PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e3140-e3146
DOI: 10.1055/a-2195-6063
Original Article

An Externally Validated Model to Predict Prolonged Induction of Labor with an Unfavorable Cervix

Tetsuya Kawakita
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Haleema Saeed 
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Jim C. Huang
3   Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
› Institutsangaben Funding The data included in this paper were obtained from the Consortium on Safe Labor, supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH) through contract number HHSN267200603425C. This project was funded in part with Federal funds (Grant # UL1TR000101 previously UL1RR031975) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), NIH, through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program (CTSA), a trademark of the Department of Health and Human Services, part of the Roadmap Initiative, “Re-Engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise.”
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To develop and externally validate a prediction model to calculate the likelihood of prolonged induction of labor (induction start to delivery time > 36 hours).

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of all nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies and vertex presentation at term who underwent induction of labor and had a vaginal delivery at a single academic center. Women with contraindications for vaginal delivery were excluded. Analyses were limited to women with unfavorable cervix (both simplified Bishop score [dilation, station, and effacement: range 0–9] <6 and cervical dilation <3 cm). Prolonged induction of labor was defined as the duration of induction (induction start time to delivery) longer than 36 hours. A backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors associated with prolonged induction of labor by considering maternal characteristics and comorbidities as well as fetal conditions. The final model was validated using an external dataset of the Consortium on Safe Labor after applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. We developed a receiver observer characteristic curve with area under the curve (AUC) in validation cohorts.

Results Of 2,118 women, 364 (17%) had prolonged induction of labor. Factors associated with prolonged induction of labor included body mass index at admission, hypertension, fetal conditions, and epidural. Factors including younger maternal age, prelabor rupture of membranes, and a more favorable simplified Bishop score were associated with a decreased likelihood of prolonged induction of labor. In the external validation cohort, 4,418 women were analyzed, of whom 188 (4%) had prolonged induction of labor. The AUC of the final model was 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.73–0.80) for the external validation cohort. The online calculator was created and is available at: https://medstarapps.org/obstetricriskcalculator.

Conclusion Our externally validated model was efficient in predicting prolonged induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix.

Key Points

  • The number of inductions of labor at 39 weeks' gestation and beyond has been increasing.

  • Our model had a good prediction of prolonged induction of labor.

  • An online calculator has been created and available.

Keywords

Consortium on Safe Labor - external validation - labor induction - term pregnancy - unfavorable cervix

Note

This study was presented as a poster presentation at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 42nd Annual Pregnancy Meeting (January 31–February 5, 2022).


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Dezember 2022

Angenommen: 18. Oktober 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
20. Oktober 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (01) 1-65
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S. et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (02) 125.e1-125.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dällenbach P, Boulvain M, Viardot C, Irion O. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (01) 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW. et al. Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (06) 1239-1245
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E. Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 79-86
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Schoen CN, Grant G, Berghella V, Hoffman MK, Sciscione A. Intracervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (06) 1046-1053
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cheng YW, Delaney SS, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (05) 477.e1-477.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Greenberg MB, Cheng YW, Sullivan M, Norton ME, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Does length of labor vary by maternal age?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (04) 428.e1-428.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hirshberg A, Levine LD, Srinivas S. Labor length among overweight and obese women undergoing induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (17) 1771-1775
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (06) 502.e1-502.e8
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Bailit JL, Grobman W, Zhao Y. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (01) 103.e1-103.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M. et al; 35/39 Trial Group. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (09) 813-822
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kawakita T, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Reddy UM. Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (04) 451.e1-451.e8
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Berghella V, Al-Hafez L, Bellussi F. Induction for 39 weeks' gestation: let's call it what it is. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (02) 100098
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gilroy LC, Al-Kouatly HB, Minkoff HL, McLaren Jr RA. Changes in obstetrical practices and pregnancy outcomes following the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (05) 716.e1-716.e12
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Huang CC, Auguste TC, Bauer D, Overcash RT. Predicting vaginal delivery in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor at term. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (07) 660-668
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Triebwasser JE, VanArtsdalen J, Kobernik EK, Seiler K, Langen ES. Assessing maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged induction of labor. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (05) 455-459
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bahn SA, Jacobson J, Petersen F. Maternal and neonatal outcome following prolonged labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (03) 403-407
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ferrazzi E, Brembilla G, Cipriani S, Livio S, Paganelli A, Parazzini F. Maternal age and body mass index at term: risk factors for requiring an induced labour for a late-term pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 233: 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, Samson J. Duration of labor induction in nulliparous women at term: how long is long enough?. Am J Perinatol 2008; 25 (04) 205-209
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Highley LL, Previs RA, Dotters-Katz SK, Brancazio LR, Grotegut CA. Cesarean delivery among women with prolonged labor induction. J Perinat Med 2016; 44 (07) 759-766
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Po' G, Oliver EA, Reddy UM, Silver RM, Berghella V. The impact of induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk women on the incidence of stillbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (01) 88-90
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Tolcher MC, Holbert MR, Weaver AL. et al. Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (05) 1059-1068
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Levine LD, Downes KL, Parry S, Elovitz MA, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (02) 254.e1-254.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar