PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2310-9817
SMFM Fellows Research Series

Elective Induction of Labor Following Prior Cesarean Delivery

Alexander M. Saucedo 
1   Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
George A. Macones
1   Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
Alison G. Cahill
1   Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
Lorie M. Harper 
1   Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Following the release of A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE) trial, the induction of labor at 39 weeks has increased in the United States. The risk of uterine rupture and optimal timing of elective induction in those patients with a prior cesarean delivery is not well-described, and they were not included in the original trial. We aimed to determine the risk of uterine rupture in those patients undergoing elective induction of labor with prior cesarean delivery.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort of participants with prior cesarean delivery from 1996 to 2000. Participants were included if they had two or more prior cesareans. Participants were excluded if they had a history of an unknown prior incision, a classical incision, gestational age <39 weeks, any diabetes, chronic hypertension, twin gestation, collagen or vascular disease, or HIV. Those undergoing expectant management were compared with those undergoing elective induction with no medical or obstetrical indications for delivery. Analysis was performed at three gestational age groups: 39 weeks, 40 weeks, and 41 weeks. The primary outcomes were uterine rupture, rates of successful vaginal delivery, and a composite major morbidity risk. Multivariable logistic regression was performed.

Results At 39 weeks, 618 (10.3%) elective inductions were compared with 5,365 (89.7%) undergoing expectant management; uterine rupture occurred more frequently (13 patients [2.1%] vs. 49 patients [0.9%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–4.6) with fewer successful vaginal birth after cesarean [VBAC; 66.8 vs. 75%; aOR, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–0.7]. The risk of uterine rupture was similar between groups at 40 weeks (5 patients [0.8%] vs. 21 patients [1.2%]; p = 0.387) and 41 weeks (7 patients [1.4%] vs. 2 patients (0.8%); p = 0.448).

Conclusion Patients undergoing elective induction of labor with a prior cesarean scar had an increased risk of uterine rupture when compared with expectant management at 39 weeks, with fewer successful VBAC.

Key Points

  • TOLAC elective induction at 39 weeks has an increased risk of uterine rupture.

  • TOLAC elective induction at 39 weeks has a less successful chance of vaginal delivery.

  • Awaiting spontaneous labor in this cohort does not increase the risk of uterine rupture.

Keywords

elective induction - prior cesarean - trial of labor - TOLAC - vaginal birth after cesarean - VBAC - uterine rupture

Note

Presented as a poster at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, San Francisco, CA, February 10, 2023.


Availability of Data and Materials

Authors L.M.H. and A.M.S. can be requested for access to data.


Authors' Contributions

All authors of this study take full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the reporting, as well as the fidelity of the report to the study protocol. The study concept and design were developed by all authors, while data collection was conducted by L.M.H. and A.M.S. Analysis and interpretation of the data were performed by L.M.H. and A.M.S. A.M.S. drafted the manuscript, and all authors critically revised it for important intellectual content. authors.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 31. Juli 2023

Angenommen: 18. April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
22. April 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Mai 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Osterman M, Hamilton B, Martin JA, Driscoll AK, Valenzuela CP. Births: Final data for 2020. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2021; 70 (17) 1-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (02) e110-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (01) 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB. et al. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (05) 1656-1662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Palatnik A, Grobman WA. Induction of labor versus expectant management for women with a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (03) 358.e1-358.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lappen JR, Hackney DN, Bailit JL. Outcomes of term induction in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: analysis of a modern obstetric cohort. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 115-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Muller BM, Peneva RH, Mcelwee ER. et al. Risk of labor induction or augmentation on uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226: S768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Uterine rupture during induced or augmented labor in gravid women with one prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181 (04) 882-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Grivell RM, Deussen AR. Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7 (07) CD004906
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cunningham F, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. Prior cesarean delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics, 26e. McGraw Hill; 2022. Accessed January 10, 2023 at: https://accessmedicine-mhmedical-com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/content.aspx?bookid=2977&sectionid=250396730
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Park BY, Cryer A, Betoni J. et al. Outcomes of labor induction at 39 weeks in pregnancies with a prior cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (15) 2853-2858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 146: Management of late-term and postterm pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (2 Pt 1): 390-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1181-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar