprostol. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004;15:319-23.

Lassiter JR, Holliday N, Lewis DF, Mulekar M, Abshire J, Brocato B. Induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix: how does BMI affect success? (double dagger). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:3000-2.

Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:128 e1-7.

O’Dwyer V, O’Kelly S, Monaghan B, Rowan A, Farah N, Turner MJ. Maternal obesity and induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1414-8.

Ruhstaller K. Induction of labor in the obese patient. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:437-40.

Gawade P, Markenson G, Bsat F, Healy A, Pekow P, Plevyak M. Association of gestational weight gain with cesarean delivery rate after labor induction. J Reprod Med 2011;56:95-102.

Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:486 e1-9.

Boulvain M, Irion O, Dowswell T, Thornton JG. Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;5:CD000938.