Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term
Section snippets
Materials and methods
All 1810 women who delivered live-born infants and were discharged between June 1, 1997, and January 26, 1998, from St. Joseph’s Medical Center were identified through the hospital discharge data system. We excluded women with multiple gestations and women with gestations of less than 38 or at least 42 weeks. Women were considered ineligible for vaginal delivery if they had primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision7 (ICD-9) codes of placenta previa or abruption
Results
Of 1135 eligible subjects, 263 (23.2%) underwent elective induction of labor. One hundred seventy inductions (64.6%) were done with up to three doses of oral misoprostol 50 μg, 70 (26.6%) were done by oxytocin infusion, 20 (7.6%) by artificial rupture of membranes only, and three (1.1%) with only prostaglandin (PG) gel. Eighty-two (48.2%) of 170 misoprostol inductions also involved oxytocin infusion, and three of those also included use of PG gel. Three (4.2%) of 70 oxytocin inductions also
Discussion
Despite suspected widespread use of elective induction, we found only ten published studies (MEDLINE search, 1970–1998, using the terms “labor,” “labour,” “induction,” “elective,” “techniques,” and “management”) involving more than 100 subjects that addressed elective induction and a variety of outcome measures since the advent of continuous fetal monitoring and controlled oxytocin infusion.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 “Elective” was often defined in different ways, and consistency of
References (23)
- et al.
Differences in obstetrical intervention rates between Dutch hospitals
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
(1994) Indications for induction of labour
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
(1996)- et al.
Elective induction of labour. A randomised prospective trial
Lancet
(1975) - et al.
Elective induction versus spontaneous laborA case-control analysis of safety and efficacy
Obstet Gynecol
(1998) - et al.
Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomiaA randomized study
Obstet Gynecol
(1997) - et al.
Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean deliveryA review of 7001 consecutive inductions
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1999) - et al.
Association of epidural analgesia with cesarean delivery in nulliparas
Obstet Gynecol
(1996) - et al.
Multivariate analysis of risk factors for operative delivery in nulliparous women. Canadian Early Amniotomy Study Group
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1997) Prevalence of procedures in childbirth
BMJ
(1993)- et al.
Elective induction of laborRamathibodi Hospital (Jan-Jun, 1990)
J Med Assoc Thai
(1993)
Labor induction. Quality assurance of a method [in Norwegian]
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen
Cited by (213)
The role of labor induction in modern obstetrics
2024, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySix vs 12 hours of Foley catheter balloon placement in the labor induction of multiparas with unfavorable cervixes: a randomized controlled trial
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFMHealth resource utilization of labor induction versus expectant management
2020, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyEarly amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
2020, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology