Center for Women's Reproductive Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024 Dec;37(1):2295223. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2295223. Epub 2023 Dec 20.
Elective induction of labor versus expectant management at 39 weeks gestation in low-risk nulliparous patients was shown in the ARRIVE randomized trial of over 6000 patients to decrease risks of cesarean delivery without significant change in the composite perinatal outcome. We aimed to pragmatically analyze the effect of offering elective induction of labor (eIOL) to all low-risk patients.
Retrospective cohort study of low-risk nulliparous and multiparous patients delivering live, non-anomalous singletons at a single center at greater than or equal to 39 0/7 weeks gestational age. Those with prior or planned cesarean delivery, ruptured membranes, medical comorbidities, or contraindications to vaginal delivery were excluded. Patients were categorized as before (pre-eIOL; 1/2012-3/2014) or after (post-eIOL; 3/2019-12/2021) an institution-wide policy offering eIOL at 39 0/7 weeks. Births occurring April 2014 to December 2018 were allocated to a separate cohort (during-eIOL) given increased exposure to eIOL as our center recruited participants for the ARRIVE trial. The primary outcome was cesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included select maternal (e.g. chorioamnionitis, operative delivery, postpartum hemorrhage) and neonatal morbidities (e.g. birthweight, small- and large-for gestational age, hypoglycemia). Characteristics and outcomes were compared between the pre and during-eIOL, and pre and post-eIOL groups; adjusted OR (95% CI) were calculated using multivariable regression. Subgroup analysis by parity was planned.
Of 10,758 patients analyzed, 2521 (23.4%) were pre-eIOL, 5410 (50.3%) during-eIOL, and 2827 (26.3%) post-eIOL. Groups differed with respect to labor type, age, race/ethnicity, marital and payor status, and gestational age at care entry. Post-eIOL was associated with lower odds of cesarean compared to pre-eIOL (aOR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.96]), which was even lower among those specifically undergoing labor induction (aOR 0.58 [0.48-0.70]. During-eIOL was also associated with lower odds of cesarean compared to pre-eIOL (aOR 0.79 [0.69-0.90]). Both during and post-eIOL groups were associated with higher odds of chorioamnionitis, operative delivery, and hemorrhage compared to pre-eIOL. However, only among post-eIOL were there fewer neonates weighing ≥4000 g, large-for-gestational age infants, and neonatal hypoglycemia compared to pre-IOL.
An institutional policy offering eIOL at 39 0/7 to low-risk patients was associated with a lower cesarean birth rate, lower birthweights and lower neonatal hypoglycemia, and an increased risk of chorioamnionitis and hemorrhage.
ARRIVE 随机试验纳入了超过 6000 名低危初产妇,结果显示,与期待管理相比,39 孕周时择期引产可降低剖宫产率,而围产儿复合结局无显著差异。我们旨在对所有低危产妇实施择期引产(eIOL)的效果进行实用分析。
回顾性分析了单中心低危初产妇和经产妇在妊娠 39 周零 7 天及以上时的活产、非畸形单胎分娩的情况。排除了既往或计划行剖宫产、胎膜早破、合并症或阴道分娩禁忌证的患者。患者分为两个时期:(1)试行期(pre-eIOL,1/2012-3/2014 年);(2)实施期(post-eIOL,3/2019-12/2021 年),在此期间,医院推行了 39 周零 7 天择期引产的政策。2014 年 4 月至 2018 年 12 月分娩的病例被归入单独的队列(during-eIOL),因为该队列产妇接触到了更多的择期引产。主要结局是剖宫产分娩。次要结局包括产妇(如绒毛膜羊膜炎、剖宫产分娩、产后出血)和新生儿(如出生体重、小于胎龄儿、大于胎龄儿、低血糖)发病率。比较试行期和 during-eIOL 期、试行期和实施期之间的特征和结局;采用多变量回归计算调整后的比值比(95%置信区间)。计划进行产次亚组分析。
在 10758 名分析对象中,2521 名(23.4%)为 pre-eIOL 期,5410 名(50.3%)为 during-eIOL 期,2827 名(26.3%)为 post-eIOL 期。各组在分娩类型、年龄、种族/族裔、婚姻和支付者状况以及分娩时的孕周方面存在差异。与 pre-eIOL 期相比,post-eIOL 期行剖宫产的几率更低(调整比值比 0.83 [95%置信区间 0.72-0.96]),尤其是行引产的产妇(调整比值比 0.58 [0.48-0.70])。与 pre-eIOL 期相比,during-eIOL 期行剖宫产的几率也较低(调整比值比 0.79 [0.69-0.90])。与 pre-eIOL 期相比,during-eIOL 期和 post-eIOL 期产妇发生绒毛膜羊膜炎、剖宫产分娩和出血的几率均较高。然而,只有 post-eIOL 期的新生儿体重大于 4000 克、大于胎龄儿和新生儿低血糖的比例较低。
对低危产妇实施 39 周零 7 天择期引产的机构政策与剖宫产率降低、出生体重降低、新生儿低血糖减少有关,与绒毛膜羊膜炎和出血风险增加有关。