Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 294, Issue 6, pp 1195–1201 | Cite as

Induction of labor: does indication matter?

  • Rinat Gabbay-Benziv
  • Eran HadarEmail author
  • Eran Ashwal
  • Rony Chen
  • Arnon Wiznitzer
  • Liran Hiersch
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Labor induction is performed in 20 % of pregnancies. However, the impact of the indications for induction on its failure rate has hardly been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the association of indications for labor induction with failure rate.

Methods

Background and delivery-related data were retrospectively collected for all women with a viable term singleton pregnancy, who underwent labor induction with a PGE2 vaginal insert in 2013–2014. Reasons for induction were categorized as maternal indications, hypertensive disorders, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal indications. Induction failure was defined as Bishop score ≤7 at 24 h after PGE2 administration, cesarean delivery due to latent phase dystocia or removal of the insert due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate followed by emergency cesarean delivery. Outcome measures were rate of induction failure (primary) and rate of cesarean delivery (secondary).

Results

The cohort included 1066 women. Those who failed induction (n = 213, 20 %) were more likely to be nulliparous (69.5 vs. 45.7 %, p < 0.0001), older (31 vs. 30 years, p = 0.047), and at an earlier gestational age (39.4 vs. 40.0 weeks, p < 0.0001). Among nulliparous women, maternal indications were significantly associated with induction failure (aOR 2.52, 95 % CI 1.28–4.95, p = 0.007) and cesarean delivery (aOR 2.36, 95 % CI 0.40–2.29, p = 0.019). Among multiparous women, hypertensive disorders (aOR 7.26, 95 % CI 1.89–27.87, p = 0.004) and maternal indications (aOR 4.22, 95 %CI 1.14–15.58, p = 0.031) were significantly associated with induction failure but not cesarean delivery.

Conclusions

The indication for induction of labor may impact its failure rate.

Keywords

Induction of labor Indications Failure Cesarean delivery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

This study was approved by the local institutional review board (IRB) of the Rabin medical center.

Obtaining informed consent was waived by the IRB.

References

  1. 1.
    Chauhan SP, Ananth CV (2012) Induction of in the United States: a critical appraisal of appropriateness and reducibility. Semin Perinatol 36:336–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) Induction of labor. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2008) Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. AHRQ, Rockville (MD) (AHRQ Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.176) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TR (1992) A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:830–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelber S, Sciscione A (2006) Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:642–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM (2003) Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD000941Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK (2005) Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 105:698–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC (2000) Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 96:671–677PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isono W, Nagamatsu T, Uemura Y, Fujii T, Hyodo H, Yamashita T, Kamei Y, Kozuma S, Taketani Y (2011) Prediction model for the incidence of emergent cesarean section during induction of labor specialized in nulliparous low-risk women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011(37):1784–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ennen CS, Bofill JA, Magann EF, Bass JD, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC (2009) Risk factors for cesarean delivery in preterm, term and post-term patients undergoing induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Gynecol Obstet Invest 67:113–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cnattingius R, Hoglund B, Kieler H (2005) Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:456–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roos N, Sahlin L, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Kieler H, Stephansson O (2010) Maternal risk factors for postterm pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89:1003–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore LE, Rayburn WF (2006) Elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:698–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW (2004) Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1511–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ (2002) Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:240–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bailit JL, Gregory KD, Reddy UM, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Hibbard JU, Ramirez MM, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Hatjis CG, Hoffman MK, Kominiarek M, Landy HJ, Learman LA, Troendle J, Van Veldhuisen P, Wilkins I, Sun L, Zhang J (2010) Maternal and neonatal outcomes by labor onset type and gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:245.e1–245.e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA (2009) Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 114:261–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beckmann M (2007) Predicting a failed induction. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 47:394–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tolcher MC, Holbert MR, Weaver AL, McGree ME, Olson JE, El-Nashar SA, Famuyide AO, Brost BC (2015) Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 126:1059–1068CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parkes I, Kabiri D, Hants Y, Ezra Y (2016) The indication for induction of labor impacts the risk of cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29:224–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerli S, Favilli A, Giordano C, Bini V, Di Renzo GC (2013) Single indications of induction of labor with prostaglandins and risk of cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 39:926–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simpson JL, Richards DS, Otano L (2012) Induction of labor. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL et al (eds) Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies, 6th edn. Saunders Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES (2005) Birth weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7:11–314Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ (2005) Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 105:690–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ (2003) Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1565–1570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ehrenthal DB, Jianh X, Strobino DM (2010) Labor induction and the risk of a caesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 116:35–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crowley P (2000). Interventions for preventing or improving outcome delivery at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(2):CD000170Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melamed N, Yogev Y, Hadar E, Hod M, Ben-Haroush A (2008) Preinduction cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 at preterm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC (2003) Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 102:287–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL (1999) Risk of caesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 94:600–607PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rinat Gabbay-Benziv
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eran Hadar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eran Ashwal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rony Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arnon Wiznitzer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liran Hiersch
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Rabin Medical CenterHelen Schneider Hospital for WomenPetach-TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations