Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Induction of labor: does indication matter?

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

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chauhan SP, Ananth CV (2012) Induction of in the United States: a critical appraisal of appropriateness and reducibility. Semin Perinatol 36:336–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) Induction of labor. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 166:830–834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gelber S, Sciscione A (2006) Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:642–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM (2003) Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD000941

    Google Scholar 

  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 105:698–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC (2000) Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 96:671–677

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1784–1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 67:113–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cnattingius R, Hoglund B, Kieler H (2005) Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 89:1003–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore LE, Rayburn WF (2006) Elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:698–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW (2004) Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1511–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 186:240–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.e12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA (2009) Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 114:261–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beckmann M (2007) Predicting a failed induction. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 47:394–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 126:1059–1068

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 29:224–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 39:926–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  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 7:11–314

    Google Scholar 

  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 105:690–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 188:1565–1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ehrenthal DB, Jianh X, Strobino DM (2010) Labor induction and the risk of a caesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 116:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Crowley P (2000). Interventions for preventing or improving outcome delivery at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(2):CD000170

  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 87:63–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC (2003) Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 102:287–293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 94:600–607

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rabin Medical Center, Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, 49100, Petach-Tikva, Israel

    Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Eran Hadar, Eran Ashwal, Rony Chen, Arnon Wiznitzer & Liran Hiersch

  2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Eran Hadar, Eran Ashwal, Rony Chen, Arnon Wiznitzer & Liran Hiersch

Authors
  1. Rinat Gabbay-Benziv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eran Hadar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eran Ashwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rony Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arnon Wiznitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liran Hiersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eran Hadar.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gabbay-Benziv, R., Hadar, E., Ashwal, E. et al. Induction of labor: does indication matter?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294, 1195–1201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4171-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4171-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation