Duration of Labor Induction in Nulliparous Women at Term: How Long Is Long Enough?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the relationship between duration of labor induction and successful vaginal delivery (VD) in nulliparous women at term. Nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies ≥ 37 weeks who underwent labor induction at a single institution were studied. Exclusion criteria were nonvertex presentation, stillbirth, fetal chromosomal/structural abnormalities, spontaneous labor, and spontaneous rupture of membranes. VD rates and maternal/neonatal outcomes were evaluated and compared with respect to the duration from induction to delivery. Over the 1-year study period, 340 women met all criteria. Seventy-five percent achieved VD (n = 255), 40.6% of whom had rate of cervical dilation in active labor < 1.0 cm/hour. Women requiring cesarean delivery were more likely to have fetal acidemia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, chorioamnionitis, and endometritis. There was no association with prolonged induction to delivery intervals and adverse maternal/neonatal outcomes. In our population, only 5.7% of nulliparous women undergoing labor induction at term remain undelivered at 48 hours. Of women achieving VD, > 40% had rate of cervical dilation in active labor < 1.0 cm/hour.

REFERENCES

• 1 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle J F, Sciscione A C, Hoffman M K. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 698-704
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Yeast J D, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  180 628-633
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Simon C E, Grobman W A. When has an induction failed?.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 705-709
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Vrouenraets F P, Roumen F J, Dehing C J, van den Akker E S, Aarts M J, Scheve E J. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 690-697
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Rayburn W F, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies.  Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  100 164-167
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Benedetti T J, Baldwin L M, Skillman S M et al.. Professional liability issues and practice patterns of obstetric providers in Washington State.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 1238-1246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Walker S P, McCarthy E A, Ugoni A, Lee A, Lim S, Permezel M. Cesarean delivery or vaginal birth: a survey of patient and clinician thresholds.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  109 67-72
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Mercer B M. Induction of labor in the nulliparous gravida with an unfavorable cervix.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 688-689
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Allen V M, O'Connell C M, Baskett T F. Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  108 549-555
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Rouse D J, Owen J, Hauth J C. Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol.  Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  96 671-677
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Friedman E A. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis.  Obstet Gynecol. 1955;  6 567-589
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Rinehart B K, Terrone D A, Hudson C, Isler C M, Larmon J E, Perry Jr K G. Lack of utility of standard labor curves in the prediction of progression during labor induction.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  182 1520-1526
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Hoffman M K, Vahratian A, Sciscione A C, Troendle J F, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 1029-1034
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Albers L L, Schiff M, Gorwoda J G. The length of active labor in normal pregnancies.  Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  87 355-359
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Sean BlackwellM.D. 

Associate Professor Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

6431 Fannin, Suite 3.264, Houston, Texas 77030; reprints not available from the author