Attali Isabelle, Cormier Julie, Goffinet François, Ray Camille Le
Port Royal Maternity Unit, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, FHU préma, 123 Bd de Port-Royal, Paris, 75014, France.
Centre of Research In Epidemiology and Statistics, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology EPOPé Research Team, Université Paris Cité, IHM Santé des femmes, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, U1153, France.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Mar 25;25(1):349. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07403-8.
The rate of induction of labor increased particularly after the publication of ARRIVE trial conducted in low-risk primiparous patients without medical indication. However, this increase of induction rate does not seem to concern this population alone. Our aim was to understand how induction rate have evolved according to its indications and the impact on cesarean rate.
This was a retrospective observational study in a tertiary university maternity unit, including all women who gave birth between January 1st 2014 and December 31th 2021, at more than 24 weeks of gestation with a liveborn infant weighing ≥ 500 g (N = 9,523). We described the frequency of induction and caesarean section per year within the maternity unit. We differentiated two study periods: 2014-2017 and 2018-2021. We used the Grenoble classification to analyse the contribution of each of group to the overall induction rate and calculated the absolute and relative difference in induction rate for each group between the two periods. We analysed changes in the risk of caesarean section in each of the groups.
The overall induction rate increased from 19.3 to 27.4% between 2014 and 2021 (p < 0.01). The cesarean section rate for women who underwent induction decreased significantly from 29.5% in 2014 to 25.2% in 2021 (p < 0.01). The induction rate moderately increased in the group corresponding to induction of labor "without medical indication" (relative difference of 14.9%; 95%CI [6.0;21.0]). The groups with the greatest increase in their induction rate between the two study periods were the breech group (relative difference of 66.7% 95%CI [49.0;83.0]) and the fetal pathology induction group (relative difference of 75.5% 95%CI [61.2;90.1]). The rate of cesarean among inducted women reduced significantly in the group of "multiple pregnancies" (aOR = 0.6; 95%CI [0.4;0.9]) and in the group of "maternal pathologies" (aOR = 0.8; 95%CI [0.6;0.9]). For the group 8 "induction without medical induction" the reduction was not significant (aOR = 0.8; 95%CI [0.8;1.2]).
From 2014 to 2021, we observed a marked increase in the induction rate in our maternity unit. This increase was not associated with a change of the cesarean rate. Induction of labor without medical indication represent only a small part of the induction rate.
在一项针对无医学指征的低风险初产妇进行的ARRIVE试验发表后,引产率尤其有所上升。然而,引产率的这种上升似乎并非仅涉及这一人群。我们的目的是了解引产率根据其指征如何变化以及对剖宫产率的影响。
这是一项在一所三级大学产科病房进行的回顾性观察研究,纳入了2014年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间所有妊娠超过24周且分娩出体重≥500克活产婴儿的妇女(N = 9523)。我们描述了产科病房每年的引产和剖宫产频率。我们区分了两个研究时期:2014 - 2017年和2018 - 2021年。我们使用格勒诺布尔分类法分析每组对总体引产率的贡献,并计算两个时期每组引产率的绝对和相对差异。我们分析了每组剖宫产风险的变化。
2014年至2021年期间,总体引产率从19.3%上升至27.4%(p < 0.01)。接受引产的妇女剖宫产率从2014年的29.5%显著降至2021年的25.2%(p < 0.01)。“无医学指征”引产组的引产率适度上升(相对差异为14.9%;95%CI [6.0;21.0])。两个研究时期引产率上升幅度最大的组是臀位组(相对差异为66.7%,95%CI [49.0;83.0])和胎儿病理引产组(相对差异为75.5%,95%CI [61.2;90.1])。在“多胎妊娠”组(aOR = 0.6;95%CI [0.4;0.9])和“母体疾病”组(aOR = 0.8;95%CI [0.6;0.9])中,引产妇女的剖宫产率显著降低。对于第8组“无医学指征引产”,降低不显著(aOR = 0.8;95%CI [0.8;1.2])。
2014年至2021年期间,我们观察到我们产科病房的引产率显著上升。这种上升与剖宫产率的变化无关。无医学指征的引产仅占引产率的一小部分。