Advertisement

The transition from latent to active labor and adverse obstetrical outcomes

      Background

      Recommendations on preventing primary cesarean delivery removed the previously defined time limits for latent labor (defined as ending at 6 cm) and urged clinicians to avoid cesarean delivery for labor abnormalities in the latent phase. However, relatively little is known about the implications of labor curve abnormalities from 4 to 6 cm and subsequent outcomes.

      Objective

      To examine the association between length of time for dilation from 4 to 6 cm, delivery outcomes, and maternal and neonatal morbidity.

      Study Design

      This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients at ≥37 weeks presenting in spontaneous or induced labor with a nonanomalous living singleton in vertex presentation. Patients with a history of cesarean delivery or who did not achieve 6-cm dilation were excluded. We used interval censored regression to determine the 90th percentile for dilation time from 4 to 6 cm and used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for adverse outcomes for patients above this cutoff percentile compared with those at or below. Analyses were adjusted for obesity, nulliparity, race, hypertension, diabetes, and type of labor (induced vs spontaneous/augmented). Outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity (composite of postpartum fever, wound infection, hemorrhage), and neonatal morbidity (composite of neonatal death, hypothermic therapy, mechanical ventilation, respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome, seizure, or treatment of sepsis). In addition, we created receiver operator characteristic curves to predict cesarean delivery, and maternal and neonatal morbidity based on time to dilate from 4 to 6 cm. The cutoff for time for each outcome was identified using the Youden index to maximize sensitivity and specificity, and test characteristics were computed.

      Results

      There were 7355 patients eligible for analysis, 728 (10%) had dilation times from 4 to 6 cm >10.3 hours, which was the 90th percentile, and 6627 (90%) had dilation times ≤10.3 hours. Having dilation time from 4 to 6 cm above the 90th percentile (10.3 hours) was associated with cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.67–2.52), composite maternal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.10–2.00), and composite neonatal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio 1.92; 95% confidence interval 1.52–2.4). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for predicting cesarean delivery was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.75). The test characteristics for the cutoff of 9.75 hours were sensitivity 68.3% (95% confidence interval, 64.8%–71.7%), specificity 66.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.0%–67.3%), positive predictive value 18.5% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%–20.0%), and negative predictive value 94.9% (95% confidence interval, 94.2%–95.5%). For composite maternal morbidity, the cutoff was 6.98 hours and the area under the curve was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.65), whereas for composite neonatal morbidity it was 5.5 hours (area under the curve 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.71).

      Conclusions

      Patients whose dilation time from 4 to 6 cm exceeds the 90th percentile have increased odds of cesarean delivery and postpartum complications. Prolonged dilation time has moderate predictive ability for adverse outcomes. Future studies should investigate at what point, if any, intervention is warranted during this period to reduce these risks.
      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

        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
        Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 693-711
        • Cohen W.R.
        • Friedman E.A.
        Perils of the new labor management guidelines.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 420-427
        • Cohen W.R.
        • Friedman E.A.
        Misguided guidelines for managing labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 753 e1-e3
        • Cohen W.R.
        The natural history of the normal first stage of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116 (author reply -3): 772
        • Dietz H.P.
        • Campbell S.
        Toward normal birth—but at what cost?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: 439-444
        • American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics
        ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: dystocia and augmentation of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 1445-1454
        • Rosenbloom J.I.
        • Stout M.J.
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • et al.
        New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 689 e1-689 e8
        • Wilson-Leedy J.G.
        • DiSilvestro A.J.
        • Repke J.T.
        • Pauli J.M.
        Reduction in the cesarean delivery rate after obstetric care consensus guideline implementation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: 145-152
        • Thuillier C.
        • Roy S.
        • Peyronnet V.
        • Quibel T.
        • Nlandu A.
        • Rozenberg P.
        Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 341 e1-341 e9
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Bailit J.
        • Lai Y.
        • et al.
        Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Defining failed induction of labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 122 e1-122 e8
        • Chelmow D.
        • Kilpatrick S.J.
        • Laros Jr., R.K.,
        Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 81: 486-491
        • Angeby K.
        • Wilde-Larsson B.
        • Hildingsson I.
        • Sandin-Bojo A.K.
        Prevalence of prolonged latent phase and labor outcomes: review of birth records in a Swedish population.
        J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018; 63: 33-44
        • Maghoma J.
        • Buchmann E.J.
        Maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged latent phase of labour.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 22: 16-19
        • Brane E.
        • Olsson A.
        • Andolf E.
        A randomized controlled trial on early induction compared to expectant management of nulliparous women with prolonged latent phases.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 93: 1042-1049
        • Cahill A.G.
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • Stout M.J.
        • Lopez J.D.
        • Macones G.A.
        A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 523.e1-523.e12
        • Zhang J.
        • Troendle J.
        • Mikolajczyk R.
        • Sundaram R.
        • Beaver J.
        • Fraser W.
        The natural history of the normal first stage of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 705-710
        • Cahill A.G.
        • Roehl K.A.
        • Odibo A.O.
        • Zhao Q.
        • Macones G.A.
        Impact of fetal gender on the labor curve.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 335 e1-335 e5
        • Youden W.J.
        Index for rating diagnostic tests.
        Cancer. 1950; 3: 32-35
        • Carter J.V.
        • Pan J.
        • Rai S.N.
        • Galandiuk S.
        ROC-ing along: evaluation and interpretation of receiver operating characteristic curves.
        Surgery. 2016; 159: 1638-1645
        • Harper L.M.
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Roehl K.A.
        • Odibo A.O.
        • Cahill A.G.
        Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 536 e1-536 e7
        • Friedman E.A.
        Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1955; 6: 567-589
        • Barber E.L.
        • Lundsberg L.S.
        • Belanger K.
        • Pettker C.M.
        • Funai E.F.
        • Illuzzi J.L.
        Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 29-38
        • Zhang J.
        • Troendle J.
        • Grantz K.L.
        • Reddy U.M.
        Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 750 e1-e4