Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81(08): 870-895
DOI: 10.1055/a-1519-7713
GebFra Science
Guideline/Leitlinie

Geburtseinleitung. Leitlinie der DGGG, OEGGG und SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF-Registriernummer 015-088, Dezember 2020)

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Sven Kehl
1   Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
,
Irene Hösli
2   Frauenklinik, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Ulrich Pecks
3   Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Philipp Reif
4   Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Graz, Graz, Austria
,
Ralf L. Schild
5   Klinik für Geburtshilfe und Perinatalmedizin, Diakovere Krankenhaus gGmbH, Hannover, Germany
,
Markus Schmidt
6   Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Sana Kliniken Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany
,
Dagmar Schmitz
7   Institut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
,
Christiane Schwarz
8   Fachbereich Hebammenwissenschaft, Institut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
Daniel Surbek
9   Frauenklinik, Inselspital, Universitätsspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
,
Michael Abou-Dakn
10   Klinik für Gynäkologie, St. Joseph Krankenhaus, Berlin Tempelhof, Berlin, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Das Ziel dieser offiziellen Leitlinie, die von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) in Kooperation mit der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG) und der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG) publiziert und koordiniert wurde, ist es, durch die Evaluation der relevanten Literatur einen konsensbasierten Überblick über Indikationen, Methoden und generelles Management der Geburtseinleitung zu geben.

Methoden Diese S2k-Leitlinie wurde durch einen strukturierten Konsens von repräsentativen Mitgliedern verschiedener Professionen im Auftrag der Leitlinienkommission der DGGG, OEGGG und SGGG entwickelt.

Empfehlungen Es werden Empfehlungen zu Indikationen, Management, Methoden, Überwachung und besonderen Situationen der Geburtseinleitung gegeben.

Schlüsselwörter

Leitlinie - Geburtseinleitung - Indikationen - Methoden - Prostaglandine


Publication History

Received: 25 May 2021

Accepted after revision: 27 May 2021

Article published online:
09 August 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM. et al. Risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 76-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM. et al. The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 309.e1-309.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vilchez G, Nazeer S, Kumar K. et al. Risk of Expectant Management and Optimal Timing of Delivery in Low-Risk Term Pregnancies: A Population-Based Study. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35: 262-270
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sotiriadis A, Petousis S, Thilaganathan B. et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 26-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kehl S, Kupprion C, Weiss C. et al. [Impact of a Guideline for Management of Pregnancy beyond Term and its Influence on Clinical Routine]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2015; 219: 87-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pretscher J, Weiss C, Dammer U. et al. [Induction of Labour in Nulliparous Women Beyond Term in a Low-Risk Population]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2019; 223: 33-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014; 121: 674-685 discussion 685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Reddy UM, Ko CW, Willinger M. Maternal age and the risk of stillbirth throughout pregnancy in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 764-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Antenatal Care for uncomplicated Pregnancies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines. London; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Schafer-Graf UM, Gembruch U, Kainer F. et al. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) – Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Guideline of the DDG and DGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry Number 057/008, February 2018). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78: 1219-1231
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Alberry M, Soothill P. Management of fetal growth restriction. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92: F62-F67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B. et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 400-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kehl S, Dotsch J, Hecher K. et al. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77: 1157-1173
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Glantz A, Marschall HU, Mattsson LA. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: Relationships between bile acid levels and fetal complication rates. Hepatology 2004; 40: 467-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brouwers L, Koster MP, Page-Christiaens GC. et al. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: maternal and fetal outcomes associated with elevated bile acid levels. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 100.e1-100.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kawakita T, Parikh LI, Ramsey PS. et al. Predictors of adverse neonatal outcomes in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 570.e1-570.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Williamson C, Hems LM, Goulis DG. et al. Clinical outcome in a series of cases of obstetric cholestasis identified via a patient support group. BJOG 2004; 111: 676-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Puljic A, Kim E, Page J. et al. The risk of infant and fetal death by each additional week of expectant management in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 667.e1-667.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ovadia C, Seed PT, Sklavounos A. et al. Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses. Lancet 2019; 393: 899-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hypertensive Schwangerschaftserkrankungen: Diagnostik und Therapie. AWMF 2019. Accessed January 15, 2020 at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-018l_S2k_Diagnostik_Therapie_hypertensiver_Schwangerschaftserkrankungen_2019-07.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Saccone G, Della Corte L, Maruotti GM. et al. Induction of labor at full-term in pregnant women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019; 98: 958-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Society of Maternal-Fetal (SMFM) Publications Committee. Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. SMFM Statement on Elective Induction of Labor in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women at Term: the ARRIVE Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221: B2-B4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Diedrich JT, Drey EA, Newmann SJ. Society of Family Planning clinical recommendations: Cervical preparation for dilation and evacuation at 20–24 weeksʼ gestation. Contraception 2020; 101: 286-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nabors GC. Castor oil as an adjunct to induction of labor: critical re-evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1958; 75: 36-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Holmes OM. Induction of Labor: Using Quinin, Castor Oil, Rupture of Membranes, and Nasal Pituitrin. Cal West Med 1934; 41: 241-244
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Nabi HA, Aflaifel NB, Weeks AD. A hundred years of induction of labour methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 179: 236-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Sexual intercourse for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (02) CD003093
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Castro C, Afonso M, Carvalho R. et al. Effect of vaginal intercourse on spontaneous labor at term: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290: 1121-1125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ. et al. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (09) CD007701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T. et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20: 1-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 AWMF 015-081 (S3). Adipositas und Schwangerschaft. AWMF 2020. Accessed April 01, 2020 at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-081l_S3_Adipositas-Schwangerschaft_2020_02.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A. et al. Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev 2015; 16: 621-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP. et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001; 25: 1175-1182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM. et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1002-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bleu G, Demetz J, Michel S. et al. Effectiveness and safety of induction of labor for term breech presentations. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017; 46: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S. et al. Induction of labor in breech presentations at term: a retrospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 293: 549-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Burgos J, Arana I, Garitano I. et al. Induction of labor in breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinat Med 2017; 45: 299-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Haslam RR. Twins Timing of Birth Trial Group. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 964-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Suzuki S, Otsubo Y, Sawa R. et al. Clinical trial of induction of labor versus expectant management in twin pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2000; 49: 24-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Dodd JM, Deussen AR, Grivell RM. et al. Elective birth at 37 weeksʼ gestation for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (02) CD003582
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Dias T, Thilaganathan B. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 1676 author reply 1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Welsh A, Clements S, Henry A. et al. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 1675-1676 author reply 1676–1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cheong-See F, Schuit E, Arroyo-Manzano D. et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 354: i4353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 169: Multifetal Gestations: Twin, Triplet, and Higher-Order Multifetal Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128: e131-e146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M. et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 50-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Wood S, Tang S, Ross S. et al. Stillbirth in twins, exploring the optimal gestational age for delivery: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121: 1284-1290 discussion 1291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Robinson BK, Miller RS, DʼAlton ME. et al. Effectiveness of timing strategies for delivery of monochorionic diamniotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 53.e1-53.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bahtiyar MO, Emery SP, Dashe JS. et al. The North American Fetal Therapy Network consensus statement: prenatal surveillance of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 118-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Emery SP, Bahtiyar MO, Dashe JS. et al. The North American Fetal Therapy Network Consensus Statement: prenatal management of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 1236-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sullivan AE, Hopkins PN, Weng HY. et al. Delivery of monochorionic twins in the absence of complications: analysis of neonatal outcomes and costs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 257.e1-257.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Burgess JL, Unal ER, Nietert PJ. et al. Risk of late-preterm stillbirth and neonatal morbidity for monochorionic and dichorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 578.e1-578.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rossi AC, Prefumo F. Pregnancy outcomes of induced labor in women with previous cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 273-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR. et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 3-8
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Naef 3rd RW, Ray MA, Chauhan SP. et al. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery with a lower-segment, vertical uterine incision: is it safe?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1666-1673 discussion 1673–1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT. et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (5 Pt 1): 735-740
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Practice bulletin no. 143: medical management of first-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 676-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 135: Second-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 1394-1406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Clinical Practice Handbook for safe Abortion. WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. Geneva: 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Morris JL, Winikoff B, Dabash R. et al. FIGOʼs updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 138: 363-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Abortion care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines. London; 2019
    Google Scholar