CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of labour (CONDISOX): individual management based on artificial intelligence - a secondary analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines regarding oxytocin stimulation are not tailored to individuals as they are based on randomised controlled trials. The objective of the study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for individual prediction of the risk of caesarean delivery (CD) in women with a cervical dilatation of 6 cm after oxytocin stimulation for induced labour. The model included not only variables known when labour induction was initiated but also variables describing the course of the labour induction.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from the CONDISOX randomised controlled trial of discontinued vs. continued oxytocin infusion in the active phase of induced labour. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) software was used to build the prediction model. To explain the impact of the predictors, we calculated Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values and present a summary SHAP plot. A force plot was used to explain specifics about an individual's predictors that result in a change of the individual's risk output value from the population-based risk.

RESULTS

Among 1060 included women, 160 (15.1%) were delivered by CD. The XGBoost model found women who delivered vaginally were more likely to be parous, taller, to have a lower estimated birth weight, and to be stimulated with a lower amount of oxytocin. In 108 women (10% of 1060) the model favoured either continuation or discontinuation of oxytocin. For the remaining 90% of the women, the model found that continuation or discontinuation of oxytocin stimulation affected the risk difference of CD by less than 5% points.

CONCLUSION

In women undergoing labour induction, this AI model based on a secondary analysis of data from the CONDISOX trial may help predict the risk of CD and assist the mother and clinician in individual tailored management of oxytocin stimulation after reaching 6 cm of cervical dilation.

Continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of labour (CONDISOX): double blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether discontinuing oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of induced labour is associated with lower caesarean section rates.

DESIGN

International multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in Denmark and one in the Netherlands between 8 April 2016 and 30 June 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

1200 women stimulated with intravenous oxytocin infusion during the latent phase of induced labour.

INTERVENTION

Women were randomly assigned to have their oxytocin stimulation discontinued or continued in the active phase of labour.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Delivery by caesarean section.

RESULTS

A total of 607 women were assigned to discontinuation and 593 to continuation of the oxytocin infusion. The rates of caesarean section were 16.6% (n=101) in the discontinued group and 14.2% (n=84) in the continued group (relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.53). In 94 parous women with no previous caesarean section, the caesarean section rate was 7.5% (11/147) in the discontinued group and 0.6% (1/155)in the continued group (relative risk 11.6, 1.15 to 88.7). Discontinuation was associated with longer duration of labour (median from randomisation to delivery 282 v 201 min; P<0.001), a reduced risk of hyperstimulation (20/546 (3.7%) v 70/541 (12.9%); P<0.001), and a reduced risk of fetal heart rate abnormalities (153/548 (27.9%) v 219/537 (40.8%); P<0.001) but rates of other adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a setting where monitoring of the fetal condition and the uterine contractions can be guaranteed, routine discontinuation of oxytocin stimulation may lead to a small increase in caesarean section rate but a significantly reduced risk of uterine hyperstimulation and abnormal fetal heart rate patterns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02553226.