Elective induction of labor: friend or foe?

Induction of labor in term pregnancies with isolated polyhydramnios: Is it beneficial or harmful?

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes in term pregnancies complicated by polyhydramnios between women who had induction of labor (IOB) versus women who had expectant management.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included term pregnancies complicated by isolated polyhydramnios. Patients who underwent IOB were compared with those who had expectant management. The primary outcome was defined as a composite adverse maternal outcome, and secondary outcomes were various maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Univariate analyses were followed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 865 pregnancies with term isolated polyhydramnios were included: 169 patients underwent IOB (19.5%), while 696 had expectant management and developed spontaneous onset of labor (80.5%). Women who underwent IOB had significantly higher rates of composite adverse maternal outcome (23.1% vs 9.8%, P < 0.01), prolonged hospital stay, perineal tear grade 3/4, intrapartum cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage, blood products transfusion, and neonatal asphyxia compared with expectant management. While the perinatal fetal death rate was similar between the groups (0.6% vs 0.6%, P = 0.98), the timing of the loss was different. Four women in the expectant management group had a stillbirth, while in the induction group one case of intrapartum fetal death occurred due to uterine rupture. Multivariate analyses revealed that IOB was associated with a higher rate of composite adverse maternal outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.28-3.83]; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

IOB in women with term isolated polyhydramnios is associated with higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes in comparison to expectant management. Further research is needed to determine the optimal approach for the management of isolated polyhydramnios at term.

Perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding labour induction and augmentation: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Labour induction and augmentation procedures are commonly used in maternity units with or without medical indications. Research shows that healthcare professionals play a significant role in women's childbirth decisions.

AIM

To consolidate healthcare professionals' perceptions about labour induction and augmentation.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception dates till January 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and Sandelowski and Barroso's guidelines guided this review. Included studies' quality was appraised by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Data were thematically synthesised. Review findings were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

FINDINGS

Three main themes were identified from the 17 included studies: 1) Making sense of the phenomenon, 2) Two sides of the coin, and 3) The enlightened path ahead.

DISCUSSION

Healthcare professionals' labour induction and augmentation decisions were affected by personal (knowledge and moral philosophies), and external factors (women, community members, colleagues, and healthcare institutions). Some clinicians were unfamiliar with the proper labour induction/augmentation procedures, while others were worried about their decisions and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Suggestions for improvement include conducting labour induction/augmentation training for clinicians, having sufficient resources in facilities, and developing appropriate labour induction/augmentation clinical guidelines. Women and their partners, community members, and traditional healers could benefit from receiving labour induction/augmentation education. To improve health outcomes, healthcare professionals could deliver woman-centred care and collaborate.

Predicting Spontaneous Labor beyond 39 Weeks among Low-Risk Expectantly Managed Pregnant Patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to identify the characteristics associated with spontaneous labor onset in pregnant patients undergoing expectant management at greater than 39 weeks' gestation and delineate perinatal outcomes associated with spontaneous labor compared with labor induction.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies at ≥390/7 weeks' gestation delivered at a single center in 2013. The exclusion criteria were elective induction, cesarean delivery or presence of a medical indication for delivery at 39 weeks, more than one prior cesarean delivery, and fetal anomaly or demise. We evaluated prenatally available maternal characteristics as potential predictors of the primary outcome-spontaneous labor onset. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate two parsimonious models: one with and one without third trimester cervical dilation. We also performed sensitivity analysis by parity and timing of cervical examination, and compared the mode of delivery and other secondary outcomes between patients who went into spontaneous labor and those who did not.

RESULTS

Of 707 eligible patients, 536 (75.8%) attained spontaneous labor and 171 (24.2%) did not. In the first model, maternal body mass index (BMI), parity, and substance use were identified as the most predictive factors. Overall, the model did not predict spontaneous labor (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.70) with high accuracy. The addition of third trimester cervical dilation in the second model did not significantly improve labor prediction (AUC: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.61-0.70; p = 0.76). These results did not differ by timing of cervical examination or parity. Patients admitted in spontaneous labor had lower odds of cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.21-0.53) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15-0.94). Other perinatal outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Maternal characteristics did not predict spontaneous labor onset at ≥39 weeks' gestation with high accuracy. Patients should be counseled on the challenges of labor prediction regardless of parity and cervical examination, outcomes if spontaneous labor does not occur, and benefits of labor induction.

KEY POINTS

· Majority of patients will attain spontaneous labor at ≥39 weeks.. · Maternal characteristics do not predict labor at ≥39 weeks.. · Spontaneous labor has associated lower perinatal risks.. · A shared decision model should be utilized in counseling patients who may choose expectant management..

Development and testing of a decision aid to achieve shared decision-making for routine labor induction

BACKGROUND

This quality improvement project aimed to create a decision aid for labor induction in healthy pregnancies at or beyond 39 weeks that met the needs of pregnant people least likely to experience shared decision-making and to identify and test implementation strategies to support its use in prenatal care.

METHODS

We used quality improvement and qualitative methods to develop, test, and refine a patient decision aid. The decision aid was tested in three languages by providers across obstetrics, family medicine, and midwifery practices at a tertiary care hospital and two community health centers. Outcomes included patients' understanding of their choices, pros and cons of choices, and the decision being theirs or a shared one with their provider.

RESULTS

Patient interview data indicated that shared decision-making on labor induction was achieved. Across three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, we interviewed a diverse group of 24 pregnant people: 20 were people of color, 16 were publicly insured, and 15 were born outside the United States. All but one (23/24) reported feeling the decision was theirs or a shared one with their provider. The majority could name induction choices they had along with pros and cons. Interviewees described the decision-making experience as empowering and positive. Nine medical providers tested the decision aid and gave feedback. Providers stated the tool helped improve the quality of their counseling and reduce bias.

CONCLUSION

This project suggests that using an evidence-based and well-tested decision aid can help achieve shared decision-making on labor induction for a diverse group of pregnant people.

Evaluation of an Elective Induction Protocol at a Regional Tertiary Obstetric Care Center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of elective induction at or beyond 39 weeks gestation in the setting of a regional tertiary obstetric care center.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort feasibility study of low-risk pregnant women who delivered at a regional tertiary obstetric care center. We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes of low risk pregnant women who opted for elective induction at or beyond 39 weeks gestation (n = 112) to a comparison group who opted for expectant management (n = 116). All deliveries occurred between May 1, 2019 and November 30, 2019 and February 15, 2020 and August 15, 2020.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of cesarean deliveries or hypertensive disorders between women who underwent elective induction and those who chose expectant management. There were also no differences in neonatal outcomes. Women in the elective induction group received significantly more cervical ripening agents (p < 0.0001) and had significantly longer stays on the antepartum (p < 0.0001) and labor and delivery units (p = 0.0015) but experienced significantly shorter stays on the postpartum unit (p = 0.0368). There was no difference in total length of hospital stay between groups.

CONCLUSION

Elective induction protocols can be safely implemented in our regional tertiary obstetric care center without increased risk of maternal complications or neonatal morbidity. Women considering elective induction should be adequately counseled on use of cervical ripening agents and length of stay on antepartum and labor and delivery units.

Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California

BACKGROUND

The rate of induction of labor in the U.S. has risen from 9.6% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2018, including 31.7% of first-time births. Recent studies that have examined inductions have been small qualitative studies or relied on either medical records or administrative data. This study examines induction from the perspective of those women who experienced it, with a particular focus on the prevalence and predictors of inductions for nonmedical indications, women's experience of pressure to induce labor and the relationship between the attempt to medically initiate labor and cesarean section.

METHODS

Study data are drawn from the 2119 respondents to the Listening to Mothers in California survey who were planning to have a vaginal birth in 2016. Mothers were asked if there had been an attempt to medically initiate labor, if it actually started labor, if they felt pressured to have the induction, if they had a cesarean and the reason for the induction. Reasons for induction were classified as either medically indicated or elective.

RESULTS

Almost half (47%) of our respondents indicated an attempt was made to medically induce their labor, and 71% of those attempts initiated labor. More than a third of the attempts (37%) were elective. Attempted induction overall was most strongly associated with giving birth at 41+ weeks (aOR 3.28; 95% C.I. 2.21-4.87). Elective inductions were more likely among multiparous mothers and in pregnancies at 39 or 40 weeks. The perception of being pressured to have labor induced was related to higher levels of education, maternal preference for less medical intervention in birth, having an obstetrician compared to a midwife and gestational ages of 41+ weeks. Cesarean birth was more likely in the case of overall induction (aOR 1.51; 95% C.I. 1.11-2.07) and especially following a failed attempt at labor induction (aOR 4.50; 95% C.I. 2.93-6.90).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians counselling mothers concerning the need for labor induction should be aware of mothers' perceptions about birth and engage in true shared decision making in order to avoid the maternal perception of being pressured into labor induction.