Advertisement

Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials

Published:April 13, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.004
      The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of cesarean and any maternal and perinatal effects of a policy induction of labor in uncomplicated full-term singleton gestations. Searches were performed in an electronic database with the use of a combination of text words related to “induction” and “cesarean section” from inception of each database through December 2014. We included all randomized controlled trials of uncomplicated singleton gestations at full term (ie, between 39 weeks 0/7 days and 40 weeks 6/7 days) with intact membranes randomized to induction of labor or control (ie, expectant management). The primary outcome was the incidence of cesarean delivery. The summary measures were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Five randomized controlled trials, including 844 women, were analyzed. Full-term vertex singleton gestations receiving induction of labor had similar incidence of cesarean delivery compared to controls (9.7% vs 7.5%; RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.75–2.08). Rates of spontaneous (75.9% vs 80.2%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87–1.02) and operative (13.1% vs 10.6%; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83–1.81) vaginal delivery were also similar. Induction was associated with similar rates of chorioamnionitis (9.6% vs 8.0%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.38–3.39), but statistically significantly less blood loss (mean difference –57.59 mL; 95% CI, –83.96 to –31.21) compared to controls. Regarding neonatal outcomes, induction was associated with a significantly lower rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid (4.0% vs 13.5%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18–0.57) and significantly lower mean birthweight (mean difference –135.51 g; 95% CI, –205.24 to –65.77) compared to control group. Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations is not associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and has overall similar outcomes compared to expectant management.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Reddy U.M.
        • Ko C.M.
        • Raju T.N.
        • Willinger M.
        Delivery indications at late preterm gestations and infant mortality rates in the United States.
        Pediatrics. 2009; 124: 234-240
        • ACOG
        Nonmedically indicated early-term deliveries. Committee opinion no. 561.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 911-915
        • Fedelman G.
        Prospective risk of stillbirth.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79: 547-553
        • Cole R.A.
        • Howie P.W.
        • Macnaughton M.C.
        Elective induction of labor: a randomized prospective trial.
        Lancet. 1975; 1: 767-770
        • Martin D.H.
        • Thompson W.
        • Pinkerton J.H.
        • Watson J.D.
        A randomized controlled trial of selective planned delivery.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978; 85: 109-113
        • Tylleskar J.
        • Finnstrom O.
        • Leijon I.
        • et al.
        Spontaneous labor and elective induction–a prospective randomized study, effects on mother and fetus.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1979; 58: 513-518
        • Nielsen P.E.
        • Howard B.C.
        • Hill C.C.
        • Larson P.L.
        • Holland R.H.
        • Smith P.N.
        Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: a randomized clinical trial.
        J Matern Fetal Neontal Med. 2005; 18: 59-64
        • Miller N.
        • Cypher R.
        • Pates J.
        • Nielson P.E.
        Elective induction of nulliparous labor at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized clinical trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 132: 72S
        • Abotalib Z.M.
        Elective induction of labor at term: doing a lot to gain a little?.
        Saudi Med J. 1999; 20: 185-188
        • Cammu H.
        • Martens G.
        • Ruyssinck G.
        • Amy J.J.
        Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 240-244
        • Macer J.A.
        • Macer C.L.
        • Chan L.S.
        Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1690-1696
        • Maslow A.S.
        • Sweeny A.L.
        Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: 917-922
        • Van de Hove M.M.
        • Willekes C.
        • Roumen F.J.
        • Scherjon S.A.
        Intrauterine growth restriction at term: induction or spontaneous labor? Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT): a pilot study.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 125: 54-58
        • Boers K.E.
        • Vijgen S.M.
        • Bijlenga D.
        • et al.
        Induction versus expectant management in twin pregnancy.
        Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000; 49: 24-27
        • Koopmans C.M.
        • Bijlenga D.
        • Groen H.
        • et al.
        Induction of labor versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2009; 374: 979-988
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012
      1. Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (update March 2011). Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark2011
        • Gonen O.
        • Rosen D.J.D.
        • Dolfin Z.
        • Tepper R.
        • Markov S.
        • Fejgin M.D.
        Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: a randomized study.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 913-917
        • Boulvain M.
        • Senat M.V.
        • Rozenberg P.
        • Irion O.
        Induction of labor or expectant management for large-for-dates fetuses: a randomized controlled trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 2
        • Suzuki S.
        • Otsubo Y.
        • Sawa R.
        • Yoneyama Y.
        • Araki T.
        Clinical trial of induction of labor versus expectant management in twin pregnancy.
        Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000; 49: 24-27
        • Dodd J.M.
        • Crowther C.
        • Haslam R.R.
        • Robinson J.S.
        Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the twins timing of birth randomized trial.
        BJOG. 2012; 119: 964-973
        • Amano K.
        • Saito K.
        • Shoda T.
        • et al.
        Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation: a prospective randomized trial.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1999; 25: 33-37
        • Leijnon I.
        • Finnstrom O.
        • Hedenskog S.
        • et al.
        Spontaneous labor and elective induction–a prospective randomized study: bilirubin levels in the neonatal period.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1980; 59: 103-106
        • Leijnon I.
        • Finnstrom O.
        • Hedenskog S.
        • et al.
        Spontaneous labor and elective induction–a prospective randomized study: behavioral assessment and neurological examination in the newborn period.
        Acta Paediatr Scand. 1979; 68: 553-560
        • Walker F.
        • Bugg G.
        • MacPherson M.
        • et al.
        Induction of labor versus expectant management for nulliparous women over 35 years of age: a multicenter prospective, randomized controlled trial.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012; 12: 145
        • Caughey A.
        • Sundaram V.
        • Kaimal A.
        • et al.
        Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 252-263
        • Wood S.
        • Cooper S.
        • Ross S.
        Does induction of labor increase the risk of cesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes.
        BJOG. 2014; 121: 674-685
        • Mishanina E.
        • Rogozinska E.
        • Thatthi T.
        • et al.
        Use of labor induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673
        • Berghella V.
        • Blackwell S.C.
        • Ramin S.M.
        • Sibai B.M.
        • Saade G.R.
        Use and misuse of the term elective in obstetrics.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 372-376
        • Berkus M.D.
        • Langer O.
        • Samueloff A.
        Meconium-stained amniotic fluid: increased risk for adverse neonatal outcome.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 84: 115-120
        • Katz V.L.
        • Bowes W.A.
        Meconium aspiration syndrome: reflection on a murky subject.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 171-183
        • Nathan L.
        • Leveno K.J.
        • Carmody T.J.
        • Kelly M.A.
        • Sherman M.L.
        Meconium: a 1990s perspective on an old obstetric hazard.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 83: 329-332
        • Cleary G.M.
        • Wiswell T.E.
        Meconium-stained amniotic fluid and the meconium aspiration syndrome: an update.
        Pediatric Clin North Am. 1998; 45: 511-529
        • Wiswell T.E.
        • Tuggle J.M.
        • Tumer B.S.
        Meconium aspiration syndrome: have we made a difference?.
        Pediatrics. 1990; 85: 715-721
        • Nuutila M.
        • Halmesmaki E.
        • Hiilesmaa V.
        • Ylikorkala O.
        Women’s anticipations of and experiences with induction of labor.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999; 78: 704-709
      2. Reddy U. A randomized trial of induction versus expectant management (ARRIVE). Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01990612. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01990612. Accessed Oct. 15, 2014.