Rayburn William F, Zhang Jun
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131-5286, USA.
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jul;100(1):164-7. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02047-1.
The rate of labor induction nationwide increased gradually from 9.5% to 19.4% between 1990 and 1998. Reasons for this doubling of inductions relate to widespread availability of cervical ripening agents, pressure from patients, conveniences to physicians, and litigious constraints. The increase in medically indicated inductions was slower than the overall increase, suggesting that induction for marginal or elective reasons has risen more rapidly. Data to support or refute the benefits of marginal or elective inductions are limited. Many trials of inductions for marginal indications are either nonexistent or retrospective with small sample sizes, thereby limiting definitive conclusions. Until prospective clinical trials can better validate reasons for the liberal use of labor induction, it would seem prudent to maintain a cautious approach, especially among nulliparous women. Strategies are proposed for developing evidence-based guidelines to reduce the presumed increase in health care costs, risk of cesarean delivery for nulliparas, and overscheduling in labor and delivery.
1990年至1998年间,全国引产率从9.5%逐渐升至19.4%。引产率翻倍的原因与宫颈成熟剂的广泛可得性、患者压力、医生便利以及诉讼限制有关。医学指征引产的增加速度慢于总体增加速度,这表明出于边缘或选择性原因的引产增长更为迅速。支持或反驳边缘或选择性引产益处的数据有限。许多针对边缘指征引产的试验要么不存在,要么是样本量小的回顾性研究,因此限制了确定性结论。在前瞻性临床试验能够更好地验证引产广泛使用的原因之前,保持谨慎态度似乎是明智的,尤其是在初产妇中。建议制定基于证据的指南,以降低假定的医疗保健成本增加、初产妇剖宫产风险以及分娩过程中的过度安排。