New labor curves of dilation and station to improve the accuracy of predicting labor progress

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of failure to progress, the most common indication for intrapartum cesarean delivery, is based on the assessment of cervical dilation and station over time. Labor curves serve as references for expected changes in dilation and fetal descent. The labor curves of Friedman, Zhang et al, and others are based on time alone and derived from mothers with spontaneous labor onset. However, labor induction is now common, and clinicians also consider other factors when assessing labor progress. Labor curves that consider the use of labor induction and other factors that influence labor progress have the potential to be more accurate and closer to clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the prediction errors of labor curves based on a single factor (time) or multiple clinically relevant factors using two modeling methods: mixed-effects regression, a standard statistical method, and Gaussian processes, a machine learning method.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a longitudinal cohort study of changes in dilation and station based on data from 8022 births in nulliparous women with a live, singleton, vertex-presenting fetus ≥35 weeks of gestation with a vaginal delivery. New labor curves of dilation and station were generated with 10-fold cross-validation. External validation was performed using a geographically independent group. Model variables included time from the first examination in the 20 hours before delivery; dilation, effacement, and station recorded at the previous examination; cumulative contraction counts; and use of epidural anesthesia and labor induction. To assess model accuracy, differences between each model's predicted value and its corresponding observed value were calculated. These prediction errors were summarized using mean absolute error and root mean squared error statistics.

RESULTS

Dilation curves based on multiple parameters were more accurate than those derived from time alone. The mean absolute error of the multifactor methods was better (lower) than those of the single-factor methods (0.826 cm [95% confidence interval, 0.820-0.832] for the multifactor machine learning and 0.893 cm [95% confidence interval, 0.885-0.901] for the multifactor mixed-effects method and 2.122 cm [95% confidence interval, 2.108-2.136] for the single-factor methods; P<.0001 for both comparisons). The root mean squared errors of the multifactor methods were also better (lower) than those of the single-factor methods (1.126 cm [95% confidence interval, 1.118-1.133] for the machine learning [P<.0001] and 1.172 cm [95% confidence interval, 1.164-1.181] for the mixed-effects methods and 2.504 cm [95% confidence interval, 2.487-2.521] for the single-factor [P<.0001 for both comparisons]). The multifactor machine learning dilation models showed small but statistically significant improvements in accuracy compared to the mixed-effects regression models (P<.0001). The multifactor machine learning method produced a curve of descent with a mean absolute error of 0.512 cm (95% confidence interval, 0.509-0.515) and a root mean squared error of 0.660 cm (95% confidence interval, 0.655-0.666). External validation using independent data produced similar findings.

CONCLUSION

Cervical dilation models based on multiple clinically relevant parameters showed improved (lower) prediction errors compared to models based on time alone. The mean prediction errors were reduced by more than 50%. A more accurate assessment of departure from expected dilation and station may help clinicians optimize intrapartum management.

The evolution of the labor curve and its implications for clinical practice: the relationship between cervical dilation, station, and time during labor

The assessment of labor progress is germane to every woman in labor. Two labor disorders-arrest of dilation and arrest of descent-are the primary indications for surgery in close to 50% of all intrapartum cesarean deliveries and are often contributing indications for cesarean deliveries for fetal heart rate abnormalities. Beginning in 1954, the assessment of labor progress was transformed by Friedman. He published a series of seminal works describing the relationship between cervical dilation, station of the presenting part, and time. He proposed nomenclature for the classification of labor disorders. Generations of obstetricians used this terminology and normal labor curves to determine expected rates of dilation and fetal descent and to decide when intervention was required. The analysis of labor progress presents many mathematical challenges. Clinical measurements of dilation and station are imprecise and prone to variation, especially for inexperienced observers. Many interrelated factors influence how the cervix dilates and how the fetus descends. There is substantial variability in when data collection begins and in the frequency of examinations. Statistical methods to account for these issues have advanced considerably in recent decades. In parallel, there is growing recognition among clinicians of the limitations of using time alone to assess progress in cervical dilation in labor. There is wide variation in the patterns of dilation over time and most labors do not follow an average dilation curve. Reliable assessment of labor progression is important because uncertainty leads to both over-use and under-use of cesarean delivery and neither of these extremes are desirable. This review traces the evolution of labor curves, describes how limitations are being addressed to reduce uncertainty and to improve the assessment of labor progression using modern statistical techniques and multi-dimensional data, and discusses the implications for obstetrical practice.

Evolution of the human pelvis and obstructed labor: new explanations of an old obstetrical dilemma

Without cesarean delivery, obstructed labor can result in maternal and fetal injuries or even death given a disproportion in size between the fetus and the maternal birth canal. The precise frequency of obstructed labor is difficult to estimate because of the widespread use of cesarean delivery for indications other than proven cephalopelvic disproportion, but it has been estimated that at least 1 million mothers per year are affected by this disorder worldwide. Why is the fit between the fetus and the maternal pelvis so tight? Why did evolution not lead to a greater safety margin, as in other primates? Here we review current research and suggest new hypotheses on the evolution of human childbirth and pelvic morphology. In 1960, Washburn suggested that this obstetrical dilemma arose because the human pelvis is an evolutionary compromise between two functions, bipedal gait and childbirth. However, recent biomechanical and kinematic studies indicate that pelvic width does not considerably affect the efficiency of bipedal gait and thus is unlikely to have constrained the evolution of a wider birth canal. Instead, bipedalism may have primarily constrained the flexibility of the pubic symphysis during pregnancy, which opens much wider in most mammals with large fetuses than in humans. We argue that the birth canal is mainly constrained by the trade-off between 2 pregnancy-related functions: while a narrow pelvis is disadvantageous for childbirth, it offers better support for the weight exerted by the viscera and the large human fetus during the long gestation period. We discuss the implications of this hypothesis for understanding pelvic floor dysfunction. Furthermore, we propose that selection for a narrow pelvis has also acted in males because of the role of pelvic floor musculature in erectile function. Finally, we review the cliff-edge model of obstetric selection to explain why evolution cannot completely eliminate cephalopelvic disproportion. This model also predicts that the regular application of life-saving cesarean delivery has evolutionarily increased rates of cephalopelvic disproportion already. We address how evolutionary models contribute to understanding and decision making in obstetrics and gynecology as well as in devising health care policies.

"New or not-so-new" labor management practices and cesarean delivery for arrest of progress

BACKGROUND

Because nearly one-third of births in the United States are now achieved by cesarean delivery, comprising more than 1.27 million women each year, national organizations have recently published revised guidelines for the management of labor. These new guidelines stipulate that labor arrest should not be diagnosed unless ≥6 cm cervical dilatation has been reached or labor has been stimulated for at ≥6 hours.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cervical dilatation and hours of labor stimulation prior to cesarean delivery for arrest of dilatation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 1, 1999, andDecember 31, 2000, a prospective observational study of all primary cesarean deliveries was conducted at 13 university centers comprising the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. This secondary analysis includes all live-born, singleton, nonanomalous, cephalic gestations delivered by primary cesarean delivery at ≥37 weeks. A cesarean delivery was considered to have been performed for arrest of dilatation if the indication for the procedure was failure to progress, cephalopelvic disproportion, or failed induction. Augmentation was defined as stimulation after spontaneous labor had been previously diagnosed. Analysis included both the latent and active phases of labor. The active phase of labor was diagnosed when cervical dilatation was ≥4 cm in the presence of uterine contractions.

RESULTS

A total of 13,269 primary cesarean deliveries were available for analysis, 8,546 (65%) of which were performed for inadequate progress of labor with cervical dilatation recorded at the time of cesarean delivery. Of these cesarean deliveries for labor arrest, a total of 719 (8%) were performed in the latent phase of labor and 7827 (92%) were performed when cervical dilatation was ≥4 cm (active phase). Approximately two-thirds (n = =5876; 69%) received intrauterine pressure monitoring. A total of 5636 women (66% of those reaching the active phase of labor) had reached ≥6 cm cervical dilatation before cesarean delivery was performed. Moreover, 7440 (95%) of the 7827 women in active labor had ≥6 cm dilatation or had received labor stimulation ≥6 hours prior to cesarean delivery for arrest of dilatation.

CONCLUSION

Women undergoing primary cesarean delivery for arrest of dilatation 15 years before the recommendations of the Obstetrics Care Consensus had received bona fide efforts to achieve adequate labor consistent with the recommendations of the Consensus. Because 95% of these women had ≥6 cm dilatation or had received labor stimulation ≥6 hours prior to cesarean delivery for arrest of dilatation, these new recommendations are unlikely to change the cesarean delivery rates.

The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

A low rate of primary cesarean delivery is expected to reduce some of the major complications that are associated with a repeat cesarean delivery, such as uterine rupture, adhesive placental disorders, hysterectomy, and even maternal death. Since 2014, and in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, we changed our approach to labor dystocia, defined as abnormal progression of labor, by allowing a longer duration of the second stage of labor.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of prolonging the second stage of labor on the rate of cesarean delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a historical control group, we compared maternal and neonatal outcomes over 2 periods. Period I (9300 patients): from May 2011 until April 2014, when a prolonged second stage in nulliparous women was considered after 3 hours with regional anesthesia or 2 hours if no such anesthesia was provided. Second-stage arrest was defined in multiparous women after 2 hours with regional anesthesia or 1 hour without it. Period II (10,531 patients): from May 2014 until April 2017, allowed nulliparous and multiparous women continuing the second stage of labor an additional 1 hour before diagnosing second-stage arrest. Singleton deliveries at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation were initially considered for eligibility. We excluded women with high-risk pregnancies and known fetal anomalies. For comparing means, we used the t test. If variables were not normally distributed, we used the Mann-Whitney test instead. For comparing proportions, we used the χ² test with continuity correction.

RESULTS

The primary cesarean delivery was decreased in nulliparous women from 23.3% (819 of 3515) in period I to 15.7% (596 of 3796) in period II (relative risk [RR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.74), a trend that was also significant in multiparous women (10.9%, 623 of 5785, in period I vs 8.1%, 544 of 6735, in period II; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84). The rate of operative vaginal deliveries in nulliparous women was higher in period II than in period I (19.2%, 732 of 3515, vs 17.7%, 622 of 3796, P < .0001). Rates of third- and fourth-degree laceration and of shoulder dystocia were also higher in period II. The rate of arterial cord pH < 7.0 and the rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were higher in period II, but the early neurological outcome was not different when comparing the 2 periods.

CONCLUSION

The new policy of labor management successfully decreased primary cesarean deliveries, with a small rise in instrumental deliveries. However, it also increased the other immediate maternal and neonatal complications. A higher rate of lower umbilical artery cord pH was the most significant finding; however, the early neurological outcome did not change. It is possible that the ongoing adjustment to the new labor protocol will avoid, in the future, maternal and neonatal complications. The long-term maternal and neonatal consequences of our new approach will be evaluated in future studies.