Elective birth at 37 weeks' gestation for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy

Induction of Labour. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015-088, December 2020)

Aim The aim of this official guideline published and coordinated by the German Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in cooperation with the Austrian Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG) and the Swiss Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (SGGG) is to provide a consensus-based overview of the indications, methods and general management of induction of labour by evaluating the relevant literature. Methods This S2k guideline was developed using a structured consensus process which included representative members from various professions; the guideline was commissioned by the guidelines commission of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG. Recommendations The guideline provides recommendations on the indications, management, methods, monitoring and special situations occurring in the context of inducing labour.

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.

RESULTS

68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.

Twin Births in Medicaid: Prevalence, Outcomes, Utilization, and Cost in Four States, 2014-2015

OBJECTIVES

Twin births have increased in prevalence. Twin births are more likely to have poorer outcomes than singleton births and are more costly. However, although Medicaid paid for approximately half of U.S. births in 2016, little is known specifically about the incidence of twin births and related costs for Medicaid beneficiaries. This paper seeks to expand the knowledge of twin births covered by Medicaid.

METHODS

We obtained data for singleton (N = 115,568) and twin (N = 3775) Medicaid-covered births in selected geographic areas of four states in 2014 and 2015. States provided linked birth certificates to Medicaid claims data for mothers and infants. We compared health care utilization and Medicaid costs for twins to singletons in the same geographic areas.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Medicaid twins in the selected areas of these four states was 3.2% of births, identical to the rate of twins nationwide. Two thirds of Medicaid twins were born preterm, and average gestational age was 34.8 weeks. Mothers of twins had higher rates of C-Sect. (73.6% vs. 32.0% for singletons) and of neonatal intensive care use (45.2% vs. 11.1%). The average length of delivery stay for twins was 12.3 days, vs. 4.1, and the rate of hospital readmissions was almost twice as high. The total cost for mother and infant over the prenatal, delivery, and post-natal period for a pair of twins was $48,479, over two and a half times as high as for singleton births ($18,032). However, when considering the average cost of a single twin vs. a singleton birth, the cost differential is less ($24,239 vs. $18,032, or a ratio of 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid twins are a fragile population with poorer outcomes and higher service use than singleton infants. Twins contribute substantially to the Medicaid cost of maternity and newborn care. A variety of strategies can be used to improve twin outcomes and reduce costs.

Recent advances in the induction of labor

The rate of labor induction is steadily increasing and, in industrialized countries, approximately one out of four pregnant women has their labor induced. Induction of labor should be considered when the benefits of prompt vaginal delivery outweigh the maternal and/or fetal risks of waiting for the spontaneous onset of labor. However, this procedure is not free of risks, which include an increase in operative vaginal or caesarean delivery and excessive uterine activity with risk of fetal heart rate abnormalities. A search for "Induction of Labor" retrieves more than 18,000 citations from 1844 to the present day. The aim of this review is to summarize the controversies concerning the indications, the methods, and the tools for evaluating the success of the procedure, with an emphasis on the scientific evidence behind each.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) have increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term, because of increased perinatal mortality during the third trimester of pregnancy.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) and a sister review focuses on women with gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth) at or near term gestation (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach, for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design) and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) which compared planned birth, at or near term, with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two of the review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible published trials for inclusion in this review.We did identify one randomised trial which examined whether expectant management reduced the incidence of caesarean birth in uncomplicated pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (requiring insulin) and with pre-existing diabetes. However, published data from this trial does not differentiate between pre-existing and gestational diabetes, and therefore we excluded this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach any conclusions about the health outcomes associated with planned birth, at or near term, compared with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.This review demonstrates the urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for pregnant women with pre-existing (Type 1 or Type 2) diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded.There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates.In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women).We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost.The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Gestational age at delivery and neonatal outcome in uncomplicated twin pregnancies: what is the optimal gestational age for delivery according to chorionicity?

Objective

To investigate the neonatal outcome according to the gestational age at delivery and to determine the optimal timing for delivery in uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of women with uncomplicated twin pregnancies delivered at or beyond 35 weeks of gestation from 1995 to 2013. The primary outcome was neonatal composite morbidity, which was defined as when either one or both twins have one or more of the followings: fetal death after 35 weeks gestation, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, mechanical ventilator requirement, respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal death. To determine the optimal gestational age for delivery according to chorionicity, we compared the neonatal composite morbidity rate between women who delivered and women who remained undelivered at each gestational week in both monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies.

Results

A total of 697 twin pregnancies were included (171 monochorionic and 526 dichorionic twins). The neonatal composite morbidity rate significantly decreased with advancing gestational age at delivery and its nadir was observed at 38 and ≥39 weeks of gestation in monochorionic and dichorionic twins, respectively. However, the composite morbidity rate did not differ between women who delivered and women who remained undelivered ≥36 and ≥37 weeks in monochorionic and dichorionic twins, respectively.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that the optimal gestational age for delivery was at ≥36 and ≥37 weeks in uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies, respectively.

Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. For important outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials comparing planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies.Most of the data included in the review were from a multicentre trial where 2804 women were randomised in 106 centres in 25 countries. All centres had facilities to perform emergency caesarean section and had anaesthetic, obstetrical, and nursing staff available in the hospital at the time of planned vaginal delivery. In the second trial carried out in Israel, 60 women were randomised. We judged the risk of bias to be low for all categories except performance (high) and outcome assessment bias (unclear).There was no clear evidence of differences between women randomised to planned caesarean section or planned vaginal birth for maternal death or serious morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups for perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67; data for 5565 babies, one study, moderate quality evidence). No studies reported childhood disability.For secondary outcomes there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for perinatal or neonatal mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.62; 5685 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.64; 5644 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence) or any of the other neonatal outcomes reported.The number of women undergoing caesarean section was reported in both trials. Most women in the planned caesarean group had treatment as planned (90.9% underwent caesarean section), whereas in the planned vaginal birth group 42.9% had caesarean section for at least one twin. For maternal mortality; no events were reported in one trial and two deaths (one in each group) in the other. There were no significant differences between groups for serious maternal morbidity overall (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies) or for different types of short-term morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for failure to breastfeed (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence) or the number of women with scores greater than 12 on the Edinbugh postnatal depression scale (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data mainly from one large, multicentre study found no clear evidence of benefit from planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancies with leading cephalic presentation. Data on long-term infant outcomes are awaited. Women should be informed of possible risks and benefits of labour and vaginal birth pertinent to their specific clinical presentation and the current and long-term effects of caesarean section for both mother and babies. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancy with leading cephalic presentation, except in the context of further randomised trials.

Induction of twin pregnancy and the risk of caesarean delivery: a cohort study

Background

Complications are common in twin pregnancies and induction of labour is often indicated. Most methods for induction are used but data on risks related to induction methods are sparse. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between induction of labour and caesarean delivery in twin pregnancies, and to assess the influence of induction method.

Methods

Cohort study of twin pregnancies ≥ 34 weeks, planned for vaginal delivery, from two University Hospitals in Sweden. Data were collected from medical records during the periods 1994 (Örebro) and 2004 (Uppsala) to 2013. During the study period there were 78,180 live born births and 1,282 were twin births. Women with previous caesarean section were excluded. Induction methods were categorized into amniotomy, oxytocin and cervical ripening (intra cervical Foley catheter or prostaglandin). Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) for caesarean section were calculated by logistic regression and were adjusted for parity, maternal age, gestational length, complications to the pregnancy, infant birth weight and year of birth. Spontaneous labour onsets were used as the reference group. The main outcome measure was caesarean section.

Results

In 462 twin pregnancies, 220 (48 %) had induction of labour and 242 (52 %) a spontaneous labour onset. Amniotomy was performed in 149 (68 %) of these inductions, oxytocin was administered in 11 (5 %) and cervical ripening was used in 60 (27 %). The rate of caesarean sections was 21 % in induced and 12 % in spontaneous labours (p 0.01). The absolute risk of caesarean section following induction was: 15 % with amniotomy; 36 % with oxytocin and 37 % with Foley/prostaglandin. Induction of labour increased the risk of caesarean section by 90 % compared with spontaneous labour onset (AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.1-3.5) and, when cervical ripening was used, the risk increased more than two fold (AOR 2.5, 95 % CI 1.2-5.3).

Conclusion

Induction of labour in twin pregnancies increases the risk of caesarean section compared with spontaneous labour onset, especially if Foley catheter or prostaglandins are required. However, approximately 80 % of induced labours are delivered vaginally.