Induction of labour: first, do no harm

Comparative study of second-line labor induction methods in patients with unfavorable cervix after first-line low-dose oral misoprostol

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate low-dose oral misoprostol induction, and compare different methods used in second-line induction in patients with a Bishop score less than 6.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the medical history and courses of pregnancy of all patients induced with first-line of low-dose oral misoprostol (50 μg every 4 h with a total of 200 μg/24 h) from April 2021 to June 2022 in a university hospital center, and reported outcomes according to the second-line method of induction.

RESULTS

Among 437 labor inductions with low-dose oral misoprostol, 120 patients required a second-line induction. Predictive factors of first-line failure were higher body mass index (P = 0.011), absence of premature rupture of membranes (P = 0.021) and earlier term of pregnancy (P < 0.001). Regarding second methods of induction of labor, time from induction to delivery was shorter in the oxytocin group than the dinoprostone and misoprostol groups (24.0 vs. 41 and 51.0 h, respectively; P < 0.001), and was also significantly shorter in the dinoprostone than the misoprostol group (P = 0.048). Cesarean section rates did not differ between the three groups (P = 0.651). There were no clinically significant differences in adverse events between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Normal body mass index, previous rupture of membranes and later term of induction of labor were the three favoring success factors during first-line oral misoprostol. In cases of a Bishop score <6, oxytocin may be the best option to reduce duration to delivery, with the same maternal-fetal outcomes, including a similar rate of vaginal delivery.

Induction of labour care in the UK: A cross-sectional survey of maternity units

OBJECTIVES

To explore local induction of labour pathways in the UK National Health Service to provide insight into current practice.

DESIGN

National survey.

SETTING

Hospital maternity services in all four nations of the UK.

SAMPLE

Convenience sample of 71 UK maternity units.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was disseminated and completed via a national network of obstetrics and gynaecology specialist trainees (October 2021-March 2022). Results were analysed descriptively, with associations explored using Fisher's Exact and ANOVA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Induction rates, criteria, processes, delays, incidents, safety concerns.

RESULTS

54/71 units responded (76%, 35% of UK units). Induction rate range 19.2%-53.4%, median 36.3%. 72% (39/54) had agreed induction criteria: these varied widely and were not all in national guidance. Multidisciplinary booking decision-making was not reported by 38/54 (70%). Delays reported 'often/always' in hospital admission for induction (19%, 10/54) and Delivery Suite transfer once induction in progress (63%, 34/54). Staffing was frequently reported cause of delay (76%, 41/54 'often/always'). Delays triggered incident reports in 36/54 (67%) and resulted in harm in 3/54 (6%). Induction was an area of concern (44%, 24/54); 61% (33/54) reported induction-focused quality improvement work.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variation in induction rates, processes and policies across UK maternity services. Delays appear to be common and are a cause of safety concerns. With induction rates likely to increase, improved guidance and pathways are critically needed to improve safety and experience of care.

Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units

OBJECTIVES

This study explored women's views and experiences of key elements of the induction of labour (IOL) process, including at home or in hospital cervical ripening (CR).

DESIGN

A questionnaire-based postnatal survey undertaken as part of the CHOICE Study process evaluation. The questionnaire was administered online and included fixed response and free-text options.

SETTING

National Health Service maternity units in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

309 women who had an IOL.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was experience of IOL. Few women returned home during CR, meaning that statistical comparison between those who experienced home-based and hospital-based CR was not possible. Findings are reported as descriptive statistics with content analysis of women's comments providing context.

RESULTS

Information to support choice and understand what to expect about IOL is often inadequate or unavailable. Having IOL can create anxiety and remove options for birth that women had hoped would enhance their experience. Although it can provide a more comfortable environment, home CR is not always an acceptable solution. Women described maternity care negatively impacted by staffing shortages; delays to care sometimes led to unsafe situations. Women who had a positive experience of IOL described supportive interaction with staff as a significant contribution to that.

CONCLUSIONS

Women do not experience IOL as a benign and consequence free intervention. There is urgent need for research to better target IOL and optimise safety and experience for women and their babies. Relatively few women were offered CR at home and further research is needed on this experience.