Clinical Impact of a Restrictive Labor Induction Approval Process

被引:1
|
作者
Tolcher, Mary Catherine [1 ]
Hokenstad, Alexis N. [2 ]
Weaver, Amy L. [3 ]
McGree, Michaela E. [3 ]
Rose, Carl H. [2 ]
Famuyide, Abimbola O. [2 ]
Brost, Brian C. [4 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Div Biomed Stat & Informat, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Wake Forest Sch Med, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Winston Salem, NC USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Induction of labor; Elective delivery; Nonmedically; indicated delivery; Cesarean delivery; INDICATED LATE-PRETERM; EXPECTANT MANAGEMENT; ELECTIVE INDUCTION; NULLIPAROUS WOMEN; RESPIRATORY MORBIDITY; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; CESAREAN DELIVERY; TERM; GUIDELINES; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1159/000491084
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a restrictive labor induction approval process on induction and primary cesarean delivery rates. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center from 2006 through 2012. The cohort of deliveries before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) the process included term, singleton pregnancies with no contraindication to vaginal delivery. The primary outcome was induction of labor rates, subgrouped on the basis of whether it was medically or nonmedically indicated. Secondary outcomes included the primary cesarean rate and other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: Of 13,753 deliveries, 6,746 met study inclusion criteria. There was a significant decrease in induction rates comparing the pre- and post-intervention periods (21.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Nonmedically indicated induction rates also decreased significantly (2.9 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001). No difference was observed in medically indicated induction (18.1 vs. 17.9%, p = 0.84), the primary cesarean rate (14.4 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.12), or any of the measured neonatal outcomes (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Implementation of a labor induction approval process was associated with a significant reduction in overall and nonindicated induction rates but did not affect the primary cesarean rate or neonatal outcomes. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:166 / 173
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Randomized Trial of Labor Induction in Women 35 Years of Age or Older
    Walker, Kate F.
    Bugg, George J.
    Macpherson, Marion
    McCormick, Carol
    Grace, Nicky
    Wildsmith, Chris
    Bradshaw, Lucy
    Smith, Gordon C. S.
    Thornton, James G.
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2016, 374 (09) : 813 - 822
  • [32] Induction of labor versus expectant management for pregnancies beyond 41 weeks
    Daskalakis, George
    Zacharakis, Dimitrios
    Simou, Maria
    Pappa, Peny
    Detorakis, Stelios
    Mesogitis, Spyros
    Antsaklis, Aris
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2014, 27 (02) : 173 - 176
  • [33] Propensity score method for analyzing the effect of labor induction in prolonged pregnancy
    Pyykonen, Aura
    Tapper, Anna-Maija
    Gissler, Mika
    Haukka, Jari
    Petaja, Jari
    Lehtonen, Lasse
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2018, 97 (04) : 445 - 453
  • [34] Predictors of cesarean delivery in cervical ripening and labor induction with Foley catheter
    Marciniak, Beata
    Patro-Malysza, Jolanta
    Kimber-Trojnar, Zaneta
    Oleszczuk, Jan
    Leszczynska-Gorzelak, Bozena
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2020, 33 (01) : 62 - 67
  • [35] Special considerations-Induction of labor in low-resource settings
    Smid, Marcela
    Ahmed, Yusuf
    Ivester, Thomas
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 39 (06) : 430 - 436
  • [36] Induction of labor in elderly nulliparous women
    Hadar, Eran
    Hiersch, Liran
    Ashwal, Eran
    Chen, Rony
    Wiznitzer, Arnon
    Gabbay-Benziv, Rinat
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2017, 30 (18) : 2146 - 2150
  • [37] Factors associated with successful induction of labor
    Al-Shaikh, Ghadeer K.
    Wahabi, Hayfaa A.
    Fayed, Amel A.
    Esmaeil, Samia A.
    Al-Malki, Ghada A.
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 33 (03) : 298 - 303
  • [38] A Peripheral Immune Signature of Labor Induction
    Ando, Kazuo
    Hedou, Julien J.
    Feyaerts, Dorien
    Han, Xiaoyuan
    Ganio, Edward A.
    Tsai, Eileen S.
    Peterson, Laura S.
    Verdonk, Franck
    Tsai, Amy S.
    Mari, Ivana
    Wong, Ronald J.
    Angst, Martin S.
    Aghaeepour, Nima
    Stevenson, David K.
    Blumenfeld, Yair J.
    Sultan, Pervez
    Carvalho, Brendan
    Stelzer, Ina A.
    Gaudilliere, Brice
    FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY, 2021, 12
  • [39] 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
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2020, 253 : 213 - 219
  • [40] A standardized labor induction protocol: impact on racial disparities in obstetrical outcomes
    Hamm, Rebecca F.
    Srinivas, Sindhu K.
    Levine, Lisa D.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2020, 2 (03)