Labour induction near term for women aged 35 or over: an economic evaluation

The role of labor induction in modern obstetrics

A primary goal of obstetrical practice is the optimization of maternal and perinatal health. This goal translates into a seemingly simple assessment with regard to considerations of the timing of delivery: delivery should occur when the benefits are greater than those of continued pregnancy. In the absence of an indication for cesarean delivery, planned delivery is initiated with induction of labor. When medical or obstetrical complications exist, they may guide recommendations regarding the timing of delivery. In the absence of these complications, gestational age also has been used to guide delivery timing, given its association with both maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes. If there is no medical indication, delivery before 39 weeks has been discouraged, given its association with greater chances of adverse perinatal outcomes. Conversely, it has been recommended that delivery occur by 42 weeks of gestation, given the perinatal risks that accrue in the post-term period. Historically, a 39-week induction of labor, particularly for individuals with no previous birth, has not been routinely offered in the absence of medical or obstetrical indications. That approach was based on numerous observational studies that demonstrated an increased risk of cesarean delivery and other adverse outcomes among individuals who underwent labor induction compared to those in spontaneous labor. However, from a management and person-centered-choice perspective, the relevant comparison is between those undergoing planned labor induction at a given time vs those planning to continue pregnancy beyond that time. When individuals have been compared using that rubric-either in observational studies or randomized trials that have been performed in a wide variety of locations and populations- there has not been evidence that induction increases adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes. Conversely, even when the only indication for delivery is the achievement of a full-term gestational age, evidence suggests that multiple different outcomes, including cesarean delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, neonatal respiratory impairment, and perinatal mortality, are less likely when induction is performed. This information underscores the importance of making the preferences of pregnant individuals for different birth processes and outcomes central to the approach to delivery timing.

Labor induction at 41+0 gestational weeks or expectant management for the nulliparous woman: The Finnish randomized controlled multicenter trial

INTRODUCTION

Neonatal and maternal risks increase in term pregnancy as gestational age advances and become increasingly evident post-term. Management practices of late- and post-term pregnancies vary, and the optimal time point for intervention by labor induction is yet to be determined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial of 381 nulliparous women with unripe cervices compared labor induction at 41+0 gestational weeks (early induction) with expectant management and labor induction at 41+5 to 42+1 gestational weeks (expectant management). This multicenter study included all five university hospitals and the largest central hospital in Finland. The study period was 2018-2022. Participants were randomized to either early induction (48.8%, n = 186) or expectant management (51.2%, n = 195) with equal randomization ratios of 1:1. This was a superiority trial, and the primary outcomes were rates of cesarean section (CS) and composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN83219789, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83219789).

RESULTS

The rates of CS (16.7% [n = 31] vs. 24.1% [n = 47], RR 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5-1.0], p = 0.07) and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (9.7% [n = 18] vs. 14.4% [n = 28], RR 0.7 [95% CI: 0.4-1.2] p = 0.16) did not significantly differ between the groups, but the operative delivery rate was lower in the early induction group than in the expectant management group (30.6% [n = 57] vs. 45.6% [n = 89], p = 0.003). The rates of hemorrhage ≥1000 mL and neonatal weight ≥4000 g were also lower in the early induction group, as was the vacuum extraction rate in women with vaginal delivery. Of the women with expectant management, 45.6% (n = 89) had spontaneous onset of labor. No perinatal deaths occurred, but one case of eclampsia appeared in the expectant management group.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering labor induction to nulliparous women at 41+0 gestational weeks may decrease the probability of operative delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal weight ≥4000 g. However, this study was underpowered to affirm the trends of rising rates of CS and adverse neonatal outcomes in the expectant management group. Thus, expectant management could remain an option for some, as one in two women with expectant management had a spontaneous onset of labor.

Perinatal mortality and neonatal and maternal outcome per gestational week in term pregnancies: A registry-based study

INTRODUCTION

Human pregnancy is considered term from 37+0/7 to 41+6/7 weeks. Within this range, both maternal, fetal and neonatal risks may vary considerably. This study investigates how gestational age per week is related to the components of perinatal mortality and parameters of adverse neonatal and maternal outcome at term.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A registry-based study was made of all singleton term pregnancies in the Netherlands from January 2014 to December 2017. Stillbirth and early neonatal mortality, as components of perinatal mortality, were defined as primary outcomes; adverse neonatal and maternal events as secondary outcomes. Neonatal adverse outcomes included birth trauma, 5-minute Apgar score ≤3, asphyxia, respiratory insufficiency, neonatal intensive care unit admission and composite neonatal outcome. Maternal adverse outcomes included instrumental vaginal birth, emergency cesarean section, obstetric anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and composite maternal outcome. The primary outcomes were evaluated by comparing weekly prospective risks of stillbirth and neonatal death using a fetuses-at-risk approach. Secondly, odds ratios (OR) for perinatal mortality, adverse neonatal and maternal outcome using a births-based approach were compared for each gestational week with all births occurring after that week.

RESULTS

Data of 581 443 births were analyzed. At 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 weeks, the respective weekly prospective risks of stillbirth were 0.015%, 0.022%, 0.031%, 0.036%, 0.069% and 0.081%; the respective weekly prospective risks of early neonatal death were 0.051%, 0.047%, 0.032%, 0.031%, 0.039% and 0.035%. The OR for adverse neonatal outcomes were the lowest at 39 and 40 weeks. The OR for adverse maternal outcomes, including operative birth, continuously increased with each gestational week.

CONCLUSIONS

The prospective risk of early neonatal death for babies born at 39 weeks is lower than the risk of stillbirth in pregnancies continuing beyond 39+6/7 weeks. Birth at 39 weeks was associated with the best combined neonatal and maternal outcome, fewer operative births and fewer maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes compared with pregnancies continuing beyond 39 weeks. This information with appropriate perspectives should be included when counseling term pregnant women.

Synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour: A UK cost-consequence model

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs of synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) compared to dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour (IOL).

STUDY DESIGN

A population-level, Markov model-based cost-consequence analysis was developed to compare the impact of using Dilapan-S versus Propess. The time horizon was modelled from admission to birth. The target population was women requiring inpatient IOL from 37 weeks with an unfavourable cervix in the UK. Mean population characteristics reflected those of the SOLVE (NCT03001661) trial. No patient data were included in this analysis. The care pathways and staff workload were modelled using data from the SOLVE trial and clinical experience. Cost and clinical inputs were sourced from the SOLVE trial and peer-reviewed literature. Costs were inflated to 2020 British pounds (GBP, £). Outcomes were reported as an average per woman for total costs and required staff time (minutes) from admission for IOL until birth. The model robustness was assessed using a probabilistic, multivariate sensitivity analysis of 2,000 simulations with results presented as the median (interquartile range, IQR).

RESULTS

Dilapan-S was cost neutral compared to Propess. Midwife and obstetrician times were decreased by 146 min (-11%) and 11 min (-54%), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that in 78% of simulations, use of Dilapan-S reduced midwife time with a median of -160 min (IQR -277 to -24 min). Costs were reduced in 54% of simulations (median -£33, IQR -£319 to £282).

CONCLUSIONS

The model indicates that adoption of Dilapan-S is likely to be cost-neutral and reduce staff workload in comparison to Propess. Results require support from real-world data and further exploration of Dilapan-S is to be encouraged.

The amniotic fluid index and oligohydramnios: a deeper dive into the shallow end

Second- and third-trimester obstetrical ultrasound examinations include an amniotic fluid volume assessment. Professional organizations' clinical guidance recommends using semiquantitative techniques, such as the single deepest vertical pocket or amniotic fluid index, for this purpose. The single deepest vertical pocket is described as the preferred method of assessing amniotic fluid volume based on fewer oligohydramnios diagnoses and labor inductions with no demonstrable difference in pregnancy outcomes compared with the amniotic fluid index. We offer an alternative interpretation of the evidence for this advice, drawn from 6 randomized clinical trials and 2 meta-analyses comparing the single deepest vertical pocket to the amniotic fluid index. Individually and collectively, these reports are underpowered to detect significant differences in maternal and perinatal outcomes by study group. Moreover, randomized clinical trials comparing maternal and perinatal outcomes resulting from a policy of labor induction at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation vs expectant care consistently favor labor induction, the very intervention paradoxically cited as favoring the single deepest vertical pocket vs the amniotic fluid index. We conclude that the amniotic fluid index should be considered a reasonable method for third-trimester amniotic fluid assessment and diagnosing oligohydramnios.

American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor

Induction of labor is an increasingly common component of intrapartum care in the United States. This rise is fueled by a nationwide escalation in both medically indicated and elective inductions at or beyond term, supported by recent research showing some benefits of induction over expectant management. However, induction of labor medicalizes the birth experience and may lead to a complex cascade of interventions. The purpose of this Clinical Bulletin is twofold: (1) to guide clinicians on the use of person-centered decision-making when discussing induction of labor and (2) to review evidence-based practice recommendations for intrapartum midwifery care during labor induction.

Measures of anxiety, depression and stress in the antenatal and perinatal period following a stillbirth or neonatal death: a multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The grief associated with the death of a baby is enduring, however most women embark on another pregnancy, many in less than a year following their loss. Symptoms of anxiety and depression are reported to be increased in pregnancies after perinatal death, although effect on maternal stress is less clear. Variation between individual studies may result from differences in gestation at sampling, the questionnaire used and the type of antecedent perinatal death. We aimed to describe quantitative measures of anxiety, depression, stress and quality of life at different timepoints in pregnancies after perinatal death and in the early postnatal period.

METHODS

Women recruited from three sites in the North-West of England. Women were asked to participate if a previous pregnancy had ended in a perinatal death. Participants completed validated measures of psychological state (Cambridge Worry Score, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item score) and health status (EQ-5D-5L™ and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale) at three time points, approximately 15 weeks' and 32 weeks' gestation and 6 weeks postnatally. A sample of hair was taken at approximately 36 weeks' gestation for measurement of hair cortisol in a subgroup of women. The hair sample was divided into samples from each trimester and cortisol measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

In total 112 women participated in the study. Measures of anxiety and depressive symptoms decreased from the highest levels at 15 weeks' gestation to 6-weeks postnatal (for example mean GAD-7: 15 weeks 8.2 ± 5.5, 6 weeks postnatal 4.4 ± 5.0, p<0.001). Hair cortisol levels fell in a similar profile to anxiety and depression symptoms (p<0.05). In contrast, the median EQ-5D index, measuring health status was 0.768 at 15 weeks' gestation (Interquartile range (IQR) 0.684-0.879), 0.696 at 32 weeks' (IQR 0.637-0.768) and 0.89 (0.760-1.00) at 6 weeks postnatal. There was a negative relationship between EPDS and perceived health status.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms and elevated cortisol levels in women in pregnancies after a stillbirth or neonatal death which decrease as pregnancy progresses. Further studies are needed to determine optimal care for women to address these negative psychological consequences.

Evidence around early induction of labor in women of advanced maternal age and those using assisted reproductive technology

Worldwide, there has been a trend toward later motherhood. Concurrently, the incidence of subfertility has been on the rise, necessitating conception using assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). These pregnancies are considered high risk due to fetal complications such as antepartum stillbirth and growth restriction and maternal complications such as increase in maternal morbidity and mortality. Early induction of labor can help to mitigate these risks. However, this has to be balanced against the iatrogenic harms of earlier delivery to both the baby, including respiratory distress and NICU stay, and the mother who might experience longer labor and other complications such as uterine hyperstimulation. Induction of labor at 39 weeks is the optimal timing for preventing antepartum stillbirth and avoiding iatrogenic harm. Delivery by elective cesarean section is not advocated as its benefits in these patients are unclear compared with the short- and long-term complications of a major abdominal surgery.

Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks of gestation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of induction of labour (IOL) at 41 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Swedish Post-term Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial.

SETTING

Fourteen Swedish hospitals during 2016-2018.

POPULATION

Women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy with a fetus in cephalic position were randomised at 41 weeks of gestation to IOL or to expectant management and induction at 42 weeks of gestation.

METHODS

Health benefits were measured in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for mother and child. Total cost per birth was calculated, including healthcare costs from randomisation to discharge after delivery, for mother and child. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the difference in mean cost between the trial arms by the difference in life years and QALYs, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was evaluated using non-parametric bootstrapping.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The cost per gained life year and per gained QALY.

RESULTS

The differences in life years and QALYs gained were driven by the difference in perinatal mortality alone. The absolute risk reduction in mortality was 0.004 (from 6/1373 to 0/1373). Based on Swedish life tables, this gives a mean gain in discounted life years and QALYs of 0.14 and 0.12 per birth, respectively. The mean cost per birth was €4108 in the IOL group (n = 1373) and €4037 in the expectant management group (n = 1373), with a mean difference of €71 (95% CI -€232 to €379). The ICER for IOL compared with expectant management was €545 per life year gained and €623 per QALY gained. Confidence intervals were relatively wide and included the possibility that IOL had both lower costs and better health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation results in a better health outcome and no significant difference in costs. IOL is cost-effective compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation using standard threshold values for acceptable cost per life year/QALY.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation is cost-effective compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation.

Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, pregnant women are screened using ultrasound to perform gestational aging, typically at around 12 weeks' gestation, and around the middle of pregnancy. Ultrasound scans thereafter are performed for clinical indications only.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the case for offering universal late pregnancy ultrasound to all nulliparous women in the UK. The main questions addressed were the diagnostic effectiveness of universal late pregnancy ultrasound to predict adverse outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of either implementing universal ultrasound or conducting further research in this area.

DESIGN

We performed diagnostic test accuracy reviews of five ultrasonic measurements in late pregnancy. We conducted cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses of screening for fetal presentation, screening for small for gestational age fetuses and screening for large for gestational age fetuses. Finally, we conducted a survey and a focus group to determine the willingness of women to participate in a future randomised controlled trial.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

The protocol for the review was designed a priori and registered. Eligible studies were identified using keywords, with no restrictions for language or location. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Health economic modelling employed a decision tree analysed via Monte Carlo simulation. Health outcomes were from the fetal perspective and presented as quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were from the perspective of the public sector, defined as NHS England, and the costs of special educational needs. All costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted by 3.5% per annum and the reference case time horizon was 20 years.

RESULTS

Umbilical artery Doppler flow velocimetry, cerebroplacental ratio, severe oligohydramnios and borderline oligohydramnios were all either non-predictive or weakly predictive of the risk of neonatal morbidity (summary positive likelihood ratios between 1 and 2) and were all weakly predictive of the risk of delivering a small for gestational age infant (summary positive likelihood ratios between 2 and 4). Suspicion of fetal macrosomia is strongly predictive of the risk of delivering a large infant, but it is only weakly, albeit statistically significantly, predictive of the risk of shoulder dystocia. Very few studies blinded the result of the ultrasound scan and most studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias as a result of treatment paradox, ascertainment bias or iatrogenic harm. Health economic analysis indicated that universal ultrasound for fetal presentation only may be both clinically and economically justified on the basis of existing evidence. Universal ultrasound including fetal biometry was of borderline cost-effectiveness and was sensitive to assumptions. Value-of-information analysis indicated that the parameter that had the largest impact on decision uncertainty was the net difference in cost between an induced delivery and expectant management.

LIMITATIONS

The primary literature on the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasound in late pregnancy is weak. Value-of-information analysis may have underestimated the uncertainty in the literature as it was focused on the internal validity of parameters, which is quantified, whereas the greatest uncertainty may be in the external validity to the research question, which is unquantified.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal screening for presentation at term may be justified on the basis of current knowledge. The current literature does not support universal ultrasonic screening for fetal growth disorders.

FUTURE WORK

We describe proof-of-principle randomised controlled trials that could better inform the case for screening using ultrasound in late pregnancy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017064093.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost of Elective Labor Induction Compared With Expectant Management in Nulliparous Women

OBJECTIVE

To compare the actual health-system cost of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with expectant management.

METHODS

This was an economic analysis of patients enrolled in the five Utah hospitals participating in a multicenter randomized trial of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. The entire trial enrolled more than 6,000 patients. For this subset, 1,201 had cost data available. The primary outcome was relative direct health care costs of maternal and neonatal care from a health system perspective. Secondary outcomes included the costs of each phase of maternal and neonatal care. Direct health system costs of maternal and neonatal care were measured using advanced costing analytics from the time of randomization at 38 weeks of gestation until exit from the study up to 8 weeks postpartum. Costs in each randomization arm were compared using generalized linear models and reported as the relative cost of induction compared with expectant management. With a fixed sample size, we had adequate power to detect a 7.3% or greater difference in overall costs.

RESULTS

The total cost of elective induction was no different than expectant management (mean difference +4.7%; 95% CI -2.1% to +12.0%; P=.18). Maternal outpatient antenatal care costs were 47.0% lower in the induction arm (95% CI -58.3% to -32.6%; P<.001). Maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs, conversely, were 16.9% higher among women undergoing labor induction (95% CI +5.5% to +29.5%; P=.003). Maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge did not differ between arms.

CONCLUSION

Total costs of elective labor induction and expectant management did not differ significantly. These results challenge the assumption that elective induction of labor leads to significant cost escalation.

Costing the impact of interventions during pregnancy in the UK: a systematic review of economic evaluations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to summarise the current evidence on the costing of resource use within UK maternity care, in order to facilitate the estimation of incremental resource and cost impacts potentially attributable to maternity care interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations was conducted by searching Medline, the Health Management Information Consortium, the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluations Database, CINAHL and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for economic evaluations within UK maternity care, published between January 2010 and August 2019 in the English language. Unit costs for healthcare activities provided to women within the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal period were inflated to 2018-2019 prices. Assessment of study quality was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Analyses checklist.

RESULTS

Of 5084 titles or full texts screened, 37 papers were included in the final review (27 primary research articles, 7 review articles and 3 economic evaluations from NICE guidelines). Of the 27 primary research articles, 21 were scored as high quality, 3 as medium quality and 3 were low quality. Variation was noted in cost estimates for healthcare activities throughout the maternity care pathway: for midwife-led outpatient appointment, the range was £27.34-£146.25 (mean £81.78), emergency caesarean section, range was £1056.44-£4982.21 (mean £3508.93) and postnatal admission, range was £103.00-£870.10 per day (mean £469.55).

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variation exists in costs applied to maternity healthcare activities, resulting in challenges in attributing cost to maternity activities. The level of variation in cost calculations is likely to reflect the uncertainty within the system and must be dealt with by conducting sensitivity analyses. Nationally agreed prices for granular unit costs are needed to standardise cost-effectiveness evaluations of new interventions within maternity care, to be used either for research purposes or decisions regarding national intervention uptake.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019145309.

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.

Timing and mode of delivery with advancing maternal age

In 2017, 23% of all live births in the United Kingdom were to women aged over 35 years. Decisions around the timing of delivery for such women must balance the risks of prolongation of the pregnancy and of iatrogenic harm from timed delivery. Women of advanced maternal age have a small age-related elevated risk of term stillbirth. Antenatal monitoring and the route of delivery should not differ from those for younger women. The induction of labour at 39 weeks for such women does not appear to increase the risk of emergency caesarean section or to have any short-term adverse effects on mother or baby. There have been no studies on the long-term effects of induction in this group. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to offer women of advanced maternal age, induction of labour at 39 weeks where resources are available to safely provide this.

Health resource utilization of labor induction versus expectant management

BACKGROUND

Although induction of labor of low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks reduces the risk of cesarean delivery compared with expectant management, concern regarding more frequent use of labor induction remains, given that this intervention historically has been thought to incur greater resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine whether planned elective labor induction at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women, compared with expectant management, was associated with differences in health care resource utilization from the time of randomization through 8 weeks postpartum.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in which low-risk nulliparous women were assigned to induction of labor at 39 weeks or expectant management. We assessed resource utilization after randomization in 3 time periods: antepartum, delivery admission, and discharge through 8 weeks postpartum.

RESULTS

Of 6096 women with data available, those in the induction of labor group (n = 3059) were significantly less likely in the antepartum period after randomization to have at least 1 ambulatory visit for routine prenatal care (32.4% vs 68.4%), unanticipated care (0.5% vs 2.6%), or urgent care (16.2% vs 44.3%), or at least 1 antepartum hospitalization (0.8% vs 2.2%, P < .001 for all). They also had fewer tests (eg, sonograms, blood tests) and treatments (eg, antibiotics, intravenous hydration) prior to delivery. During the delivery admission, women in the induction of labor group spent a longer time in labor and delivery (median, 0.83 vs 0.57 days), but both women (P = .002) and their neonates (P < .001) had shorter postpartum stays. Women and neonates in both groups had similar frequencies of postpartum urgent care and hospital readmissions (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Women randomized to induction of labor had longer durations in labor and delivery but significantly fewer antepartum visits, tests, and treatments and shorter maternal and neonatal hospital durations after delivery. These results demonstrate that the health outcome advantages associated with induction of labor are gained without incurring uniformly greater health care resource use.

Impact of aging on obstetric outcomes: defining advanced maternal age in Barcelona

Background

Women of advanced maternal age (AMA) are a growing population, with higher obstetric risks. The Mediterranean population has specific characteristics different from other areas. Thus, the objective of this study was to establish a cut-off to define AMA in a selected mediterranean population coming from a tertiary referral private/mutual health hospital in Barcelona.

Methods

Retrospective cohort of euploid singleton pregnancies delivered from January 2007 to June 2017. Main maternal outcomes were: gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, placenta previa, c-section and prolonged hospitalization (≥ 7 days). Main adverse perinatal outcomes were: stillbirth, prematurity, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, low birth weight, need of admission at a neonatal intensive care unit and perinatal mortality. Adjustment for confounding factors (smoking, previous comorbilities, parity, assisted reproductive techniques (ART) and obesity) was performed.

Results

A total of 25054 pregnancies were included. Mean maternal age was 34.7 ± 4.2 years, with 2807 patients in the group of age between 40 and 44 years (11.2%) and 280 patients ≥45 years (1.1%). Women at AMA had higher incidence of previous comorbilities (compared to the reference group of women < 30 years): prior c-section, chronic hypertension and obesity. In addition, they were more likely to use ART. After adjusting for confounding factors, maternal age was an independent and statistically significant risk factor for gestational diabetes (OR 1.66/2.80/3.14) for ages 30–39, 40–44 and ≥ 45 years respectively, c-section (OR 1.28/2.41/7.27) and placenta previa (OR 2.56/4.83) for ages 40–44 and ≥ 45 years respectively, but not for preeclampsia (neither early-onset nor late-onset). Risk of emergency c-section was only increased in women ≥45 years (OR, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.50–2.74). In the other groups of age, the increase in c-section rate was because of elective indications. Age ≥ 45 years was associated with iatrogenic prematurity < 37 weeks (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.30–5.27). No other relevant associations between AMA and maternal or neonatal outcomes were found.

Conclusions

Maternal age is an independent risk factor for adverse obstetric outcomes. Age ≥ 40 years was associated to relevant increased risks and reveals to be an adequate cut-off to define AMA in our population.

Pregnancy outcome in mothers over the age of 35

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The proportion of pregnancies occurring in women of at least 35 years of age has increased from 6.2% in 1980 to 22.3% of births in 2016. This review summarizes recent epidemiological and basic scientific studies investigating the association between older maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcome(s), and clinical studies which investigate the effects of intervention to reduce adverse events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Women of at least 35 years of age have increased risk of maternal and foetal complications in pregnancy including: stillbirth, a small for gestational age baby, preterm birth, preeclampsia and maternal death. These risks increase with increasing age. The reasons for this increased risk are incompletely understood, but likely involve ageing of the maternal cardiovascular and endocrine systems which impacts upon placental function. Intervention, by induction of labour (IOL) at 39-week gestation does not increase operative deliveries or short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and would reduce perinatal mortality.

SUMMARY

The additional risks of pregnancy should be discussed with women of at least 35 years of age; additional foetal surveillance may be required in the antenatal period. The benefits and risks of IOL at 39-week gestation should be discussed with women at least 35 years of age.

Elective Induction of Labor: What is the Impact?

Elective induction of labor (ie, without a maternal or fetal indication) is common in the United States. When using the correct comparison group (elective induction vs expectant management) induction is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. Moreover, elective induction after 39 weeks seems to have maternal benefits (eg, lower infection rates) as well as a reduction in neonatal morbidity and the potential for a decrease in term stillbirth. However, these risks, especially stillbirth, are low in a healthy cohort and there are potential negative impacts on maternal satisfaction, breastfeeding, and cost/resource use that must be considered.

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.

Perinatal mortality associated with induction of labour versus expectant management in nulliparous women aged 35 years or over: An English national cohort study

BACKGROUND

A recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that induction of labour at 39 weeks of gestational age has no short-term adverse effect on the mother or infant among nulliparous women aged ≥35 years. However, the trial was underpowered to address the effect of routine induction of labour on the risk of perinatal death. We aimed to determine the association between induction of labour at ≥39 weeks and the risk of perinatal mortality among nulliparous women aged ≥35 years.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data collected between April 2009 and March 2014 to compare perinatal mortality between induction of labour at 39, 40, and 41 weeks of gestation and expectant management (continuation of pregnancy to either spontaneous labour, induction of labour, or caesarean section at a later gestation). Analysis was by multivariable Poisson regression with adjustment for maternal characteristics and pregnancy-related conditions. Among the cohort of 77,327 nulliparous women aged 35 to 50 years delivering a singleton infant, 33.1% had labour induced: these women tended to be older and more likely to have medical complications of pregnancy, and the infants were more likely to be small for gestational age. Induction of labour at 40 weeks (compared with expectant management) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital perinatal death (0.08% versus 0.26%; adjusted risk ratio [adjRR] 0.33; 95% CI 0.13-0.80, P = 0.015) and meconium aspiration syndrome (0.44% versus 0.86%; adjRR 0.52; 95% CI 0.35-0.78, P = 0.002). Induction at 40 weeks was also associated with a slightly increased risk of instrumental vaginal delivery (adjRR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11, P = 0.020) and emergency caesarean section (adjRR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, P = 0.019). The number needed to treat (NNT) analysis indicated that 562 (95% CI 366-1,210) inductions of labour at 40 weeks would be required to prevent 1 perinatal death. Limitations of the study include the reliance on observational data in which gestational age is recorded in weeks rather than days. There is also the potential for unmeasured confounders and under-recording of induction of labour or perinatal death in the dataset.

CONCLUSIONS

Bringing forward the routine offer of induction of labour from the current recommendation of 41-42 weeks to 40 weeks of gestation in nulliparous women aged ≥35 years may reduce overall rates of perinatal death.

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.

DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.

LIMITATIONS

The focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

The reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.