Elective induction of labor versus expectant management at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous pregnant women: A randomized controlled trial in India (ELITE-39 trial)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present open label randomized controlled trial was to compare the rate of cesarean section (CS) after elective induction with that of expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial from a tertiary maternity care center enrolled low risk nulliparous pregnant women at 38-38+4 weeks between April 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. Participants were randomized into either the elective induction group (e-IOL) or the expectant management (EM) group though computer generated block randomization. The primary outcome was cesarean rate and the secondary outcome include adverse maternal and perinatal outcome between e-IOL and EM groups. We performed intention to treat analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 360 women were enrolled into the present study. Analysis was performed for 179 women in the e-IOL group and 180 women in the EM group. The baseline demographic characteristics including Bishop score were comparable between the groups. The CS rate in both groups was 17.3% (31/179) and 25% (45/180), which is comparable (P = 0.08). There was one intrapartum stillbirth in the e-IOL group, and two babies succumbed in the neonatal period in the EM group. The maternal and perinatal outcomes between the groups were not found to be significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Elective induction of low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks was not associated with increased cesarean section rate. The maternal and perinatal outcomes were comparable. Large, multicentric real time randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the benefit of elective induction in low-risk nulliparous women. This should include centers with large volume of deliveries especially from emerging countries also.

Labor Induction in Women with Isolated Polyhydramnios at Term: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Background: With the increasing popularity of elective induction after 39 + 0 weeks, the question of whether induction of labor (IOL) is safe in women with isolated polyhydramnios has become more relevant. We aimed to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes associated with IOL among women with and without isolated polyhydramnios. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort that included women who underwent induction of labor at term. The study compared women who underwent IOL due to isolated polyhydramnios to low-risk women who underwent elective IOL due to gestational age only. The main outcome measure was a composite adverse maternal outcome, while the secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal adverse pregnancy outcomes. Results: During the study period, 1004 women underwent IOL at term and met inclusion and exclusion criteria; 162 had isolated polyhydramnios, and 842 had a normal amount of amniotic fluid. Women who had isolated polyhydramnios had higher rates of the composite adverse maternal outcome (28.7% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.02), prolonged hospital stay, perineal tear grade 3/4, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal hypoglycemia. Multivariate analyses revealed that among women with IOL, polyhydramnios was significantly associated with adverse composite maternal outcome [aOR 1.98 (1.27-3.10), p < 0.01]. Conclusions: IOL in women with isolated polyhydramnios at term was associated with worse perinatal outcomes compared to low-risk women who underwent elective IOL. Our findings suggest that the management of women with polyhydramnios cannot be extrapolated from studies of low-risk populations and that clinical decision-making should take into account the individual patient's risk factors and preferences.

Does the timing of neuraxial analgesia initiation in elective induction of multiparous women prolong the duration of delivery?

AIM

To investigate whether the early initiation of neuraxial analgesia prolongs the duration of electively induced labor in Japanese multiparous women.

METHODS

This retrospective study included multiparous term women who underwent elective induction of labor using combined spinal-epidural analgesia at the Showa University Hospital between October 2018 and March 2021. The participants were divided into two groups: early and late. If neuraxial analgesia was initiated when the cervical dilation was ≤3 cm, the patient was included in the early group. The remaining patients were included in the late group. The obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was the duration of delivery. The secondary outcomes were the rates of instrumental and cesarean deliveries.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-seven women (early group = 139, late group = 158) were included in the analysis. The duration of the first stage of labor did not differ significantly between the early and late groups (median: 232 vs. 260 min, p = 0.35). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage (37 vs. 40 min, p = 0.20). Moreover, the rates of instrumental and cesarean deliveries did not differ significantly between the groups, and the neonatal outcomes were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of neuraxial analgesia in the elective induction of parous Japanese women did not prolong the duration of delivery. Our results suggest that neuraxial analgesia may be initiated whenever a parturient desires it.

Cost-effectiveness of induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management by cervical examination

BACKGROUND

Previous analyses have demonstrated the cost effectiveness of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation for healthy nulliparous people. However, elective induction of labor is resource intensive, and optimal resource allocation requires a thorough understanding of which subgroups of patients will benefit most.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is more cost-effective in patients with favorable or unfavorable cervical examinations.

STUDY DESIGN

We constructed 2 decision analysis models using TreeAge software: one modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group of nulliparous patients with unfavorable cervical examinations and the other modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group with favorable cervical examinations. Estimates of cost, probability, and health state utility were derived from the literature. Based on previous literature, we assumed that people with favorable cervical examinations would have a lower baseline rate of cesarean delivery and higher rates of spontaneous labor.

RESULTS

In our base case analysis, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was 50-fold lower for people with unfavorable cervical examinations ($2150 vs $115,100). Induction of labor resulted in 3885 fewer cesarean deliveries and 58 fewer stillbirths per 100,000 patients for those with unfavorable examinations, whereas induction of labor resulted in 2293 fewer cesarean deliveries and 48 fewer stillbirths with labor induction for those with favorable cervical examinations. The results were sensitive to multiple inputs, including the likelihood of cesarean delivery, the cost of induction, the cost of vaginal or cesarean delivery, and the probability of spontaneous labor. In Monte Carlo analysis, the base case findings held true for 64.1% of modeled scenarios for patients with unfavorable cervixes and 55.4% of modeled scenarios for patients with favorable cervixes.

CONCLUSION

With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation may be cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. This result was driven by the likelihood of labor in patients with favorable cervical examinations, and the resultant avoidance of prolonged pregnancy and its complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and stillbirths. Health systems may wish to prioritize patients with unfavorable cervical examinations for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, which may be opposite to common practice.

Labor Induction at 39 Weeks Compared with Expectant Management in Low-Risk Parous Women

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare outcomes among low-risk parous women who underwent elective labor induction at 39 weeks versus expectant management.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of an observational cohort of 115,502 mother-infant dyads who delivered at 25 hospitals between 2008 and 2011. The inclusion criteria for this analysis were low-risk parous women with nonanomalous singletons with at least one prior vaginal delivery after 20 weeks, who delivered at ≥39^0/7 weeks. Women who electively induced between 39^0/7 and 39^6/7 weeks were compared with women who expectantly managed ≥39^0/7 weeks. The primary outcome for this analysis was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were composites of maternal adverse outcome and neonatal adverse outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR).

RESULTS

Of 20,822 women who met inclusion criteria, 2,648 (12.7%) were electively induced at 39 weeks. Cesarean delivery was lower among women who underwent elective induction at 39 weeks than those who did not (2.4 vs. 4.6%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.92). The frequency of the composite maternal adverse outcome was significantly lower for the elective induction cohort as well (1.6 vs. 3.1%, aOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93). The composite neonatal adverse outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (0.3 vs. 0.6%; aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.29-1.23).

CONCLUSION

In low-risk parous women, elective induction of labor at 39 weeks was associated with decreased odds of cesarean delivery and maternal morbidity, without an increase in neonatal adverse outcomes.

KEY POINTS

· 39-week elective induction is associated with decreased cesarean delivery in low-risk parous women.. · Compared with expectant management, maternal adverse outcomes were lower with elective induction.. · Neonatal adverse outcomes are unchanged between elective and expectant management groups..

Association of admission unit and birth satisfaction during induction of labor

OBJECTIVE

As induction of labor (IOL) becomes more common, hospitals must adjust to accommodate longer length of stays on labor and delivery. An alternative to reduce the length of time spent on labor and delivery during an IOL is to perform cervical ripening on an antepartum unit. However, this may affect patient satisfaction and knowledge about the birthing process. This study aimed to evaluate whether cervical ripening conducted in an antepartum unit, rather than on a labor and delivery unit, was associated with changes in patient satisfaction with birth experience and baseline knowledge about IOL. Additionally, the study aimed to understand how patients would prefer to receive education on the IOL process.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited English and Spanish-speaking patients at or after 39 weeks and 0 days gestation who were admitted for IOL. Consenting patients completed a preliminary survey containing sociodemographic and obstetric information as well as a previously validated survey on IOL knowledge on admission. Within 48 h of delivery, patients completed a follow-up survey including a validated birth satisfaction survey, the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised, and questions eliciting their preferred IOL education method. Data analyses compared patients who were admitted to antepartum for IOL to those admitted directly to labor and delivery. Multivariate analyses adjusted for sociodemographic and obstetric differences between the two groups. The primary outcomes were scores on the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised and on a test examining IOL knowledge. Secondary outcomes included preferred method of IOL education, obstetric outcomes, and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 277 eligible patients were approached from October 2020 to March 2021. Of the 216 (78%) that consented, 159 (74%) completed the follow-up survey and were subsequently included in this analysis. Individuals admitted directly to antepartum (n = 122) more commonly self-identified as Latina, Latin American, or Hispanic (27.9% vs. 8.1%, p = .01) and were nulliparous (68.0% vs. 21.6%, p < .001) compared to participants admitted to labor and delivery for IOL (n = 37). Patients admitted to labor and delivery were more likely to undergo elective induction (29.7% vs. 9.8%, p = .006). Admission unit was not associated with differences in birth satisfaction scores or obstetric or neonatal outcomes. However, after controlling for potential confounders, patients admitted to the antepartum unit correctly answered a greater percentage of questions assessing IOL knowledge compared to patients admitted to labor and delivery (73.9% vs. 62.3%, adjusted mean difference (aMD) 12.6 [95% CI 7.2, 18.0]). Patients in both groups indicated preference for reviewing an induction checklist with a provider during prenatal care (59.1%) or using a technology-based intervention (37.1%) over attending in-person classes (3.1%) to learn more about IOL.

CONCLUSION

Unit of admission for IOL is not associated with satisfaction with birth experience but is associated with patient knowledge of IOL. This suggests that IOL may be initiated in less acute units than labor and delivery without altering birth experience and may potentially allow for increased patient knowledge. Additionally, IOL checklists or technology-based education may help to further increase patient knowledge about IOL.

American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor

Induction of labor is an increasingly common component of intrapartum care in the United States. This rise is fueled by a nationwide escalation in both medically indicated and elective inductions at or beyond term, supported by recent research showing some benefits of induction over expectant management. However, induction of labor medicalizes the birth experience and may lead to a complex cascade of interventions. The purpose of this Clinical Bulletin is twofold: (1) to guide clinicians on the use of person-centered decision-making when discussing induction of labor and (2) to review evidence-based practice recommendations for intrapartum midwifery care during labor induction.

Strategies to Decrease Maternal Request for Early Elective Induction

Severe maternal discomfort in the third trimester is not a diagnostic risk justification for elective induction before 39 weeks gestation. Alternative methods of intervention and supportive resources to help sustain a woman at the end of pregnancy have been largely absent in discussions pertaining to best practices. Nurses and midwives are in an ideal position to play a leadership role in working with physician colleagues as well as other members of the health care team to broaden the conversation to include alternative and complementary interventions, and to provide guidance and assistance to help women cope with and manage the discomforts of late pregnancy.

Don't Rush Me . . . Go the Full 40: AWHONN's Public Health Campaign Promotes Spontaneous Labor and Normal Birth to Reduce Overuse of Inductions and Cesareans

Don't Rush Me . . . Go the Full 40 is a grassroots public health campaign from the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nursing (AWHONN) that educates women about the physiologic benefits of full-term pregnancy for themselves and their babies. GoTheFull40.com seeks to increase the percentage of women who complete at least 40 weeks of pregnancy, decrease the percentage of women who choose elective induction or elective cesarean surgery, and increase nurses' and other pregnancy-care providers' effectiveness in reducing the number of elective inductions and cesarean surgeries. Childbirth educators and other pregnancy providers are asked to share the campaign with women in preconception and prenatal settings to encourage waiting for spontaneous labor leading to full-term births when all is healthy and well with the mother and fetus.

Step 6: does not routinely employ practices, procedures unsupported by scientific evidence: the coalition for improving maternity services:

Step 6 of the Ten Steps of Mother-Friendly Care addresses two issues: 1) the routine use of interventions (shaving, enemas, intravenous drips, withholding food and fluids, early rupture of membranes, and continuous electronic fetal monitoring; and 2) the optimal rates of induction, episiotomy, cesareans, and vaginal births after cesarean. Rationales for compliance and systematic reviews are presented.