American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 2 , Pages 156.e1-156.e4, February 2009

Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery

Received 15 May 2008; received in revised form 28 June 2008; accepted 29 August 2008. published online 29 December 2008.

Objective

To quantify adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery at less than 39 completed weeks of gestation.

Study Design

Prospective observational study conducted in 27 hospitals over the course of 3 months in 2007.

Results

Of 17,794 deliveries, 14,955 (84%) occurred at 37 weeks or greater. Of term deliveries, 6562 (44%) were planned, rather than spontaneous. Among the planned deliveries, 4645 (71%) were purely elective; 17.8% of infants delivered electively without medical indication at 37-38 weeks and 8% of those delivered electively at 38-39 weeks required admission to a newborn special care unit for an average of 4.5 days, compared with 4.6% of infants delivered at 39 weeks or beyond (P < .001). Cesarean delivery rate in women undergoing induction of labor was not influenced by gestational age but was highly influenced by initial cervical dilatation and parity, ranging from 0% for parous women induced at 5 cm or greater to 50% for nulliparous women at 0 cm.

Conclusion

Elective delivery before 39 weeks' gestation is associated with significant neonatal morbidity. Initial cervical dilatation is highly correlated with cesarean delivery among women undergoing induction of labor in both nulliparous and parous women. Elective delivery before 39 completed weeks' gestation is inappropriate. Women contemplating elective induction at or beyond 39 weeks' gestation with an unfavorable cervix should be counseled regarding an increased rate of cesarean delivery.

Key words: elective delivery, induction of labor, repeat cesarean delivery

 

 Cite this article as: Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:156.e1-156.e4.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0002-9378(08)01037-5

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.068

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 2 , Pages 156.e1-156.e4, February 2009