Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable cervical scores

[Prostaglandins or cervical balloon for the induction of labor for cervical ripening: A literature review]

OBJECTIVE

Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.

METHODS

Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.

RESULT

No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women's satisfaction criteria.

Effect of misoprostol versus oxytocin on delivery outcomes after labour induction in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on the effects of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery outcomes; however, data from these RCTs are conflicting. Although some meta-analyses summarized available findings in this regard, several eligible RCTs have been published since the release of those meta-analyses. Therefore, the current updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted to compare the effects of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery and neonatal outcomes. A systematic search, using relevant keywords, was done in the online databases of PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, up to April 2023, to identify eligible articles investigating the effect of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery outcomes including maternal [cesarean/vaginal delivery within 24 h after labour induction, Tachysystole, hypertonicity, hyper-stimulation, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)] and neonatal outcomes [mean Apgar score, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and death]. In total, 45 RCTs with a total sample size of 8406 participants were included. Meta-analysis revealed that vaginal misoprostol administration, compared with oxytocin, resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of cesarean and a significant increase in the rate of vaginal delivery and Tachysystole risk. Also, oral misoprostol was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of cesarean and a significant increase in the risk of hypertonicity compared with oxytocin. However, oral misoprostol had no significant effect on vaginal delivery compared with oxytocin. For other outcomes including hyper-stimulation, perinatal death, NICU admission, and mean Apgar score among newborns, we found no significant difference between oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin. In total, vaginal/oral misoprostol might be a better method for labour induction compared with oxytocin. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023412325.

Perinatal and maternal outcomes according to timing of induction of labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes increases with gestational age, and although induction of labour may reduce these risks, the optimal timing of induction remains unknown. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis, to determine the gestational age at which induction should be offered. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase databases from inception to July 2022, to identify randomised trials comparing induction of labour at or beyond 37' weeks gestation with expectant management or delayed induction, and according to the gestational age at planned induction. We undertook random effects meta-analysis and pooled estimates as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. We included 44 trials (23,960 women and 22,191 offspring) from 1,839 citations in our meta-analysis. The odds of perinatal death (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.81; 26 studies, 20,154 offspring), stillbirth (0.40, 0.16 to 0.98; 25 studies, 19,412 offspring), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (0.86, 0.78 to 0.96; 23 studies, 18,846 offspring), and caesarean section (0.90, 0.83 to 0.98; 40 studies, 23,616 women) were reduced in the induction of labour group compared to expectant management or delayed induction. The odds of admission to neonatal intensive care unit (0.82, 0.70 to 0.96; 6 studies, 9,316 offspring) were lower with induction of labour at 41 weeks compared to induction at or after 42 weeks' gestation, and the odds of caesarean section were reduced with labour induction at 39 weeks' compared to induction at or after 40 weeks' (0.83, 0.74 to 0.93; 8 studies, 7,677 women). There were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes by method of induction of labour. Induction of labour compared to expectant management or delayed induction reduces the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, and the optimal timing may depend on the specific outcome of interest.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.   Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women (INDEX trial)

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of elective induction of labour (IOL) at 41 weeks and expectant management (EM) until 42 weeks.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare perspective alongside a randomised controlled trial (INDEX).

Setting

123 primary care midwifery practices and 45 obstetric departments of hospitals in the Netherlands.

Population

We studied 1801 low-risk women with late-term pregnancy, randomised to IOL at 41 weeks (N = 900) or EM until 42 weeks (N = 901).

Methods

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of the difference in costs and the difference in main perinatal outcomes. A Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC) was constructed to assess whether induction is cost-effective for a range of monetary values as thresholds. We performed subgroup analysis for parity.

Main outcome measures

Direct medical costs, composite adverse perinatal outcome (CAPO) (perinatal mortality, NICU admission, Apgar 5 min < 7, plexus brachialis injury and/or meconium aspiration syndrome) and composite severe adverse perinatal outcome (SAPO) (including Apgar 5 min < 4 instead of < 7).

Results

The average costs were €3858 in the induction group and €3723 in the expectant group (mean difference €135; 95 % CI -235 to 493). The ICERs of IOL compared to EM to prevent one additional CAPO and SAPO was €9436 and €14,994, respectively. The CEAC showed a 80 % chance of IOL being cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay of €22,000 for prevention of one CAPO and €50,000 for one SAPO. Subgroup analysis showed a willingness-to-pay to prevent one CAPO for nulliparous of €47,000 and for multiparous €190,000. To prevent one SAPO the willingness-to-pay is €62,000 for nulliparous and €970,000 for multiparous women.

Conclusions

Induction at 41 weeks has an 80 % chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of €22,000 for prevention of one CAPO and €50,000 for prevention of one SAPO. Subgroup analysis suggests that induction could be cost-effective for nulliparous women while it is unlikely cost-effective for multiparous women.Cost-effectiveness in other settings will depend on baseline characteristics of the population and health system organisation and funding.

Elective induction of labour and expectant management in late-term pregnancy: A prospective cohort study alongside the INDEX randomised controlled trial

Objective

To assess adverse perinatal outcomes and caesarean section of low-risk women receiving elective induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks according to their preferred and actual management strategy.

Design

Multicentre prospective cohort study alongside RCT.

Setting

90 midwifery practices and 12 hospitals in the Netherlands.

Population

3642 low-risk women with uncomplicated singleton late-term pregnancy.

Main outcome measures

Composite adverse outcome (perinatal death, Apgar score 5′ < 7, NICU admission, meconium aspiration syndrome), composite severe adverse perinatal outcome (all above with Apgar score 5′ < 4 instead of < 7) and caesarean section.

Results

From 2012–2016, 3642 women out of 6088 eligible women for the INDEX RCT, participated in the cohort study for observational data collection (induction of labour n = 372; expectant management n = 2174; unknown preference/management strategy n = 1096).

Adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 1.1 % (4/372) in the induction group versus 1.9 % (42/2174) in the expectant group (adjRR 0.56; 95 %CI: 0.17–1.79), with severe adverse perinatal outcome occurring in 0.3 % (1/372) versus 1.0 % (22/2174), respectively (adjRR 0.39; 95 % CI: 0.05–2.88). There were no stillbirths among all 3642 women; one neonatal death occurred in the unknown preference/management group. Caesarean section rates were 10.5 % (39/372) after induction and 8.9 % (193/2174) after expectant management (adjRR 1.32; 95 % CI: 0.95–1.84).

A higher incidence of adverse perinatal outcome was observed in nulliparous compared to multiparous women. Nulliparous 1.8 % (3/170) in the induction group versus 2.6 % (30/1134) in the expectant management group (adjRR 0.58; 95 % CI 0.14–2.41), multiparous 0.5 % (1/201) versus 1.1 % (11/1039) (adjRR 0.54; 95 % CI 0.07–24.19). One maternal death due to amniotic fluid embolism occurred after elective induction at 41 weeks + 6 days.

Conclusion

In this cohort study among low-risk women receiving the policy of their preference in late-term pregnancy, a non-significant difference was found between induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks in absolute risks of composite adverse (1.1 % versus 1.9 %) and severe adverse (0.3 % versus 1.0 %) perinatal outcome. The risks in this cohort study were lower than in the trial setting. There were no stillbirths among all 3642 women. Caesarean section rates were comparable.

•

No stillbirths in late-term pregnancy (IOL or EM) of 3642 women in INDEX-cohort.

•

Less adverse perinatal outcomes in INDEX-cohort than in trial with comparable risk difference.

•

More women approaching late-term pregnancy prefer EM, not elective induction.

Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various methods are used for cervical ripening during the induction of labor. Mechanical and pharmacological methods are commonly used for cervical ripening. A double-balloon catheter was specifically developed to ripen the cervix and induce labor; however, the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter in cervical ripening compared to other methods is unknown.

METHODS

We searched five databases and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Six interventions (double-balloon catheter, Foley catheter, oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, dinoprostone, and double-balloon catheter combined with oral misoprostol) were included in the search. The primary outcomes were cesarean delivery rate and time from intervention-to-birth. The secondary outcomes were as follows: Bishop score increment; achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 h; uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes; need for oxytocin augmentation; instrumental delivery; meconium staining; chorioamnionitis; postpartum hemorrhage; low Apgar score; neonatal intensive care unit admission; and arterial pH.

RESULTS

Forty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 11,482 pregnant women were identified. The cesarean delivery rates of the cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and vaginal misoprostol were significantly lower than cervical ripening with a Foley catheter (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23-0.96; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; and OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, respectively; all P < 0.05). The time from intervention-to-birth of vaginal misoprostol was significantly shorter than the other five cervical ripening methods. Vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol increased the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter. A double-balloon catheter with or without oral misoprostol had similar outcomes, including uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter.

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon catheter did not show superiority when compared with other single method in primary and secondary outcomes of labor induction. The combination of double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol was significantly reduced the rate of cesarean section compared to Foley catheter without increased risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, which was shown in oral or vaginal misoprostol.

Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: An observational study within the SWEdish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS)

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor is increasing. A common indication for induction of labor is late term and postterm pregnancy at 41 weeks or more. We aimed to evaluate if there are any differences regarding efficacy, safety, and women's childbirth experience between oral misoprostol and transvaginal balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with a low-risk singleton pregnancy and induction of labor at 41⁺⁰ to 42^{+0 to 1} weeks of gestation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this observational study, based on data from the Swedish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, a total of 1213 women with a low-risk singleton pregnancy at 41 to 42 weeks of gestation were induced with oral misoprostol (n = 744) or transvaginal balloon catheter (n = 469) at 15 Swedish delivery hospitals. The primary efficacy outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 h and primary safety outcomes were neonatal and maternal composite adverse outcomes. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery and mode of delivery. Women's childbirth experience was assessed with the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ 2.0) and visual analog scale. We present crude and adjusted mean differences and relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. Adjustment was performed for a propensity score based on delivery hospital and baseline characteristics including Bishop score.

RESULTS

Vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly lower in the misoprostol group compared with the balloon catheter group (46.5% [346/744] vs 62.7% [294/469]; adjusted RR 0.76 95% CI 0.640.89]). Primary neonatal and maternal safety outcomes did not differ between groups (neonatal composite 3.5% [36/744] vs 3.2% [15/469]; adjusted RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.31-1.89]; maternal composite 2.3% [17/744] vs 1.9% [9/469]; adjusted RR 1.70 [95% CI 0.58-4.97]). Adjusted mean time to vaginal delivery was increased by 3.8 h (95% CI 1.3-6.2 h) in the misoprostol group. Non-operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery rates did not differ. Women's childbirth experience was positive overall and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labor with oral misoprostol compared with a transvaginal balloon catheter was associated with a lower probability of vaginal delivery within 24 h and a longer time to vaginal delivery. However, primary safety outcomes, non-operative vaginal delivery, and women's childbirth experience were similar in both groups. Therefore, both methods can be recommended in women with low-risk postdate pregnancies.

Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The risk of perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity increases gradually after 41 weeks of pregnancy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will improve perinatal outcomes. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on this subject.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Individual participant data (IPD) were sought from eligible RCTs. Primary outcome was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Additional outcomes included neonatal admission, mode of delivery, perineal lacerations, and postpartum haemorrhage. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted for parity (nulliparous/multiparous), maternal age (<35/≥35 years), and body mass index (BMI) (<30/≥30). Aggregate data meta-analysis (MA) was performed to include data from RCTs for which IPD was not available. From 89 full-text articles, we identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5,161), and two contributed with IPD (n = 4,561). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding age, parity, BMI, and higher level of education. IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse perinatal outcome (0.4% [10/2,281] versus 1.0% [23/2,280]; relative risk [RR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] -57/10,000 [95% CI -106/10,000 to -8/10,000], I2 0%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 175 (95% CI 94 to 1,267). Perinatal deaths occurred in one (<0.1%) versus eight (0.4%) pregnancies (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.78], p-value 0.019, RD -31/10,000, [95% CI -56/10,000 to -5/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 326, [95% CI 177 to 2,014]) and admission to a neonatal care unit ≥4 days occurred in 1.1% (24/2,280) versus 1.9% (46/2,273), (RR 0.52 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.85], p-value 0.009, RD -97/10,000 [95% CI -169/10,000 to -26/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 103 [95% CI 59 to 385]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery (10.5% versus 10.7%; RR 0.98, [95% CI 0.83 to 1.16], p-value 0.81) nor in other important perinatal, delivery, and maternal outcomes. MA on aggregate data showed similar results. Prespecified subgroup analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01 for interaction) for parity, but not for maternal age or BMI. The risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.60], p-value 0.004, RD -127/10,000, [95% CI -204/10,000 to -50/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 79 [95% CI 49 to 201]) but not for multiparous women (0.6% [6/1,219] versus 0.3% [3/1,264]; RR 1.59 [95% CI 0.15 to 17.30], p-value 0.35, RD 27/10,000, [95% CI -29/10,000 to 84/10,000], I2 55%). A limitation of this IPD-MA was the risk of overestimation of the effect on perinatal mortality due to early stopping of the largest included trial for safety reasons after the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Furthermore, only two RCTs were eligible for the IPD-MA; thus, the possibility to assess severe adverse neonatal outcomes with few events was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with expectant management until 42 weeks without increasing the cesarean delivery rate. This benefit is shown only in nulliparous women, whereas for multiparous women, the incidence of mortality and morbidity was too low to demonstrate any effect. The magnitude of risk reduction of perinatal mortality remains uncertain. Women with pregnancies approaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020163174.

Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase as gestation continues beyond term (around 40 weeks' gestation). It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour indefinitely (or until a later gestational age, or until a maternal or fetal indication for induction of labour arises) on pregnancy outcomes for the infant and the mother.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We included pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Since risk factors at this stage of pregnancy would normally require intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications, as defined by trialists, were eligible. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 34 RCTs (reporting on over 21,000 women and infants) mostly conducted in high-income settings. The trials compared a policy to induce labour usually after 41 completed weeks of gestation (> 287 days) with waiting for labour to start and/or waiting for a period before inducing labour. The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.64; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence). There were four perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 25 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour, in order to prevent one perinatal death, was 544 (95% CI 441 to 1042). There were also fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence); two in the induction policy group and 16 in the expectant management group. For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were probably fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95; 31 trials, 21,030 women; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably little or no difference in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 22 trials, 18,584 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction may make little or difference to perineal trauma (severe perineal tear: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 5 trials; 11,589 women; low-certainty evidence). Induction probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, 9 trials; 12,609 women; moderate-certainty evidence), or breastfeeding at discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 trials, 7487 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of induction or expectant management on the length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.19 days, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.18; 7 trials; 4120 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 94%). Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; 17 trials, 17,826 infants; high-certainty evidence), and probably fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; 20 trials, 18,345 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction or expectant management may make little or no difference for neonatal encephalopathy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31; 2 trials, 8851 infants; low-certainty evidence, and probably makes little or no difference for neonatal trauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 5 trials, 13,106 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) for induction compared with expectant management. Neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials. In subgroup analyses, no differences were seen for timing of induction (< 40 versus 40-41 versus > 41 weeks' gestation), by parity (primiparous versus multiparous) or state of cervix for any of the main outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, operative vaginal birth, or perineal trauma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear reduction in perinatal death with a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks compared with expectant management, though absolute rates are small (0.4 versus 3 deaths per 1000). There were also lower caesarean rates without increasing rates of operative vaginal births and there were fewer NICU admissions with a policy of induction. Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had high- or moderate-certainty ratings. While existing trials have not yet reported on childhood neurodevelopment, this is an important area for future research. The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation needs further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Offering women tailored counselling may help them make an informed choice between induction of labour for pregnancies, particularly those continuing beyond 41 weeks - or waiting for labour to start and/or waiting before inducing labour.

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.

RESULTS

68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.

Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if induction of labour at 41 weeks improves perinatal and maternal outcomes in women with a low risk pregnancy compared with expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

DESIGN

Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

SETTING

14 hospitals in Sweden, 2016-18.

PARTICIPANTS

2760 women with a low risk uncomplicated singleton pregnancy randomised (1:1) by the Swedish Pregnancy Register. 1381 women were assigned to the induction group and 1379 were assigned to the expectant management group.

INTERVENTIONS

Induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite perinatal outcome including one or more of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes, pH less than 7.00 or metabolic acidosis (pH <7.05 and base deficit >12 mmol/L) in the umbilical artery, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, intracranial haemorrhage, convulsions, meconium aspiration syndrome, mechanical ventilation within 72 hours, or obstetric brachial plexus injury. Primary analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

The study was stopped early owing to a significantly higher rate of perinatal mortality in the expectant management group. The composite primary perinatal outcome did not differ between the groups: 2.4% (33/1381) in the induction group and 2.2% (31/1379) in the expectant management group (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.73; P=0.90). No perinatal deaths occurred in the induction group but six (five stillbirths and one early neonatal death) occurred in the expectant management group (P=0.03). The proportion of caesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, or any major maternal morbidity did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study comparing induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management and induction at 42 weeks does not show any significant difference in the primary composite adverse perinatal outcome. However, a reduction of the secondary outcome perinatal mortality is observed without increasing adverse maternal outcomes. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously, induction of labour ought to be offered to women no later than at 41 weeks and could be one (of few) interventions that reduces the rate of stillbirths.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26113652.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (average RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; I² = 45%; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

No. 214-Guidelines for the Management of Pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 Weeks

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks.

OUTCOMES

Reduction of perinatal mortality associated with Caesarean section at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks of pregnancy.

EVIDENCE

The Medline database, the Cochrane Library, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, were searched for English language articles published between 1966 and March 2007, using the following key words: prolonged pregnancy, post-term pregnancy, and postdates pregnancy. The quality of evidence was evaluated and recommendations were made according to guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

A large, recent multicenter trial found that induction of labor at 39 weeks for low-risk nulliparous women was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery or adverse neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the cost-effectiveness and outcomes associated with induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness model using TreeAge software was designed to compare outcomes in women who were induced at 39 weeks vs expectantly managed. We used a theoretical cohort of 1.6 million women, the approximate number of nulliparous term births in the United States annually that are considered low risk. Outcomes included mode of delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, macrosomia, stillbirth, permanent brachial plexus injury, and neonatal death, in addition to cost and quality-adjusted life years for both the woman and neonate. Model inputs were derived from the literature, and a cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

In our theoretical cohort of 1.6 million women, induction of labor resulted in 54,498 fewer cesarean deliveries and 79,152 fewer cases of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. We also found that induction of labor resulted in 795 fewer cases of stillbirth and 11 fewer neonatal deaths, despite 86 additional cases of brachial plexus injury. Induction of labor resulted in increased costs but increased quality-adjusted life years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $87,691.91 per quality-adjusted life year. In sensitivity analysis, if the cost of induction of labor was increased by $180, elective induction would no longer be cost effective. Similarly, we found that if the rate of cesarean delivery was the same in both strategies, elective induction of labor at 39 weeks would not be a cost-effective strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo simulation, we found that induction of labor was cost effective only 65% of the time.

CONCLUSION

In our theoretical cohort, induction of labor in nulliparous term women at 39 weeks of gestation resulted in improved outcomes but increased costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was marginally cost effective but would lead to an additional 2 billion dollars of healthcare costs. Whether individual clinicians and healthcare systems offer routine induction of labor at 39 weeks will need to depend on local capacity, careful evaluation and allocation of healthcare resources, and patient preferences. KEY WORDS: cesarean delivery, decision analysis, healthcare resources, induction of labor, low-risk nulliparous women, mode of delivery, obstetric outcomes.

Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women.

DESIGN

Open label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

123 primary care midwifery practices and 45 hospitals (secondary care) in the Netherlands, 2012-16.

PARTICIPANTS

1801 low risk women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: randomised to induction (n=900) or to expectant management until 42 weeks (n=901).

INTERVENTIONS

Induction at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks with induction if necessary.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity (Apgar score <7 at five minutes, arterial pH <7.05, meconium aspiration syndrome, plexus brachialis injury, intracranial haemorrhage, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Secondary outcomes included maternal outcomes and mode of delivery. The null hypothesis that expectant management is inferior to induction was tested with a non-inferiority margin of 2%.

RESULTS

Median gestational age at delivery was 41 weeks+0 days (interquartile range 41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+1 day) for the induction group and 41 weeks+2 days (41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+5 days) for the expectant management group. The primary outcome was analysed for both the intention-to-treat population and the per protocol population. In the induction group, 15/900 (1.7%) women had an adverse perinatal outcome versus 28/901 (3.1%) in the expectant management group (absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval -2.9% to 0.0%, P=0.22 for non-inferiority). 11 (1.2%) infants in the induction group and 23 (2.6%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <7 at five minutes (relative risk (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.98). No infants in the induction group and three (0.3%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <4 at five minutes. One fetal death (0.1%) occurred in the induction group and two (0.2%) in the expectant management group. No neonatal deaths occurred. 3 (0.3%) neonates in the induction group versus 8 (0.9%) in the expectant management group were admitted to an NICU (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.41). No significant difference was found in composite adverse maternal outcomes (induction n=122 (13.6%) v expectant management n=102 (11.3%)) or in caesarean section rate (both groups n=97 (10.8%)).

CONCLUSIONS

This study could not show non-inferiority of expectant management compared with induction of labour in women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks; instead a significant difference of 1.4% was found for risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in favour of induction, although the chances of a good perinatal outcome were high with both strategies and the incidence of perinatal mortality, Apgar score <4 at five minutes, and NICU admission low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR3431.

Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to identify, assess and synthesize the best available evidence on the effects of induction prior to post-term on the mother and fetus. Maternal and fetal outcomes after routine labor induction in low-risk pregnancies at 41+0 to 41+6 gestational weeks (prior to post-term) were compared to routine labor induction at 42+0 to 42+6 gestational weeks (post-term).

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor when a pregnancy exceeds 14 days past the estimated due date has long been used as an intervention to prevent adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Over the last decade, clinical procedures have changed in many countries towards earlier induction. A shift towards earlier inductions may lead to 15-20% more inductions. Given the fact that induction as an intervention can cause harm to both mother and child, it is essential to ensure that the benefits of the change in clinical practice outweigh the harms.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included studies with participants with expected low-risk deliveries, where both fetus and mother were considered healthy at inclusion and with no known risks besides the potential risk of the ongoing pregnancy. Included studies evaluated induction at 41+1-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+1-6 gestational weeks. Randomized control trials (n = 2), quasi-experimental trials (n = 2), and cohort studies (n = 3) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were cesarean section, instrumental vaginal delivery, low Apgar score (≤ 7/5 min.), and low pH (< 7.10). Secondary outcomes included additional indicators of fetal or maternal wellbeing related to prolonged pregnancy or induction.

METHODS

The following information sources were searched for published and unpublished studies: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Swemed+, POPLINE; Cochrane, TRIP; Current Controlled Trials; Web of Science, and, for gray literature: MedNar; Google Scholar, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, and guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, according to the published protocol. In addition, OpenGrey and guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, World Health Organization, and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada were sought. Included papers were assessed by all three reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). The standardized data extraction tool from JBI SUMARI was used. Data were pooled in a statistical meta-analysis model using RevMan 5, when the criteria for meta-analysis were met. Non-pooled results were presented separately.

RESULTS

Induction at 41+0-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+0-6 gestational weeks was found to be associated with an increased risk of overall cesarean section (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.14), cesarean section due to failure to progress (RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.01), chorioamnionitis (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.21), labor dystocia (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37), precipitate labor (RR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.45-5.2), uterine rupture (RR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.54-2.52), pH < 7.10 (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.48-2.43), and a decreased risk of oligohydramnios (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.67) and meconium stained amniotic fluid (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91). Data lacked statistical power to draw conclusions on perinatal death. No differences were seen for postpartum hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, meconium aspiration, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. A policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labor until 42+0-6 gestational weeks showed, that approximately 70% went into spontaneous labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction prior to post-term was associated with few beneficial outcomes and several adverse outcomes. This draws attention to possible iatrogenic effects affecting large numbers of low-risk women in contemporary maternity care. According to the World Health Organization, expected benefits from a medical intervention must outweigh potential harms. Hence, our results do not support the widespread use of routine induction prior to post-term (41+0-6 gestational weeks).

Timing induction of labour at 41 or 42 weeks? A closer look at time frames of comparison: A review

BACKGROUND

Postterm pregnancy is associated with increased perinatal risk. The WHO defines postterm pregnancy as a pregnancy at or beyond 42 weeks + 0 days, though currently labour is induced at 41 weeks in many settings. Guidelines on timing of labour induction are frequently based on the Cochrane systematic review 'Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term' in which is concluded that a policy of induction of labour is associated with fewer adverse perinatal outcome and fewer Caesarean sections. However, the included trials differed regarding the timing of induction, ranging from 39 to beyond 42 weeks while the upper limit of expectant management exceeded a gestational age of 42 weeks in most studies.

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate perinatal mortality, meconium aspiration syndrome and Caesarean section rate of trials comparing a policy of elective induction of labour and expectant management according to timeframes of comparison with a focus on studies within the 41-42 weeks' timeframe.

DESIGN

Review.

METHODS

The systematic review of Cochrane was used as a starting point for assessing relevant trials and a search was performed for additional recent trials. We evaluated incidence and causes of perinatal mortality, incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome and Caesarean section according to three time frames of comparison. We pooled estimates and heterogeneity was tested. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantative Studies (EPHPP).

FINDINGS

In total 22 trials were included which had all different timeframes of comparison. Only one trial compared induction of labour at 41 weeks + 0-2 days with induction at 42 weeks + 0 days, three other trials compared induction of labour at 41 weeks + 0-6 days with induction at 42 weeks + 0-6 days. In 18 trials the comparison was outside the 41-42 weeks' timeframe: in six trials induction was planned ≤ 40 weeks and in another 12 trials expectant management was beyond 43 weeks. The incidence of potentially gestational age associated perinatal mortality between 41 and 42 weeks was 0/2.444 [0%] (induction) versus 4/2.452 [0.16%] (expectant management), NNT 613; 95%CI 613 - infinite. Two trials in the timeframe of comparison 41-42 weeks were available for evaluation of meconium aspiration syndrome (6/554 (induction) versus 14/554 (expectant management), RR 0.44; 95%CI 0.17-1.16). Three trials in the timeframe 41-42 weeks could be evaluated for Caesarean section, with different inclusion criteria regarding Bishop score. There was no significant difference in the Caesarean section rate 93/629 (induction) versus 106/629 (expectant management), RR 0.88; 95%CI 0.68-1.13.

CONCLUSION

Evidence is lacking for the recommendation to induce labour at 41 weeks instead of 42 weeks for the improvement of perinatal outcome. More studies comparing both timeframes with an adequate sample size are needed to establish the optimal timing of induction of labour in late-term pregnancies.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

Beyond term, the risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase. It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour or until an indication for birth induction of labour is identified) on pregnancy outcomes for infant and mother.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 October 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond term, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.We included pregnant women at or beyond term. Since a risk factor at this stage of pregnancy would normally require an intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications were eligible. We accepted the trialists' definition of 'low risk'. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 30 RCTs (reporting on 12,479 women). The trials took place in Norway, China, Thailand, the USA, Austria, Turkey, Canada, UK, India, Tunisia, Finland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. They were generally at a moderate risk of bias.Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.78; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence). There were two perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 16 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat to for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour in order to prevent one perinatal death was 426 (95% CI 338 to 1337). There were fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.96; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence); there was one stillbirth in the induction policy arm and 10 in the expectant management group.For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99; 27 trials, 11,738 women; moderate-quality evidence); and a corresponding marginal increase in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.16; 18 trials, 9281 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for perineal trauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.83; 4 trials; 3028 women; low-quality evidence), postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.09 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30, 5 trials; 3315 women; low-quality evidence), or length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.34 days, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.33; 5 trials; 1146 women; Tau² = 0.49; I² 95%; very low-quality evidence).Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 13 trials, 8531 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 16 trials, 9047 infants; moderate-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference for neonatal trauma (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.05; 3 trials, 4255 infants; low-quality evidence), for induction compared with expectant management.Neonatal encephalopathy, neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up, breastfeeding at discharge and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials.In subgroup analyses, no clear differences between timing of induction (< 41 weeks versus ≥ 41 weeks' gestation) or by state of cervix were seen for perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, or perineal trauma. However, operative vaginal birth was more common in the inductions at < 41 weeks' gestation subgroup compared with inductions at later gestational ages. The majority of trials (about 75% of participants) adopted a policy of induction at ≥ 41 weeks (> 287 days) gestation for the intervention arm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections; but more operative vaginal births. NICU admissions were lower and fewer babies had low Apgar scores with induction. No important differences were seen for most of the other maternal and infant outcomes.Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had a rating of moderate or low-quality evidence - with downgrading decisions generally due to study limitations such as lack of blinding (a condition inherent in comparisons between a policy of acting and of waiting), or imprecise effect estimates. One outcome (length of maternal stay) was downgraded further to very low-quality evidence due to inconsistency.Although the absolute risk of perinatal death is small, it may be helpful to offer women appropriate counselling to help choose between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without (or later) induction).The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond term warrants further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Individual participant meta-analysis is likely to help elucidate the role of factors, such as parity, in influencing outcomes of induction compared with expectant management.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Risk of maternal, fetal and neonatal complications associated with the use of the transcervical balloon catheter in induction of labour: A systematic review

Induction of labour is one of the most frequently applied obstetrical interventions globally. Many studies have compared the use of balloon catheters with pharmacological agents. Although the safety of the balloon catheter is often mentioned, little has been written about the total spectrum of maternal and fetal morbidity associated with induction of labour using a balloon catheter. We evaluated the safety of labour induction with a transcervical balloon catheter by conducting a literature review with pooled risk assessments of the maternal, fetal and neonatal morbidity. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL as well as the Cochrane database using the Keywords 'induction of labour', 'cervical ripening', 'transcervical balloon', 'balloon catheter' and 'Foley balloon'. We did not use language or date restrictions. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials as well as observational studies that contained original data on occurrence of maternal, fetal or neonatal morbidity during induction of labour with the balloon catheter were included. Studies were excluded if the balloon catheter was used concurrently with oxytocin and concurrently or consecutively with misoprostol, dinoprostone or extra-amniotic saline infusion. Study selection and quality assessment was performed by two authors independently using a standardized critical appraisal instrument. Outcomes were reported as weighted mean rates. We detected 84 articles reporting on 13,791 women. The overall risk of developing intrapartum maternal infection was 11.3% (912 of 8079 women), 3.3% (151 of 4538 women) for postpartum maternal infection and 4.6% (203 of 4460 women) for neonatal infection. Uterine hypercontractility occurred in 2.7% (148 of 5439) of the women. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section occurred in 1.9% of women (26 of 1373), while other major maternal complications had an occurrence rate of <1%. The risk for developing minor maternal complications was <2%. The risk of developing a non-reassuring fetal heart rate was 10.8% (793 of 7336 women), 10.1% (507 of 5008 women) for fetal distress and 14.0% (460 of 3295 women) for meconium stained liquor. Neonatal death occurred in 0.29% (6 of 2058) of the deliveries and NICU admission in 7.2% (650 of 9065 deliveries). This review shows that labour induction with a balloon catheter is a safe intervention, with intrapartum maternal infection being the only reasonable risk above 10%.

Induction of Labor Using a Foley Catheter or Misoprostol: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Induction of labor is a widely used obstetric intervention, occurring in one in four pregnancies. When the cervix is unfavorable, still many different induction methods are used.

Objective

We compared Foley catheter alone to different misoprostol dosages and administration routes, and the combination of Foley catheter with misoprostol.

Evidence acquisition

We reviewed the literature on the best induction method regarding their safety and effectiveness, using the outcome measures hyperstimulation, fetal distress, neonatal morbidity and mortality as well as cesarean delivery, vaginal instrumental delivery, and maternal morbidity. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 1, 1980 to February 12, 2016. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, comparing Foley catheter with or without misoprostol to misoprostol alone (both vaginal and oral) for induction of labor (5,015 women).

Results

Most included studies were underpowered to detect differences in safety outcomes, as the majority are powered for time to delivery or cesarean delivery. Meta-analysis of these studies does not allow assessment of the safety profile of Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) with sufficient power. For the safety outcomes of the total group of Foley catheter versus misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) (17 studies, 4,234 women) we found that Foley catheter results in less hyperstimulation compared to misoprostol (2% versus 4%; risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.79) and fewer cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate, 5% vs 7%; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95; while there were no statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 26% versus 22% (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34). There were fewer vaginal instrumental deliveries with a Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (10% vs 14%; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91). Foley catheter with misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone (any dose, any administration route) (7 studies, 1,073 women) resulted in less hyperstimulation than misoprostol alone (17% vs 23%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97). Cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate were comparable (7% vs 9%; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51-1.22). Neonatal outcomes were infrequently reported. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 34% versus 34% (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19).

Conclusion

In women with an unripe cervix at term, Foley catheter seems to have a better safety profile than misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) for induction of labor. Larger studies are needed to investigate the safety profile of a Foley catheter compared to separate dosing and administration regimens of misoprostol.

Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical ripening of an unfavorable cervix can be achieved by placement of a transcervical catheter. Advantages of this method include both lower cost and lower risk of tachysystole than other methods. Despite widespread use with varying degrees of applied tension, an unanswered question is whether there is an advantage to placing the transcervical catheter to tension compared with placement without tension.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether tension placed on a transcervical balloon catheter that is inserted for cervical ripening results in a faster time to delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial; 140 women who underwent cervical ripening (Bishop score, ≤6) were assigned randomly to a balloon catheter with applied tension vs no tension. Tension was created when the catheter was taped to the patient's thigh and tension was reapplied in 30-minute increments. There were 67 patients in the tension group and 73 patients in the no tension group. Low-dose oxytocin (maximum, 6 mU/min) was administered after catheter placement. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. A secondary outcome was time from insertion to catheter expulsion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were distributed normally. Survival curves that used lifetables were constructed from time of catheter insertion to delivery and from time of catheter insertion to catheter expulsion and were compared with the use of the Wilcoxon (Gehan) Breslow statistic. A probability value of <.05 was set to denote statistical significance.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The median time from catheter insertion to delivery was not significantly different between the tension group and the no tension group (16.2 vs 16.9 hours; P=.814). The median time from catheter insertion to expulsion, however, was significantly less in the tension group vs the no tension group (2.6 vs 4.6 hours; P<.001), respectively. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different between the tension and no tension groups (41/52 [79%] vs 37/52 [71%]; P=.365) nor were there significant differences in cesarean delivery rates between the tension and no tension groups (17/67 [25%] vs 27/73 [37%]; P=.139).

CONCLUSION

Application of tension did not result in faster delivery times but did result in faster times to catheter expulsion.

When should pregnancies that extended beyond term be induced?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;30:219-223. [PMID: 27002548 DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2016.1169520]

OBJECTIVE

To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with a policy for induction of labor at ≥ 41 versus at ≥42 weeks'.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of a 2 years' period before and after policy change from induction of labor at ≥ 42 gestational weeks' versus ≥41 gestational weeks.

RESULTS

During the 41-policy period (N = 968), the induction rate was higher, 60% versus 40% (p < 0.0001) while the cesarean delivery (CD) rate was lower, 15% versus 19.4% (p = 0.0135). Moreover, among women that were induced, the rate of CD was lower during the 41-policy period, 19% versus 27% (p = 0.0067). No significant differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes were noted. There was one case of intrauterine fetal death at 41 + 4 weeks during the 42-policy period.

CONCLUSION

As a policy for induction of labor at ≥ 41 reduces the rate of CD without any adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes, such a policy seems to be superior to a policy for induction at ≥ 42 weeks.

Measures of success: Prediction of successful labor induction

Ideally, all pregnant women would enter labor spontaneously at the safest time to yield the best health outcomes for both themselves and their newborns. Unfortunately, this does not always happen and leaves obstetric providers weighing the maternal and fetal risks of continued expectant management versus labor induction. Several elements have been reported to affect the success rate of an induction, including the Bishop score, maternal parity, body mass index (BMI), age, medical comorbidities, fetal gestational age, and estimated weight, as well as the hospital site and provider practice. Recent data suggest that the decision to induce or continue expectant management in anticipation of labor is an important variable in determining whether a woman has a safe and successful delivery.

To what extent do English language RCT meta-analysis justify induction of low-risk pregnancy for postdates?

Induction for postdates in low-risk pregnancy was adopted with the intent to prevent post-term antepartum stillbirth, the most common cause of perinatal death, based on evidence derived in English language RCT meta-analysis. Systematic English language meta-analysis of RCT studies of induction for postdates in low-risk pregnancy report perinatal mortality rates (PMRs) for low-risk pregnancy ranging from 2.6 to 7.6/1000, based on 2-5 stillbirths among 13-16 perinatal deaths, including diabetic pregnancies as well as other high-risk pregnancies irrelevant to the study question. Baseline PMR≥41 weeks in large international databases for high and low risk pregnancies before routine induction 1998-2003 range from 0.9 to 2.4/1000 or about 300% lower than the reported PMR rates for postdate pregnancies in the expectant management arm in English language RCT meta-analysis. Deaths in the first week far exceed stillbirths in the RCT meta-analysis, the opposite of what is expected. These 2 implausible results bring into question the evidence used to justify induction for postdates≥41 weeks.

A randomized controlled trial on early induction compared to expectant management of nulliparous women with prolonged latent phases

OBJECTIVE

To compare early induction and expectant management regarding delivery outcomes and the experience of delivery in nulliparous women with prolonged latent phases.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

One delivery unit in a Swedish hospital.

POPULATION

Nulliparous women at term experiencing continuous contractions impeding rest (women's report) and exceeding 18 h, a cervical dilation of less than 4 cm, intact membranes and with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation.

METHODS

The women were randomly allocated to either early induction (n = 65) or expectant management (n = 64). All participants received medication for therapeutic rest. The early induction group was induced five hours after medication, and the expectant group awaited spontaneous onset of labor. The Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was filled in after delivery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included birth experience, duration of labor, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

The cesarean section rate was 15 of 65 (23.1%) in the early induction group and 24 of 64 (37.5%) in the expectant group (p = 0.076, OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.93-4.31). No significant differences were shown regarding delivery, neonatal outcomes or birth experience.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were shown between the two groups in the rate of cesarean sections or the experience of delivery. According to the actual results, the power to detect a difference was only 45%. The cesarean section rate was high in both groups, regardless of intervention.

Timing of delivery in women with diabetes in pregnancy

The incidence of both gestational and pre-gestational diabetes is increasing worldwide. The main cause of this increase is likely the concomitant increase in the incidence of global obesity, but in the case of gestational diabetes, changes in the diagnostic criteria are also a contributing factor. The adverse outcomes associated with pre-gestational diabetes are well known and have led clinicians to implement various strategies that include increased fetal surveillance and induction of labour at various gestational ages. In many cases these same strategies have been applied in clinical practice also to women with gestational diabetes despite there being differences in the type and magnitude of perinatal complications associated with this diagnosis. Despite the widespread application of these clinical practices, there is a paucity of quality data in the medical literature to guide the clinician in choosing a strategy for fetal surveillance and timing of delivery in both gestational diabetes and pre-gestational diabetes pregnancies. In the following review, we will discuss the rationale and consequences of planned delivery in gestational diabetes and pre-gestational diabetes, the evidence supporting different strategies for delivery and finally highlight future targets for research in this area.

Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes

BACKGROUND

Recent literature on the effect of induction of labour (compared with expectant management) has provided conflicting results. Reviews of observational studies generally report an increase in the rate of caesarean section, whereas reviews of post-dates and term prelabour rupture of membrane (PROM trials suggest either no difference or a reduction in risk.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate with a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) whether or not the induction of labour increases the risk of caesarean section in women with intact membranes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Literature search using electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing a policy of induction of labour with expectant management in women with intact membranes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A total of 37 trials were identified and reviewed. Quantitative analyses with fixed- and random-effects models were performed with revman 5.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 37 RCTs, 27 were trials of uncomplicated pregnancies at 37-42 weeks of gestation. The remaining ten evaluated induction versus expectant management in pregnancies with suspected macrosomia (two), diabetes in pregnancy (one), oligohydramnios (one), twins (two), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) (two), mild pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) (one), and women with a high-risk score for caesarean section (one). Meta-analysis of 31 trials determined that a policy of induction was associated with a reduction in the risk of caesarean section compared with expectant management (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.92).

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour in women with intact membranes reduces the risk of caesarean section. Review of the trials suggests that this effect may arise from non-treatment effects, and that additional trials are needed.

Induction of labor and risk of postpartum hemorrhage in low risk parturients

Objective

Labor induction is an increasingly common procedure, even among women at low risk, although evidence to assess its risks remains sparse. Our objective was to assess the association between induction of labor and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in low-risk parturients, globally and according to its indications and methods.

Method

Population-based case-control study of low-risk women who gave birth in 106 French maternity units between December 2004 and November 2006, including 4450 women with PPH, 1125 of them severe, and 1744 controls. Indications for labor induction were standard or non-standard, according to national guidelines. Induction methods were oxytocin or prostaglandins. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to test the independent association between induction and PPH, quantified as odds ratios.

Results

After adjustment for all potential confounders, labor induction was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPH (adjusted odds ratio, AOR1.22, 95%CI 1.04–1.42). This excess risk was found for induction with both oxytocin (AOR 1.52, 95%CI 1.19–1.93 for all and 1.57, 95%CI 1.11–2.20 for severe PPH) and prostaglandins (AOR 1.21, 95%CI 0.97–1.51 for all and 1.42, 95%CI 1.04–1.94 for severe PPH). Standard indicated induction was significantly associated with PPH (AOR1.28, 95%CI 1.06–1.55) while no significant association was found for non-standard indicated inductions.

Conclusion

Even in low risk women, induction of labor, regardless of the method used, is associated with a higher risk of PPH than spontaneous labor. However, there was no excess risk of PPH in women who underwent induction of labor for non-standard indications. This raises the hypothesis that the higher risk of PPH associated with labor induction may be limited to unfavorable obstetrical situations.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

As a pregnancy continues beyond term the risks of babies dying inside the womb or in the immediate newborn period increase. Whether a policy of labour induction at a predetermined gestational age can reduce this increased risk is the subject of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of a policy of labour induction at term or post-term compared with awaiting spontaneous labour or later induction of labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials conducted in women at or beyond term. The eligible trials were those comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour. Cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials are not included. Quasi-random allocation schemes such as alternation, case record numbers or open random-number lists were not eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Outcomes are analysed in two main categories: gestational age and cervix status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials reporting on 9383 women. The trials were generally at moderate risk of bias.Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths: risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.88; 17 trials, 7407 women. There was one perinatal death in the labour induction policy group compared with 13 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) with induction of labour in order to prevent one perinatal death was 410 (95% CI 322 to 1492).For the primary outcome of perinatal death and most other outcomes, no differences between timing of induction subgroups were seen; the majority of trials adopted a policy of induction at 41 completed weeks (287 days) or more.Fewer babies in the labour induction group had meconium aspiration syndrome (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73; eight trials, 2371 infants) compared with a policy of expectant management. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission for induction compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; 10 trials, 6161 infants). For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were significantly fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management in 21 trials of 8749 women (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections. Some infant morbidities such as meconium aspiration syndrome were also reduced with a policy of post-term labour induction although no significant differences in the rate of NICU admission were seen.However, the absolute risk of perinatal death is small. Women should be appropriately counselled in order to make an informed choice between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without induction (or delayed induction).

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods, may include simplicity of preservation, lower cost and reduction of the side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical methods for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment, prostaglandins (vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), misoprostol) and oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2011) and bibliographies of relevant papers. We updated this search on 16 January 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour. A comparison with amniotomy will be added, should this comparison be made in future trials.Different types of intervention have been considered as mechanical methods: (1) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (2) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space, with or without traction; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluidsin the extra-amniotic spaceIn addition, we made other comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter and laminaria tents) compared with any prostaglandins or with oxytocin; (2) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we have included a further 27 studies. The review includes 71 randomised controlled trials (total of 9722 women), ranging from 39 to 588 women per study. Most studies reported on caesarean section, all other outcomes are based on substantially fewer women. Four additional studies are ongoing.Mechanical methods versus no treatment: one study (48 woman) reported on women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.26). The risk of caesarean section was similar between groups (six studies; 416 women, RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.30). There were no cases of severe neonatal and maternal morbidity.Mechanical methods versus vaginal PGE2 (17 studies;1894 woman): The proportion of women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different (three studies; 586 women RR 1.72; 95% CI 0.90 to 3.27); however, for the subgroup of multiparous women the risk of not achieving delivery within 24 hours was higher (one study; 147 women RR 4.38, 95% CI 1.74 to 10.98), with no increase in caesarean sections (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62-2.29). Compared with intracervical PGE2 (14 studies;1784 women and misoprostol there was no significant difference in the proportion of women not achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours.Mechanical methods reduced the risk of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes when compared with vaginal prostaglandins: vaginal PGE2 (eight studies; 1203 women, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and misoprostol (3% versus 9%) (nine studies; 1615 women, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.54). Risk of caesarean section between mechanical methods and prostaglandins was comparable. Serious neonatal and maternal morbidity were infrequently reported and did not differ between the groups.Mechanical methods compared with induction with oxytocin (reduced the risk of caesarean section (five studies; 398 women, RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90). The likelihood of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not reported. Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was reported in one study (200 participants), and did not differ. There were no reported cases of severe maternal or neonatal morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour using mechanical methods results in similar caesarean section rates as prostaglandins, for a lower risk of hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods do not increase the overall number of women not delivered within 24 hours, however the proportion of multiparous women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was higher when compared with vaginal PGE2. Compared with oxytocin, mechanical methods reduce the risk of caesarean section.

Elective induction for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

An important determinant of pregnancy outcome is the timely onset of labor and birth. Prolonged gestation complicates 5% to 10% of all pregnancies and confers increased risk to both the fetus and mother. The purpose of this review was to study the possible impact of induction of labour (IOL) for post-term pregnancies compared to expectant management on stillbirths.

Methods

A systematic review of the published studies including randomized controlled trials, quasi- randomized trials and observational studies was conducted. Search engines used were PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the WHO regional databases and hand search of bibliographies. A standardized data abstraction sheet was used. Recommendations have been made for input to the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) model by following standardized guidelines developed by the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG).

Results

A total of 25 studies were included in this review. Meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests that a policy of elective IOL for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks is associated with significantly fewer perinatal deaths (RR=0.31; 95% CI: 0.11-0.88) compared to expectant management, but no significant difference in the incidence of stillbirth (RR= 0.29; 95% CI: 0.06-1.38) was noted. The included trials evaluating this intervention were small, with few events in the intervention and control group. There was significant decrease in incidence of neonatal morbidity from meconium aspiration (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79) and macrosomia (RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.54 – 0.98). Using CHERG rules, we recommended 69% reduction as a point estimate for the risk of stillbirth with IOL for prolonged gestation (> 41 weeks).

Conclusions

Induction of labour appears to be an effective way of reducing perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with post-term pregnancies. It should be offered to women with post-term pregnancies after discussing the benefits and risks of induction of labor.

Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are a number of agents used for cervical ripening prior to the induction of labour. Two commonly used agents are intravaginal misoprostol and a transcervical Foley catheter.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence comparing misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter placement for induction of labour, and perform a meta-analysis comparing these two induction agents.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted database searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library Database, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Bibliographies of all relevant articles were reviewed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective, randomised trials comparing the use of intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter for the purpose of cervical ripening and induction of labour were included. We excluded studies in which the patients in these two intervention groups also received other induction agents concurrently, such as oral misoprostol, oxytocin, or other prostaglandins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes selected were time to delivery, and the rates of caesarean section, uterine tachysystole, and chorioamnionitis. Random-effects generalised linear models with a poisson distribution and log link function were used to compare the two induction agents across the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (1603 patients) were identified as eligible to be included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the mean time to delivery (mean difference 1.08 ± 2.19 hours shorter for misoprostol, P = 0.2348), the rate of caesarean delivery (RR 0.991; 95% CI 0.768, 1.278), or in the rate of chorioamnionitis (RR 1.130; 95% CI 0.611, 2.089) between women who received misoprostol compared with transcervical Foley catheter. Patients who received misoprostol had significantly higher rates of tachysystole compared with women who received a transcervical Foley catheter (RR 2.844; 95% CI 1.392, 5.812).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter have similar effectiveness as induction agents. Transcervical Foley catheter is associated with a lower incidence of tachysystole.

Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis

We performed a metaanalysis of publications comparing the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening and labor induction by Foley catheter balloon (FCB) vs locally applied prostaglandins (LAPG) in the third trimester of pregnancy. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (1966-2008; 3532 participants) were selected from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL searches. There was no significant difference between FCB and LAPG in cesarean delivery rates. LAPG had a significantly increased risk of excessive uterine activity (P = .001). FCB had a significantly higher risk of oxytocin induction/augmentation during labor (P = .0002). Cervical prostaglandin-E2 was less effective (P = .04), and vaginal prostaglandin-E1 bore a significantly higher risk of excessive uterine activity (P < .0001) and meconium staining (P = .04). We concluded that FCB and LAPG result in similar cesarean delivery rates, that FCB bears a higher risk of oxytocin use for labor induction and/or augmentation, and that LAPG carries a higher risk of contraction abnormalities.

Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol (Cytotec, Searle) is a prostaglandin E1 analogue widely used for off-label indications such as induction of abortion and of labour. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of vaginal misoprostol for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008) and bibliographies of relevant papers. We updated this search on 30 April 2010 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing vaginal misoprostol used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We developed a strategy to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction.We used fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis for combining dichotomous data.If we identified substantial heterogeneity (I² greater than 50%), we used a random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 121 trials. The risk of bias must be kept in mind as only 13 trials were double blind.Compared to placebo, misoprostol was associated with reduced failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (average relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.71). Uterine hyperstimulation, without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, was increased (RR 3.52 95% CI 1.78 to 6.99).Compared with vaginal prostaglandin E2, intracervical prostaglandin E2 and oxytocin, vaginal misoprostol was associated with less epidural analgesia use, fewer failures to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours and more uterine hyperstimulation. Compared with vaginal or intracervical prostaglandin E2, oxytocin augmentation was less common with misoprostol and meconium-stained liquor more common.Lower doses of misoprostol compared to higher doses were associated with more need for oxytocin augmentation and less uterine hyperstimulation, with and without FHR changes.We found no information on women's views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal misoprostol in doses above 25 mcg four-hourly was more effective than conventional methods of labour induction, but with more uterine hyperstimulation. Lower doses were similar to conventional methods in effectiveness and risks. The authors request information on cases of uterine rupture known to readers. The vaginal route should not be researched further as another Cochrane review has shown that the oral route of administration is preferable to the vaginal route. Professional and governmental bodies should agree guidelines for the use of misoprostol, based on the best available evidence and local circumstances.

Guidelines for the management of postterm pregnancy

A pregnancy reaching 42 completed weeks (294 days) is defined as postterm (PT). The use of ultrasound in early pregnancy for precise dating significantly reduces the number of PT pregnancies compared to dating based on the last menstrual period. Although the fetal, maternal and neonatal risks increase beyond 41 weeks, there is no conclusive evidence that prolongation of pregnancy, per se, is the major risk factor. Other specific risk factors for adverse outcomes have been identified, the most important of which are restricted fetal growth and fetal malformations. In order to prevent PT and associated complications routine induction before 42 weeks has been proposed. There is no conclusive evidence that this policy improves fetal, maternal and neonatal outcomes as compared to expectant management. It is also unclear if the rate of cesarean sections is different between the two management strategies. After careful identification and exclusion of specific risks, it would seem appropriate to let women make an informed decision about which management they wish to undertake. There is consensus that the number of inductions necessary to possibly avoid one stillbirth is very high. If induction is preferred, procedures for cervical ripening should be used, especially in nulliparous women. Close intrapartum fetal surveillance should be offered, irrespective of whether labor was induced or not.

Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks.

OUTCOMES

Reduction of perinatal mortality associated with Caesarean section at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks of pregnancy.

EVIDENCE

The Medline database, the Cochrane Library, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, were searched for English language articles published between 1966 and March 2007, using the following key words: prolonged pregnancy, post-term pregnancy, and postdates pregnancy. The quality of evidence was evaluated and recommendations were made according to guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations 1. First trimester ultrasound should be offered, ideally between 11 and 14 weeks, to all women, as it is a more accurate assessment of gestational age than last menstrual period with fewer pregnancies prolonged past 41+0 weeks. (I-A) 2. If there is a difference of greater than 5 days between gestational age dated using the last menstrual period and first trimester ultrasound, the estimated date of delivery should be adjusted as per the first trimester ultrasound. (I-A) 3. If there is a difference of greater than 10 days between gestational age dated using the last menstrual period and second trimester ultrasound, the estimated date of delivery should be adjusted as per the second trimester ultrasound. (I-A) 4. When there has been both a first and second trimester ultrasound, gestational age should be determined by the earliest ultrasound. (I-A) 5. Women should be offered the option of membrane sweeping commencing at 38 to 41 weeks, following a discussion of risks and benefits. (I-A) 6. Women should be offered induction at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks, as the present evidence reveals a decrease in perinatal mortality without increased risk of Caesarean section. (I-A) 7. Antenatal testing used in the monitoring of the 41- to 42-week pregnancy should include at least a non-stress test and an assessment of amniotic fluid volume. (I-A) 8. Each obstetrical department should establish guidelines dependent on local resources for scheduling of labour induction. (I-A).