Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(01): 087-092
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1376180
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Does Increase in Birth Weight Change the Normal Labor Curve?

Heidi K. Leftwich
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
,
Weihua Gao
2   Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
,
Isabelle Wilkins
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 October 2013

31 March 2014

Publication Date:
16 May 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study is designed to assess the effect of birth weight on the duration of labor.

Study Design Retrospective review of the electronic database created by the Consortium on Safe Labor, reflecting labor and delivery information from 12 clinical centers from 2002 to 2008. Population included all laboring women in the 19 participating hospitals, excluding those with malpresentation, fetal anomalies, elective repeat cesarean, multiple gestations, gestational age less than 34 weeks, and delivery with less than two cervical examinations. Birth weight categories include less than 2,500 g, 2,500 to 3,000 g, 3,000 to 3,500 g, 3,500 to 4,000 g, and greater than 4,000 g. Interval censored regression analysis was used to determine distribution of times for cervical dilation progression in centimeters.

Results A total of 146,904 maternal records were reviewed. In nulliparous, traverse times increased as birth weight increased, both in successful trial of labor and also those who ultimately required cesarean delivery (p < 0.01). In multiparous with successful trial of labor, traverse times increased as birth weight increased from 5 to 8 cm (p < 0.01). From 8 to 10 cm, traverse times increased by birth weight, though this was not statistically significant.

Conclusion We have shown that in a large cohort of contemporary laboring women, as birth weight increases, progression in labor is, in fact slower.

Keywords

birth weight - labor - pregnancy - contemporary

Note

Abstract presented as oral presentation at: 60th Annual Clinical Meeting for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, May 5–9, 2012; San Diego, CA.


 

  • References

  • 1 Mulik V, Usha Kiran TS, Bethal J, Bhal PS. The outcome of macrosomic fetuses in a low risk primigravid population. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 80 (1) 15-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hoskins IA, Gomez JL. Use of abnormalities in the Friedman curve as a predictor of operative delivery in macrosomic babies. J Perinatol 1998; 18 (5) 381-383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Modanlou HD, Dorchester WL, Thorosian A, Freeman RK. Macrosomia—maternal, fetal, and neonatal implications. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55 (4) 420-424
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Turner MJ, Rasmussen MJ, Turner JE, Boylan PC, MacDonald D, Stronge JM. The influence of birth weight on labor in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76 (2) 159-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, , et al. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL. , et al, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2012: 268-273
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 (4) 824-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kominiarek MA, Zhang J, Vanveldhuisen P, Troendle J, Beaver J, Hibbard JU. Contemporary labor patterns: the impact of maternal body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (3) e1-e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (6) 1281-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gurewitsch ED, Diament P, Fong J , et al. The labor curve of the grand multipara: does progress of labor continue to improve with additional childbearing?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (6) 1331-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD. Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (4 Pt 1) 507-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (5) 1372-1378
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Little SE, Edlow AG, Thomas AM, Smith NA. Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (4) e1-e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, Carreno CA. Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (3) e1-e3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Ben-Haroush A. Sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia: the consequences of false diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29 (2) 225-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar