The risk factors for failure of labor induction: A cohort study

被引：12

作者：

Giugliano E. ^{[1
]}

Cagnazzo E. ^{[1
]}

Milillo V. ^{[1
]}

Moscarini M. ^{[1
]}

Vesce F. ^{[1
]}

Caserta D. ^{[1
]}

Marci R. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Biomedical Sciences and Advanced Therapies, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara

来源：

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | 2014年 / 64卷 / 2期

关键词：

Cesarean section; Dinoprostone; Labor induction; Vaginal PGE;

D O I：

10.1007/s13224-013-0486-z

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Purpose: To assess how some factors may influence the failure of labor induction. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study from January 2009 to December 2011 with 248 patients who were admitted to the Obstetrics Unit of Ferrara University for labor induction. We selected only patients with unfavorable characteristics such as nulliparity, maternal and gestational age, and Bishop score and specific obstetric conditions such as mild preeclampsia, isolated oligohydramnios, premature rupture membrane, gestational diabetes, and hypertension for the success of labor induction. Results: The induction was carried out by rapid-release gel dinoprostone. 200 patients (80.6%) delivered vaginally (Group A), while 48 (19.4%) underwent a cesarean section (Group B). Maternal age was one independent significant variable (p = 0.01, OR 1.08) determining the risk of cesarean delivery. Patients affected by mild preeclampsia had a three times higher risk for cesarean section. Despite the several unfavorable characteristics of the patients, the cesarean section rate was comparable to that of the normal population. Conclusions: Several factors and clinical conditions historically considered as negative predictors of induction result should be reassessed. The success of labor induction is determined by many maternal and fetal variables, which must all be taken into account to avoid unnecessary cesarean sections. © Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2013.

引用

页码：111 / 115

页数：4

共 17 条

[1]

Pandis G.K., Papageorghiou A.T., Ramanathan V.G., Thompson M.O., Nicolaides K.H., Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 18, 6, pp. 623-628, (2001)

[2]

Gulmezoglu A.M., Crowther C.A., Middleton P., Et al., Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 13, 6, (2012)

[3]

Park K.H., Hong J.-S., Ko J.K., Cho Y.K., Lee C.M., Choi H., Kim B.R., Comparative study of induction of labor in nulliparous women with premature rupture of membranes at term compared to those with intact membranes: Duration of labor and mode of delivery, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 32, 5, pp. 482-488, (2006)

[4]

Tucker Edmonds B., Fager C., Srinivas S., Et al., Predictors of cesarean delivery for periviable neonates, Obstet Gynecol, 118, pp. 49-56, (2011)

[5]

Xenakis E.M.-J., Piper J.M., Field N., Conway D., Langer O., Preeclampsia: Is induction of labor more successful?, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 89, 4, pp. 600-603, (1997)

[6]

Mozurkewich E.L., Chilimigras J.L., Berman D.R., Et al., Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review, BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 27, 11, (2011)

[7]

Cheng Y.W., Sparks T.N., Laros Jr. R.K., Et al., Impending macrosomia: Will induction of labour modify the risk of caesarean delivery?, BJOG, 119, pp. 402-409, (2012)

[8]

Jackson G.L., Rawiki P., Sendelbach D., Et al., Hospital course and short-term outcomes of term and late preterm neonates following exposure to prolonged rupture of membranes and/or chorioamnionitis, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 31, pp. 89-90, (2012)

[9]

Sibai B.M., Management of late preterm and early-term pregnancies complicated by mild gestational hypertension/pre-eclampsia, Semin Perinatol, 35, pp. 292-296, (2011)

[10]

Chauhan S.P., Sanderson M., Hendrix N.W., Magann E.F., Devoe L.D., Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: A meta-analysis, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 6, pp. 1473-1478, (1999)

← 1 2 →