Maternal Obesity Class as a Predictor of Induction Failure: A Practical Risk Assessment Tool

Stefania Ronzoni; Hadar Rosen; Nir Melamed; Shay Porat; Dan Farine; Cynthia Maxwell

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1563717

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(14): 1298-1304
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1563717

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Maternal Obesity Class as a Predictor of Induction Failure: A Practical Risk Assessment Tool

Stefania Ronzoni

¹Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

,

Hadar Rosen

¹Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

,

Nir Melamed

²Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

,

Shay Porat

³Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah-Hebrew, University Medical Center, Mt Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel

,

Dan Farine

¹Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

,

Cynthia Maxwell

¹Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the rate of cesarean section (rCS) in induction of labor (IOL).

Study Design A total of 7,543 singleton term pregnancies undergoing IOL (cervical dilatation at admission, CDA ≤ 3 cm) were divided according to BMI: underweight (n = 325); normal weight (NW) (n = 4,633); overweight (OW) (n = 1,610); and obese (n = 975). Age, parity, macrosomia, gestational age (GA), gestational weight gain (GWG), CDA, and IOL indications were considered.

Results A higher rate of macrosomia (15.0 vs. 11.1%; p < 0.0001), earlier induction (GA 39.7 ± 1.3 vs. 40.1 ± 1.3 weeks; p < 0.0001) for maternal indications (39.1 vs. 21.1%; p < 0.001), and lower CDA (≤1cm; 66.4 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.005) were observed in obese versus NW. The rate of weight gain above the recommended range was higher in obese (obese 70.6% vs. NW 43.9%; p < 0.001), despite a significantly lower mean GWG compared with NW (14 ± 7.5 vs. 16.5 ± 5.6 kg; p < 0.001). Compared with NW, OW and obese demonstrated a significantly higher rCS (OW 31.1% and obese 36.9% vs. NW 24.7%; p < 0.001). BMI represented an independent factor affecting the rCS (vs. NW; OW odds ratio [OR] 1.4; confidence interval [CI] 1.2–1.7; p < 0.001; obese OR 2.3; CI 1.9–2.7 p < 0.001).

Conclusion In the case of IOL, obesity represents an independent factor associated with a significant increase of CS to be considered during induction counselling.

Keywords

body mass index - cesarean section - induction of labor - obesity

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Yogev Y, Catalano PM. Pregnancy and obesity. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2009; 36 (2) 285-300 , viii
2 Davies GAL, Maxwell C, McLeod L , et al; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Obesity in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32 (2) 165-173
3 Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (2) 128.e1-128.e7
4 Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Morrow B, Cogswell ME. Population-based assessment of the risk of primary cesarean delivery due to excess prepregnancy weight among nulliparous women delivering term infants. Matern Child Health J 2005; 9 (3) 237-244
5 Zelig CM, Nichols SF, Dolinsky BM, Hecht MW, Napolitano PG. Interaction between maternal obesity and Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor in term, nulliparous patients. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30 (1) 75-80
6 Pevzner L, Powers BL, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Effect of maternal obesity on duration and outcomes of prostaglandin cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (6) 1315-1321
7 Kominiarek MA, Vanveldhuisen P, Hibbard J , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. The maternal body mass index: a strong association with delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (3) 264.e1-264.e7
8 Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, DY J. SOGC clinical practice guideline: Induction of labor. Review J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (9) 840-857
9 Gunatilake RP, Smrtka MP, Harris B , et al. Predictors of failed trial of labor among women with an extremely obese body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (6) 562.e1-562.e5
10 Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (2) 287-293
11 El-Chaar D, Finkelstein SA, Tu X , et al. The impact of increasing obesity class on obstetrical outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (3) 224-233
12 Crane JMG, White J, Murphy P, Burrage L, Hutchens D. The effect of gestational weight gain by body mass index on maternal and neonatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009; 31 (1) 28-35
13 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104 (5, Pt 1): 943-951