Timing of induction of labor in suspected macrosomia: retrospective cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesLarge-for-gestational age (LGA) is associated with several adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although many studies have found that early induction of labor (IOL) in case of a LGA fetus reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia, no current guidelines recommend this particular clinical strategy, owing to concerns about increased rates of Cesarean delivery (CD) and neonatal complications. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the timing of IOL in LGA fetuses affected maternal and neonatal outcomes in a single center, and to combine these results with evidence reported in the literature.MethodsThis study comprised two parts. The first part was a retrospective cohort study that included consecutive patients with a singleton pregnancy and an estimated fetal weight >= 90th percentile on ultrasound between 35 + 0 and 39 + 0 weeks' gestation, who were eligible for normal vaginal delivery. The second part of the study was a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, including the results of our cohort study as well as those of previous studies that compared IOL with expectant management in patients with a LGA fetus. The perinatal outcomes of the study were CD, operative vaginal delivery, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus palsy, anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score, umbilical artery pH, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, use of continuous positive airway pressure, intracranial hemorrhage, need for phototherapy and bone fracture.ResultsOf the 547 patients included in this retrospective cohort study, 329 (60.1%) underwent IOL and 218 (39.9%) experienced spontaneous labor. Following covariate balancing, the odds of CD were significantly higher in the IOL group compared with the spontaneous-labor group. This difference only became apparent beyond 40 weeks' gestation (hazard ratio, 1.90; P = 0.030). The difference between the IOL and spontaneous-labor groups for the rate of shoulder dystocia was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.57; P = 0.200). Seventeen studies, in addition to our own results, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, giving a total population of 111 300 participants. Although there was no significant difference in the rate of CD between IOL and expectant management after pooling the results of included studies, the risk for shoulder dystocia was significantly lower in the IOL group (odds ratio (OR), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42-0.98); I2 = 19% from 12 studies) when considering only IOL performed before 40 + 0 weeks. When the studies in which IOL was carried out exclusively before 40 + 0 weeks were removed from the analysis, the risk for CD in the remaining studies was significantly higher in the IOL group (OR, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.02-2.09); I2 = 56%). There were no statistically significant differences between the IOL and expectant-management groups for the remaining perinatal outcomes. Nulliparity, history of CD and low Bishop score, but not method of induction, were independent risk factors for intrapartum CD in patients that underwent IOL for LGA.ConclusionsThe timing of IOL in patients with suspected macrosomia significantly impacts on perinatal adverse outcomes. IOL has no impact on rates of shoulder dystocia but increases the odds of CD when considered irrespective of gestational age; in contrast, IOL may decrease the risk of shoulder dystocia without increasing the risk of other adverse maternal outcomes, in particular CD, when performed before 40 + 0 weeks (GRADE: low/very low). (c) 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.