Risk of cesarean section after induced versus spontaneous labor at term gestation
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective To investigate whether the cesarean section (CS) rate is increased in women whose labor was induced compared to thosewho had spontaneous labor at term pregnancy. Methods A retrospective study was performed in women whose labor was either induced (induction group, n=497) or spontaneous(spontaneous group, n=878) at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks of gestation from January 2008 to June 2009. Maternal age, parity,body mass index (BMI), Bishop scores, gestational age, hypertension, diabetes, delivery mode, indications for CS, neonataloutcome were compared between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the associationbetween the CS rate and labor induction after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results CS (17.3% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001) and vacuum-assisted delivery (10.7% vs. 6.4%, P<0.001) rates were significantly higher in theinduction group compared to the spontaneous group. The CS rate in the induction group was higher than the spontaneousgroup not only in nulliparous women (25.3% vs. 8.6%, P<0.001), but also in multiparous women (3.8% vs. 0.3%, P=0.002). However, after adjusting confounding factors, the higher CS rate was significantly associated with advanced maternal age,higher BMI, lower Bishop scores and nulliparity, with no demonstrable tie to labor induction. Neonatal outcome in the twogroups were comparable. Conclusion Although CS rate was higher in women whose labor was induced than those who had spontaneous labor, this higher ratewas associated with maternal age, BMI, Bishop scores and parity, but was not impacted by labor induction per se.
Abstract
Objective To investigate whether the cesarean section (CS) rate is increased in women whose labor was induced compared to thosewho had spontaneous labor at term pregnancy. Methods A retrospective study was performed in women whose labor was either induced (induction group, n=497) or spontaneous(spontaneous group, n=878) at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks of gestation from January 2008 to June 2009. Maternal age, parity,body mass index (BMI), Bishop scores, gestational age, hypertension, diabetes, delivery mode, indications for CS, neonataloutcome were compared between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the associationbetween the CS rate and labor induction after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results CS (17.3% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001) and vacuum-assisted delivery (10.7% vs. 6.4%, P<0.001) rates were significantly higher in theinduction group compared to the spontaneous group. The CS rate in the induction group was higher than the spontaneousgroup not only in nulliparous women (25.3% vs. 8.6%, P<0.001), but also in multiparous women (3.8% vs. 0.3%, P=0.002). However, after adjusting confounding factors, the higher CS rate was significantly associated with advanced maternal age,higher BMI, lower Bishop scores and nulliparity, with no demonstrable tie to labor induction. Neonatal outcome in the twogroups were comparable. Conclusion Although CS rate was higher in women whose labor was induced than those who had spontaneous labor, this higher ratewas associated with maternal age, BMI, Bishop scores and parity, but was not impacted by labor induction per se.
참고문헌 (17)
- Vrouenraets FP., "Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women", Obstet Gynecol, 105, pp.690~697 (2005)
- Caughey AB., "Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy", Ann Intern Med, 151, pp.252~263 (2009)
- Ehrenthal DB., "Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term", Obstet Gynecol, 116, pp.35~42 (2010)
- Heffner LJ., "Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates", Obstet Gynecol, 102, pp.287~293 (2003)
- Cammu H., "Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women : a matched cohort study", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186, pp.240~244 (2002)
- Maslow AS., "Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term", Obstet Gynecol, 95(6 Pt 1), pp.917~922 (2000)
- Osmundson S., "Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix", Obstet Gynecol, 117, pp.583~587 (2011)
- Park KH., "Comparative study of induction of labor in nulliparous women with premature rupture of membranes at term compared to those with intact membranes : duration of labor and mode of delivery", J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 32, pp.482~488 (2006)
- Son GH., "Risk factors for cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation", Gynecol Obstet Invest, 76, pp.254~259 (2013)
- Johnson DP., "Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfa vorable cervix", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 188, pp.1565~1569 (2003)
- Roos N., "Maternal risk factors for postterm pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction", Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 89, pp.1003~1010 (2010)
- Seyb ST., "Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women", Obstet Gynecol, 94, pp.600~607 (1999)
- Vahratian A., "Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas", Obstet Gynecol, 105, pp.698~704 (2005)
- Yeast JD., "Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 180(3 Pt 1), pp.628~633 (1999)
- Michelson KA, "The impact of duration of labor induction on cesarean rate", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 199(3), pp.299.e1~299.e4 (2008)
- Kunze M., "Intrapartum management of premature rupture of membranes : effect on cesarean delivery rate", Obstet Gynecol, 118, pp.1247~1254 (2011)
- Caughey AB., "Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 195, pp.700~705 (2006)