Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study


      Objective: To determine whether elective induction of labor in nulliparous women is associated with changes in fetomaternal outcome when compared with labor of spontaneous onset. Study Design: All 80 labor wards in Flanders (Northern Belgium) comprised a matched cohort study. From 1996 through 1997, 7683 women with elective induced labor and 7683 women with spontaneous labor were selected according to the following criteria: nulliparity, singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, gestational age at the time of delivery of 266 to 287 days, and birth weight between 3000 and 4000 g. Each woman with induced labor and the corresponding woman with spontaneous labor came from the same labor ward, and they had babies of the same sex. Both groups were compared with respect to the incidence of cesarean delivery or instrument delivery and the incidence of transfer to the neonatal ward. Results: Cesarean delivery (9.9% vs 6.5%), instrumental delivery (31.6% vs 29.1%), epidural analgesia (80% vs 58%), and transfer of the baby to the neonatal ward (10.7% vs 9.4%) were significantly more common (P <.01) when labor was induced electively. The difference in cesarean delivery was due to significantly more first-stage dystocia in the induced group. The difference in neonatal admission could be attributed to a higher admission rate for maternal convenience when the women had a cesarean delivery. Conclusion: When compared with labor of spontaneous onset, elective labor induction in nulliparous women is associated with significantly more operative deliveries. Nulliparous women should be informed about this before they submit to elective induction. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240-4.)


      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 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


        • Solomon JE
        • D’Alton ME
        Induction of labor.
        in: Management of labor and delivery. : Blackwell Science, Oxford1997: 293-315
        • Amano K
        • Saito K
        • Shoda T
        • Tani A
        • Yoshihara H
        • Nishijima M
        Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation: a prospective randomized trial.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1999; 25: 33-37
        • Jackson M
        • Regan C
        Elective induction of labor.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 40: 496-509
        • Järvelin MR
        • Hartikainen-Sorri AL
        • Rantakallio P
        Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993; 100: 310-315
        • Elferink-Stinkens PM
        • Brand R
        • le Cessie S
        • Van Hemel OJ
        Large differences in obstetrical intervention rates among Dutch hospitals, even after adjustment for population differences.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996; 68: 97-103
        • Coonrod DV
        • Bay RC
        • Kishi GY
        The epidemiology of labor induction: Arizona 1997.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 1355-1362
        • Cammu H
        • Martens G
        • Van Maele G
        Epidural analgesia for low risk labour determines the rate of instrumental deliveries but not that of caesarean sections.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 18: 25-29
        • Cole RA
        • Howie PW
        • MacNaughton MC
        Elective induction of labour: a randomized prospective trial.
        Lancet. 1975; 1: 767-770
        • Maslow AS
        • Sweeny AL
        Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: 917-922
        • Cammu H
        • Verlaenen H
        • Amy JJ
        • De Koster K
        • Derde MP
        • Buekens P
        Epidural analgesia in active management of labor.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994; 73: 235-239
        • Macer JA
        • Macer CL
        • Chan LS
        Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1690-1697
        • Seyb ST
        • Berka RJ
        • Socol ML
        • Dooley SL
        Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94: 600-607
        • Yeast JD
        • Jones A
        • Poskin M
        Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 628-633
        • Prysak M
        • Castronova FC
        Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 47-52
        • Smith LP
        • Nagourney BA
        • McLean FH
        • Usher RH
        Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 148: 579-585
        • Defoort P
        • Spitz B
        • Huyghebaert G
        Inductie in Vlaanderen.
        in: : Jaarboek SPE, Brussels1995: 62-73