Suppr超能文献

选择性引产:一项前瞻性观察研究。

Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Olav's Hospital, University Hospital of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway.

Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0208098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208098. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to assess indications for induction and describe the characteristics and delivery outcome in medical compared to non-medical/elective inductions. During a three-month period, 1663 term inductions were registered in 24 delivery units in Norway. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation at gestational age 37+0 and beyond. Indications, pre-induction Bishop scores, mode of delivery and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes were registered, and compared between the medically indicated and elective induction groups. Ten percent of the inductions were elective, and the four most common indications were maternal request (35%), a previous negative delivery experience or difficult obstetric history (19%), maternal fatigue/tiredness (17%) and anxiety (15%). Nearly half of these inductions were performed at 39+0-40+6 weeks. There were fewer nulliparous women in the elective compared to the medically indicated induction group, 16% vs. 52% (p<0.05). The cesarean section rate in the elective induction group was 14% and 17% in the medically indicated group (14% vs. 17%, OR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3). We found that one in ten inductions in Norway is performed without a strict medical indication and 86% of these inductions resulted in vaginal delivery.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估引产的指征,并描述医学引产与非医学/选择性引产的特点和分娩结局。在三个月的时间里,挪威的 24 个分娩单位共登记了 1663 例足月引产。纳入标准为单胎妊娠,孕龄 37+0 周及以上,头位。记录了引产指征、引产前的 Bishop 评分、分娩方式以及母婴不良结局,并对医学指征引产组和选择性引产组进行了比较。10%的引产为选择性引产,最常见的四个指征是产妇要求(35%)、上次分娩经历不佳或产科病史困难(19%)、产妇疲劳/疲倦(17%)和焦虑(15%)。近一半的引产在 39+0-40+6 周进行。选择性引产组的初产妇比例低于医学指征引产组,分别为 16%和 52%(p<0.05)。选择性引产组的剖宫产率为 14%,医学指征引产组为 17%(14% vs. 17%,OR = 0.8,95% CI 0.5-1.3)。我们发现,挪威有十分之一的引产没有严格的医学指征,其中 86%的引产是阴道分娩。

相似文献

1
Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study.选择性引产:一项前瞻性观察研究。
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0208098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208098. eCollection 2018.
2
Maternal and newborn outcomes with elective induction of labor at term.足月选择性引产的母婴结局。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):273.e1-273.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.223. Epub 2019 Feb 17.
8
A comparison of obstetrical outcomes with labor induction agents used at term.足月使用引产药物的产科结局比较。
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Apr;27(6):592-6. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.831066. Epub 2013 Aug 27.

引用本文的文献

2
Sleep disturbances in late pregnancy: associations with induction of labor.妊娠晚期睡眠障碍:与引产的关联。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 Oct;310(4):2045-2053. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07492-4. Epub 2024 Apr 5.
6
Trends in labor induction indications: A 20-year population-based study.引产指征的变化趋势:一项基于人群的 20 年研究。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Dec;101(12):1422-1430. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14447. Epub 2022 Sep 16.
8
Recent advances in the induction of labor.引产的最新进展。
F1000Res. 2019 Oct 30;8. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17587.1. eCollection 2019.

本文引用的文献

5
Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women.足月未产妇非医学指征引产与期待治疗的比较
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;212(1):103.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.054. Epub 2014 Jun 28.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验