OBJECTIVE:To use contemporary labor data to examine the labor patterns in a large, modern obstetric population in the United States.
METHODS:Data were from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a multicenter ...retrospective study that abstracted detailed labor and delivery information from electronic medical records in 19 hospitals across the United States. A total of 62,415 parturients were selected who had a singleton term gestation, spontaneous onset of labor, vertex presentation, vaginal delivery, and a normal perinatal outcome. A repeated-measures analysis was used to construct average labor curves by parity. An interval-censored regression was used to estimate duration of labor, stratified by cervical dilation at admission and centimeter by centimeter.
RESULTS:Labor may take more than 6 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm and more than 3 hours to progress from 5 to 6 cm of dilation. Nulliparous and multiparous women appeared to progress at a similar pace before 6 cm. However, after 6 cm, labor accelerated much faster in multiparous than in nulliparous women. The 95 percentiles of the second stage of labor in nulliparous women with and without epidural analgesia were 3.6 and 2.8 hours, respectively. A partogram for nulliparous women is proposed.
CONCLUSION:In a large, contemporary population, the rate of cervical dilation accelerated after 6 cm, and progress from 4 cm to 6 cm was far slower than previously described. Allowing labor to continue for a longer period before 6 cm of cervical dilation may reduce the rate of intrapartum and subsequent repeat cesarean deliveries in the United States.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:III
Although only 1.3% of abortions in the United States are between 20 and 24 weeks’ gestation, these procedures are associated with elevated risks of morbidity and mortality. Adequate cervical ...preparation before dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 20–24 weeks’ gestation reduces procedural risk. For this gestational range, at least one day of cervical preparation with osmotic dilators is recommended before D&E. The use of overnight osmotic dilators alone is sufficient for most D&Es at 20–24 weeks’ gestation. Dilapan-S® dilators require a shorter time to achieve maximum dilation, may be more effective than laminaria and may increase the likelihood of success on the first D&E attempt. The use of adjunctive mifepristone administered one-day pre-operatively at the time of osmotic dilator placement, should be considered because evidence demonstrates that it makes D&E subjectively easier at 20–24 weeks without increasing side effects. While older studies suggest that two-days of serial osmotic dilators provide greater dilation than one day of dilators, adjunctive mifepristone may be comparable to a second day of dilators. Adjunctive misoprostol administered on the day of D&E does not appear to affect initial cervical dilation and procedure time and compared with mifepristone is associated with more side effects, such as pain and nausea. Using overnight mifepristone and same-day misoprostol without osmotic dilators at 20–24 weeks’ gestation lengthens D&E procedure time and appears to increase immediate complications, at least among less experienced providers. Some evidence shows the feasibility of same-day cervical preparation before D&E at 20–24 weeks using Dilapan-S® with adjunctive misoprostol or serial repeat dosing of misoprostol, but same-day preparation should be limited to providers with significant experience with these regimens. The Society of Family Planning recommends preoperative cervical preparation before D&E at 20–24 weeks’ gestation. Further studies are needed to clarify the best means of preparing the cervix in order to minimize abortion complications and improve outcomes in this gestational range.
Background: Neuraxial anesthesia is considered as the gold standard in the control labor of pain. Its variants are epidural analgesia and combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Few studies, as yet, have ...investigated the duration of labor as a primary outcome. Some authors have suggested that combined spinal-epidural analgesia may reduce labor duration but at the moment the benefit of shortening labor is uncertain. The main aim of this study was to compare combined spinal-epidural with epidural analgesia in terms of their effect on duration of stage I labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes.
Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Parturients who requested analgesia at cervical dilatation <6 cm were included. Analgesia was either epidural with low concentration levobupivacaine or combined spinal epidural with subarachnoid sufentanil. The primary outcome was the length of stage I labor. Onset and quality of analgesia, mode of delivery, effects on uterine activity and use of oxytocin, fetal heart rate abnormalities and uterine hyperkinesia, maternal, and neonatal complications were also considered.
Results: We enrolled 400 patients: 176 in the combined spinal-epidural group and 224 in the epidural group. Patients in the two treatment groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics, parity, and incidence of obstetric comorbidities, labor induction, oxytocin infusion, Bishop score, and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at analgesia request. Duration of stage I labor did not differ, at 195 (120-300) minutes for both the groups (p = .7). Combined spinal-epidural was associated with less reduction in uterine contractility after initial administration: 15.34 versus 39.73%, (p < .001) and with delayed need for oxytocin, at dilations of 7 ± 2.5 cm versus 6. ± 2.7, (p = .002). Onset of analgesia was quicker for combined spinal-epidural analgesia: 31 versus 20%, with VAS <4 after 5 minutes, (p < .001); and lower VAS scores after initial analgesia administration. No differences were found in the other outcomes.
Conclusions: Combined spinal-epidural with subarachnoid sufentanil may not reduce the duration of stage I labor, but in our study it appeared to affect uterine contractility less. It also had a more rapid onset and was more effective, without any concomitant increase in maternal or neonatal complications.
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effectiveness of four commonly used induction methods.
METHODS:This randomized trial compared four induction methodsmisoprostol alone, Foley alone, misoprostol–cervical ...Foley concurrently, and Foley–oxytocin concurrently. Women undergoing labor induction with full-term (37 weeks of gestation or greater), singleton, vertex-presenting gestations, with no contraindication to vaginal delivery, intact membranes, Bishop score 6 or less, and cervical dilation 2 cm or less were included. Women were enrolled only once during the study period. Our primary outcome was time to delivery. Neither patients nor health care providers were blinded to assigned treatment group because examinations are required for placement of all methods; however, research personnel were blinded during data abstraction. A sample size of 123 per group (n=492) was planned to compare the four groups pairwise (P≤.008) with a 4-hour reduction in delivery time considered clinically meaningful.
RESULTS:From May 2013 through June 2015, 997 women were screened and 491 were randomized and analyzed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the four treatment groups. When comparing all induction method groups, combination methods achieved a faster median time to delivery than single-agent methods (misoprostol–Foley13.1 hours, Foley–oxytocin14.5 hours, misoprostol17.6 hours, Foley17.7 hours, P<.001). When censored for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity, women who received misoprostol–Foley were almost twice as likely to deliver before women who received misoprostol alone (hazard ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval CI 1.42–2.59) or Foley alone (hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.87 1.39–2.52), whereas Foley–oxytocin was not statistically different from single-agent methods.
CONCLUSION:After censoring for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity, misoprostol–cervical Foley resulted in twice the chance of delivering before either single-agent method.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01916681.
OBJECTIVE:To examine physician-documented indications for cesarean delivery in order to investigate the specific factors contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate.
METHODS:We analyzed ...rates of primary and repeat cesarean delivery, including indications for the procedure, among 32,443 live births at a major academic hospital between 2003 and 2009. Time trends for each indication were modeled to estimate the absolute and cumulative annualized relative risk of cesarean by indication over time and the relative contribution of each indication to the overall increase in primary cesarean delivery rate.
RESULTS:The cesarean delivery rate increased from 26% to 36.5% between 2003 and 2009; 50.0% of the increase was attributable to an increase in primary cesarean delivery. Among the documented indications, nonreassuring fetal status, arrest of dilation, multiple gestation, preeclampsia, suspected macrosomia, and maternal request increased over time, whereas arrest of descent, malpresentation, maternal-fetal indications, and other obstetric indications (eg, cord prolapse, placenta previa) did not increase. The relative contributions of each indication to the total increase in primary cesarean rate werenonreassuring fetal status (32%), labor arrest disorders (18%), multiple gestation (16%), suspected macrosomia (10%), preeclampsia (10%), maternal request (8%), maternal-fetal conditions (5%), and other obstetric conditions (1%).
CONCLUSION:Primary cesarean births accounted for 50% of the increasing cesarean rate. Among primary cesarean deliveries, more subjective indications (nonreassuring fetal status and arrest of dilation) contributed larger proportions than more objective indications (malpresentation, maternal-fetal, and obstetric conditions).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:III
Immersion in water during labour and birth Cluett, Elizabeth R; Burns, Ethel; Cuthbert, Anna ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
05/2018, Letnik:
2018, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery‐led care settings. However, there are ...concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
Objectives
To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.
Search methods
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non‐pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low‐risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi‐RCTs and cluster‐RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross‐over trials were not eligible for inclusion.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
Main results
This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third‐stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery‐led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention‐to‐treat.
Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)
There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (83% versus 82%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate‐quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (12% versus 14%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low‐quality evidence); and caesarean section (5% versus 4%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low‐quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) ‐14.33 mL, 95% CI ‐63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low‐quality evidence) and third‐ or fourth‐degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate‐quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate‐quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 6%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low‐quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low‐quality evidence).
Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)
There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (98% versus 97%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low‐quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low‐quality evidence); caesarean section (0% versus 2%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low‐quality evidence), and NICU admissions (8% versus 11%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low‐quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third‐ or fourth‐degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low‐quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (15% versus 6%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low‐quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (2% versus 5%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low‐quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low‐quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.
There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.
Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.
Authors' conclusions
In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low‐quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery‐led setting.
Women with twin pregnancies and a dilated cervix in the second trimester are at increased risk of pregnancy loss and early preterm birth; there is currently no proven therapy to prevent preterm birth ...in this group of women.
This study aimed to determine whether physical examination–indicated cerclage reduces the incidence of preterm birth in women with a diagnosis of twin pregnancies and asymptomatic cervical dilation before 24 weeks of gestation.
Multicenter, parallel group, open-label, randomized controlled trial of women with twin pregnancies and asymptomatic cervical dilation of 1 to 5 cm between 16 weeks 0/7 days of gestation and 23 weeks 6/7 days of gestation were enrolled from July 2015 to July 2019 in 8 centers. Eligible women were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either cerclage or no cerclage groups. We excluded women with monochorionic-monoamniotic twin pregnancy, selective fetal growth restriction, twin-twin transfusion syndrome, major fetal malformation, known genetic anomaly, placenta previa, signs of labor, or clinical chorioamnionitis. The primary outcome was the incidence of preterm birth at <34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were preterm births at <32, <28, and <24 weeks of gestation, interval from diagnosis to delivery, and perinatal mortality. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat methods.
After an interim analysis was performed, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping the trial because of a significant decrease in perinatal mortality in the cerclage group. We randomized 34 women, with 4 women being excluded because of expired informed consent. A total of 17 women were randomized to physical examination–indicated cerclage and 13 women to no cerclage. Whereas 4 women randomized to cerclage did not receive the surgical procedure, no women in the no cerclage group received cerclage. Maternal demographics were not significantly different. All women in the cerclage group also received indomethacin and antibiotics. When comparing the cerclage group vs the no cerclage group, the incidence of preterm birth was significantly decreased as follows: preterm birth at <34 weeks of gestation, 12 of 17 women (70%) vs 13 of 13 women (100%) (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.96); preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation, 11 of 17 women (64.7%) vs 13 of 13 women (100%) (risk ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46–0.92); preterm birth at <28 weeks of gestation, 7 of 17 women (41%) vs 11 of 13 women (84%) (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.89); and preterm birth at <24 weeks of gestation, 5 of 17 women (30%) vs 11 of 13 women (84%) (risk ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.16–0.75). The mean gestational age at delivery was 29.05±1.7 vs 22.5±3.9 weeks (P<.01), respectively; the mean interval from diagnosis of cervical dilation to delivery was 8.3±5.8 vs 2.9±3.0 weeks (P=.02), respectively. Perinatal mortality was also significantly reduced in the cerclage group compared with the no cerclage group as follows: 6 of 34 women (17.6%) vs 20 of 26 women (77%) (risk ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.5), respectively.
In women with twin pregnancies and asymptomatic cervical dilation before 24 weeks of gestation, a combination of physical examination–indicated cerclage, indomethacin, and antibiotics significantly decreased preterm birth at all evaluated gestational ages. Most importantly, cerclage in this population was associated with a 50% decrease in early preterm birth at <28 weeks of gestation and with a 78% decrease in perinatal mortality.
Induction of labor occurs in >20% of pregnancies, which equates to approximately 1 million women undergoing an induction in the United States annually. Regardless of how common inductions are, our ...ability to predict induction success is limited. Although multiple risk factors for a failed induction have been identified, risk factors alone are not enough to quantify an actual risk of cesarean for an individual woman undergoing a cesarean.
The objective of this study was to derive and validate a prediction model for cesarean after induction with an unfavorable cervix and to create a Web-based calculator to assist in patient counseling.
Derivation and validation of a prediction model for cesarean delivery after induction was performed as part of a planned secondary analysis of a large randomized trial. A predictive model for cesarean delivery was derived using multivariable logistic regression from a large randomized trial on induction methods (n = 491) that took place from 2013 through 2015 at an academic institution. Full-term (≥37 weeks) women carrying a singleton gestation with intact membranes and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤6 and dilation ≤2 cm) undergoing an induction were included in this trial. Both nulliparous and multiparous women were included. Women with a prior cesarean were excluded. Refinement of the prediction model was performed using an observational cohort of women from the same institution who underwent an induction (n = 364) during the trial period. An external validation was performed utilizing a publicly available database (Consortium for Safe Labor) that includes information for >200,000 deliveries from 19 hospitals across the United States from 2002 through 2008. After applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in the derivation cohort, a total of 8466 women remained for analysis. The discriminative power of each model was assessed using a bootstrap, bias-corrected area under the curve.
The cesarean delivery rates in the derivation and external validation groups were: 27.7% (n = 136/491) and 26.4% (n = 2235/8466). In multivariable modeling, nulliparity, gestation age ≥40 weeks, body mass index at delivery, modified Bishop score, and height were significantly associated with cesarean. A nomogram and calculator were created and found to have an area under the curve in the external validation cohort of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.74).
A nomogram and user-friendly Web-based calculator that incorporates 5 variables known at the start of induction has been developed and validated. It can be found at: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/obgyn/labor-induction-calculator/. This calculator can be used to augment patient counseling for women undergoing an induction with an unfavorable cervix.
The past 20 years witnessed an invigoration of research on labor progression and a change of thinking regarding normal labor. New evidence is emerging, and more advanced statistical methods are ...applied to labor progression analyses. Given the wide variations in the onset of active labor and the pattern of labor progression, there is an emerging consensus that the definition of abnormal labor may not be related to an idealized or average labor curve. Alternative approaches to guide labor management have been proposed; for example, using an upper limit of a distribution of labor duration to define abnormally slow labor. Nonetheless, the methods of labor assessment are still primitive and subject to error; more objective measures and more advanced instruments are needed to identify the onset of active labor, monitor labor progression, and define when labor duration is associated with maternal/child risk. Cervical dilation alone may be insufficient to define active labor, and incorporating more physical and biochemical measures may improve accuracy of diagnosing active labor onset and progression. Because the association between duration of labor and perinatal outcomes is rather complex and influenced by various underlying and iatrogenic conditions, future research must carefully explore how to integrate statistical cut-points with clinical outcomes to reach a practical definition of labor abnormalities. Finally, research regarding the complex labor process may benefit from new approaches, such as machine learning technologies and artificial intelligence to improve the predictability of successful vaginal delivery with normal perinatal outcomes.
PDF
