Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 5, pp 989–993 | Cite as

Induction of labor at 41 weeks of pregnancy among primiparas with an unfavorable Bishop score

  • Guillermo A. MarroquinEmail author
  • Nicolae Tudorica
  • Carolyn M. Salafia
  • Robert Hecht
  • Magdy Mikhail
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Objective

To determine the rate and factors associated with the successful Induction of Labor (IOL) in nulliparous patients undergoing scheduled IOL at 41 weeks of gestational age (GA) with an unfavorable cervix.

Design

This was a retrospective analysis that included nulliparous patients who presented to the Labor and Delivery unit at the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center between 2011 and 2012 for elective IOL at 41 weeks of GA. The Bishop score was assessed upon admission and IOL agents were used in compliance with ACOG guidelines in different combinations, based on the obstetrical team preference.

Setting

Labor and Delivery Unit of the Bronx Lebanon Hospital.

Population

Nulliparous patients with 41 weeks of pregnancy for elective induction of labor.

Sample

Seventy-six patients were included in the study. GA was confirmed using a combination of the last menstrual period and a dating sonogram during pregnancy.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review that included nulliparous patients who presented to the Labor and Delivery unit at the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center between October 2011 and October 2012 for elective IOL at 41 weeks of gestational age with an unfavorable cervix defined as a Bishop score of 6 or less.

Main outcome measures

The overall successful rate of IOL in a combination of different maternal factors with different agents for induction in nulliparous patients undergoing scheduled IOL with an unfavorable Bishop score at 41 weeks of GA was 51.32 %.

Results

Factors associated with successful IOL were younger age [22.3 years vs. 25.1(p = 0.015)], lower BMI [25 vs. 28.1(p = 0.46)] and lower maternal weight [64.75 kg vs. 74.02 (p = 0.28)]. Maternal height was not a contributing factor; the artificial rupture of membranes, epidural anesthesia and the prostaglandins used did not contribute. Use of cervical balloon and oxytocin was associated with failed IOL.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing IOL at 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix had a successful rate of 51.32 %. Younger maternal age, lower weight, and lower BMI were associated with successful IOL.

Keywords

Induction of labor Nulliparous 41 weeks Unfavorable cervix 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Centricity Perinatal GE healthcare, General Electric 2013. We wish to thank the Labor and Delivery staff of the Bronx Lebanon Hospital for their help and support to this study.

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The Institutional Review Board of the Bronx Lebanon Hospital approved our study on the 27 March 2013, IRB # 12 13 12 03 and no informed consent was required.

References

  1. 1.
    Gabbe S, Niebyl J, Galan H, Jauniaux E, Landon M, Simpson J et al (2012) Obstet: norm and probl pregnancies. 6th edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, Chapter 14, Abnormal Labor and Induction of labor, p. 287–310.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Induction of Labor. Practice bulletin number 107, August 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, Mathews TJ et al (2009) Division of vital statistics births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 57:1–102Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calder AA, Brennand JE (1991) Labor and normal delivery: induction of labor. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 3:764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xenakis EM, Piper JM, Conway DL, Langer O (1997) Induction of labor in the nineties: conquering the unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 90:235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 188:1565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 105:690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michelson KA, Carr DB, Easterling TR (2008) The impact of duration of labor induction on cesarean rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:299.e1–299.e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR (2011) The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:128.e1–128.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan NB, Ahmed I, Malik A et al (2012) Factors associated with a failed induction of labour in a secondary care hospital. JPMA 62(1):6–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D (2010) Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 04:038Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng YW, Delany SS, Hopkins LM et al (2009) The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:477.e1–477.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo A. Marroquin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicolae Tudorica
    • 1
  • Carolyn M. Salafia
    • 1
  • Robert Hecht
    • 1
  • Magdy Mikhail
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBronx Lebanon Hospital CenterBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations