Advertisement

Defining failed induction of labor

Published:November 11, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.556

      Background

      While there are well-accepted standards for the diagnosis of arrested active-phase labor, the definition of a “failed” induction of labor remains less certain. One approach to diagnosing a failed induction is based on the duration of the latent phase. However, a standard for the minimum duration that the latent phase of a labor induction should continue, absent acute maternal or fetal indications for cesarean delivery, remains lacking.

      Objective

      The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes as a function of the duration of the latent phase among nulliparous women undergoing labor induction.

      Study Design

      This study is based on data from an obstetric cohort of women delivering at 25 US hospitals from 2008 through 2011. Nulliparous women who had a term singleton gestation in the cephalic presentation were eligible for this analysis if they underwent a labor induction. Consistent with prior studies, the latent phase was determined to begin once cervical ripening had ended, oxytocin was initiated, and rupture of membranes had occurred, and was determined to end once 5-cm dilation was achieved. The frequencies of cesarean delivery, as well as of adverse maternal (eg, postpartum hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis) and perinatal (eg, a composite frequency of seizures, sepsis, bone or nerve injury, encephalopathy, or death) outcomes, were compared as a function of the duration of the latent phase (analyzed with time both as a continuous measure and categorized in 3-hour increments).

      Results

      A total of 10,677 women were available for analysis. In the vast majority (96.4%) of women, the active phase had been reached by 15 hours. The longer the duration of a woman’s latent phase, the greater her chance of ultimately undergoing a cesarean delivery (P < .001, for time both as a continuous and categorical independent variable), although >40% of women whose latent phase lasted ≥18 hours still had a vaginal delivery. Several maternal morbidities, such as postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001) and chorioamnionitis (P < .001), increased in frequency as the length of latent phase increased. Conversely, the frequencies of most adverse perinatal outcomes were statistically stable over time.

      Conclusion

      The large majority of women undergoing labor induction will have entered the active phase by 15 hours after oxytocin has started and rupture of membranes has occurred. Maternal adverse outcomes become statistically more frequent with greater time in the latent phase, although the absolute increase in frequency is relatively small. These data suggest that cesarean delivery should not be undertaken during the latent phase prior to at least 15 hours after oxytocin and rupture of membranes have occurred. The decision to continue labor beyond this point should be individualized, and may take into account factors such as other evidence of labor progress.

      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

        • Martin J.A.
        • Hamilton B.E.
        • Osterman M.J.
        • Curtin S.C.
        • Mathews T.J.
        Births: final data for 2013.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015; 64: 1-65
        • Baños N.
        • Migliorelli F.
        • Posadas E.
        • Ferreri J.
        • Palacio M.
        Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation.
        Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 38: 161-169
        • Rouse D.J.
        • Owen J.
        • Hauth J.C.
        Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 671-677
        • Simon C.E.
        • Grobman W.A.
        When has an induction failed?.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 705-709
        • Rouse D.J.
        • Weiner S.J.
        • Bloom S.L.
        • et al.
        Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 267-272
        • Kawakita T.
        • Reddy U.M.
        • Iqbal S.N.
        • et al.
        Duration of oxytocin and rupture of the membranes before diagnosing a failed induction of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: 373-380
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Cahill A.G.
        • Guise J.M.
        • Rouse D.J.
        Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 179-193
        • Bailit J.L.
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Rice M.M.
        • et al.
        Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 446.e1-446.e30
        • Agresti A.
        A survey of exact inference for contingency tables.
        Stat Sci. 1992; 7: 131-177
        • Chelmow D.
        • Kilpatrick S.J.
        • Laros Jr., R.K.
        Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 81: 486-491
        • Maghoma J.
        • Buchmann E.J.
        Maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged latent phase of labor.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 22: 16-19
        • Ananth C.V.
        • Schisterman E.F.
        Confounding, causality, and confusion: the role of intermediate variables in interpreting observational studies in obstetrics.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 167-175
        • Zhang J.
        • Landy H.
        • Branch D.W.
        • et al.
        Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1281-1287
        • Friedman E.A.
        The graphic analysis of labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954; 68: 1568-1575
        • Friedman E.A.
        Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1955; 6: 567-589
        • Zhang J.
        • Troendle J.
        • Yancey M.K.
        Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 824-828
        • Hanley G.E.
        • Munro S.
        • Greyson D.
        • et al.
        Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16: 71
        • Lavender T.
        • Hart A.
        • Smyth R.
        Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labor at term.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 7: CD005461
        • Rhinehart-Ventura J.
        • Eppes C.
        • Sangi-Haghpeykar H.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of outcomes after implementation of an induction-of-labor protocol.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 301.e1-301.e7