Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delivery outcomes in women undergoing elective labor induction at term

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To determine elective induction of labor outcomes in term, low-risk women who delivered in a community teaching hospital.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of women admitted from January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2010, for elective induction of labor. A comprehensive search of the perinatal database identified low-risk patients at ≥39 weeks gestation and ≤41 weeks with singleton pregnancies in vertex presentation. Data abstracted from manual chart review included patient demographics, admission cervical examination, and induction method. Outcome measures were delivery method and cesarean indications. Time categories calculated were mean times from induction to delivery, delivery to discharge, and total hospital length-of-stay. Descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages were reported using multiple regression analysis, analysis of variance, and effect tests with respective values reported. Data were analyzed using JMP software by SAS Institute Inc.

Results

Of the 1,159 women identified, 848 records passed exclusion criteria. Vaginal delivery was accomplished for 694 (81.8 %) of patients. The most common induction agent was oxytocin (73.7 %). Induction of labor with oxytocin and artificial rupture of membranes revealed a statistically significant shorter length of induction with average induction of labor for oxytocin of 11.9 h. Multiparous patients of parity >1 and patients presenting with cervical dilation of 3–4 cm had a statistically significant higher probability of vaginal delivery. Patients induced with a foley bulb or dinoprostone had statistically longer induction times (28.2 and 24.9 h, respectively) and had a statistically significant higher probability of cesarean delivery.

Conclusion

Multiparous patients and patients with a favorable cervix (>2 cm) were more likely to have a vaginal delivery and shorter length of induction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crane JM (2006) Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:573–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beebe LA, Rayburn WF, Beaty CM, Eberly KL, Stanley JR, Rayburn LA (2000) Indications for labor induction. Differences between university and community hospitals. J Reprod Med 45(6):469–475

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rayburn W, Zhang J (2002) Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 100:164–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA et al (2009) Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:156–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ et al (2005) Bishop Score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 105:690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW (2004) Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baacke KA (2006) Preinduction Cervical Assessment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:564–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF et al (2005) Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 105:698–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML et al (1999) Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 94:600–607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang J, Yancy MK, Henderson CE (2002) National trends in labor induction, 1989–1998. JRM 47:120–124

    Google Scholar 

  12. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S et al (2009) Births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 57:1–102

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Resurrection Health Care/St. Joseph Hospital, 2900 N. Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60657, USA

    Teresa Tam, Mary Conte, Hayley Schuler, Socorro Malang & Marya Roque

Authors
  1. Teresa Tam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Conte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hayley Schuler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Socorro Malang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marya Roque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa Tam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tam, T., Conte, M., Schuler, H. et al. Delivery outcomes in women undergoing elective labor induction at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 407–411 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2582-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2582-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation