Comparison of Maternal Labor-Related Complications and Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks of Gestation vs Expectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:14
作者
Hong, James [1 ]
Atkinson, Jessica [1 ,2 ]
Mitchell, Alexandra Roddy [1 ,2 ]
Tong, Stephen [2 ]
Walker, Susan P. [1 ,2 ]
Middleton, Anna [1 ,2 ]
Lindquist, Anthea [1 ,2 ]
Hastie, Roxanne [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia
[2] Mercy Hosp Women, Mercy Perinatal, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia
关键词
TERM; RISK; DELIVERY; AGE;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Key Points Question What maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes are experienced following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management? Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies with more than 1.6 million participants, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with improved maternal labor-related and neonatal complications, including a reduced likelihood of perineal injury, macrosomia, and low 5-minute Apgar score after birth. However, among nulliparous women only, induction of labor was associated with an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia compared with expectant management. Meaning These findings suggest that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks may be safe and beneficial for some women; however, potential risks should be discussed with nulliparous women. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes associated with elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management. Importance Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is common. Thus, there is a need to assess maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes associated with elective induction of labor. Objective To examine maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management. Data Sources A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Library, World Health Organization, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and registries to search for articles published between database inception and December 8, 2022. Study Selection This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies reporting perinatal outcomes following induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management. Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed studies for bias. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. This study is reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 guideline, and the protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO. Main Outcomes and Measures Maternal outcomes of interest included emergency cesarean section, perineal injury, postpartum hemorrhage, and operative vaginal birth. Neonatal outcomes of interest included admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, low 5-minute Apgar score (<7) after birth, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia. Results Of the 5827 records identified in the search, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies reported outcomes for 1625899 women birthing a singleton pregnancy. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with a 37% reduced likelihood of third- or fourth-degree perineal injury (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]), in addition to reductions in operative vaginal birth (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]), macrosomia (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.48-0.91]), and low 5-minute Apgar score (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.96]). Results were similar when confined to multiparous women only, with the addition of a substantial reduction in the likelihood of emergency cesarean section (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38-0.98]) and no difference in operative vaginal birth (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.84-1.21]). However, among nulliparous women only, induction of labor was associated with an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.02-1.46]) compared with expectant management. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, induction of labor at 39 weeks was associated with improved maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes. However, among nulliparous women, induction of labor was associated with shoulder dystocia. These results suggest that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks may be safe and beneficial for some women; however, potential risks should be discussed with nulliparous women.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials
    Alkmark, Marten
    Keulen, Judit K. J.
    Kortekaas, Joep C.
    Bergh, Christina
    van Dillen, Jeroen
    Duijnhoven, Ruben G.
    Hagberg, Henrik
    Mol, Ben Willem
    Molin, Mattias
    van der Post, Joris A. M.
    Saltvedt, Sissel
    Wikstrom, Anna-Karin
    Wennerholm, Ulla-Britt
    de Miranda, Esteriek
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2020, 17 (12)
  • [2] Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women
    Bailit, Jennifer L.
    Grobman, William
    Zhao, Yuan
    Wapner, Ronald J.
    Reddy, Uma M.
    Varner, Michael W.
    Leveno, Kenneth J.
    Caritis, Steve N.
    Iams, Jay D.
    Tita, Alan T.
    Saade, George
    Sorokin, Yoram
    Rouse, Dwight J.
    Blackwell, Sean C.
    Tolosa, Jorge E.
    VanDorsten, J. Peter
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 212 (01) : 103.e1 - 103.e7
  • [3] Impending macrosomia: will induction of labour modify the risk of caesarean delivery?
    Cheng, Y. W.
    Sparks, T. N.
    Laros, R. K., Jr.
    Nicholson, J. M.
    Caughey, A. B.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2012, 119 (04) : 402 - 409
  • [4] Covidence, US
  • [5] To Study the Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Postdated Women Undergoing Induction of Labour Versus Spontaneous Labour
    Dagli, Setu
    Fonseca, Michelle
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY OF INDIA, 2021, 71 (02) : 131 - 135
  • [6] Elective Induction of Labor at Term Compared With Expectant Management Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes
    Darney, Blair G.
    Snowden, Jonathan M.
    Cheng, Yvonne W.
    Jacob, Lorie
    Nicholson, James M.
    Kaimal, Anjali
    Dublin, Sascha
    Getahun, Darios
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 122 (04) : 761 - 769
  • [7] Induction of labour in low-risk pregnancies before 40 weeks of gestation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
    Dong, Susan
    Bapoo, Shakira
    Shukla, Minakshi
    Abbasi, Nimrah
    Horn, Daphne
    D'Souza, Rohan
    [J]. BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2022, 79 : 107 - 125
  • [8] Elective Labor Induction at 39 Weeks of Gestation Compared With Expectant Management Factors Associated With Adverse Outcomes in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women
    El-Sayed, Yasser Y.
    Rice, Madeline Murguia
    Grobman, William A.
    Reddy, Uma M.
    Tita, Alan T. N.
    Silver, Robert M.
    Mallett, Gail
    Hill, Kim
    Thom, Elizabeth A.
    Wapner, Ronald J.
    Rouse, Dwight J.
    Saade, George R.
    Thorp, John M., Jr.
    Chauhan, Suneet P.
    Chien, Edward K.
    Casey, Brian M.
    Gibbs, Ronald S.
    Srinivas, Sindhu K.
    Swamy, Geeta K.
    Simhan, Hyagriv N.
    Macones, George A.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 136 (04) : 692 - 697
  • [9] Induction of labour as compared with spontaneous labour in low-risk women: A multicenter study in Catalonia
    Espada-Trespalacios, Xavier
    Ojeda, Felipe
    Nebot, Nuria Rodrigo
    Rodriguez-Biosca, Alba
    Coll, Pablo Rodriguez
    Martin-Arribas, Anna
    Escuriet, Ramon
    [J]. SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE, 2021, 29
  • [10] Does induction of labor at term increase the risk of cesarean section in advanced maternal age? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Fonseca, Maria Joao
    Santos, Fernanda
    Afreixo, Vera
    Silva, Isabel Santos
    Almeida, Maria do Ceu
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2020, 253 : 213 - 219