Changing rates for the induction of labor over the last five decades in a tertiary center

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 4, 95 - 100, 18.11.2019

Atakan Tanacan Murat Cagan Mehmet Sinan Beksac

Öz

The aim of this study is to evaluate the changing rates for induction of labor,
induction failure and obstetric characteristics of patients over the decades in a
tertiary center. The data on labor inductions were retrospectively evaluated. The
cases were divided into five groups: Group 1 (1976, n = 62), group 2 (1986, n
= 104), group 3 (1996, n = 81), group 4 (2006, n=120) and group 5 (2016, n =
379). The rates of the induction cases, deliveries with labor induction among
deliveries at ≥37th gestational week, primiparous induction cases, induction
failure, the mean maternal age, gestational week at birth and birth weight were
compared between the groups. The percentages of induction cases among the
total number of deliveries for each year were 2.3% in group 1, 4.3% in group 2,
4.6% in group 3, 6.9% in group 4 and 20.2% in group 5, respectively (p<0.001).
The rates of labor induction for deliveries at ≥ 37th gestational week were 2.4%
in group 1, 4.7% in group 2, 5.4% in group 3, 8.5% in group 4 and 22.1% in
group 5, respectively (p<0.001). Statistically significant differences were found
between the groups for the number of primiparous induction cases, the rate of
induction failure, mean maternal age, gestational week at birth and birth weight
(p values were <0.001 for all). The frequency of labor induction has increased
at our clinic with application at earlier gestational weeks and there have been
higher induction failure rates over the decades. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cesarean section, Induction of labor, induction failure, Vaginal delivery

Proje Numarası

yok

Kaynakça

• 12.07.2012. Sağlık Bakanlığı ve Bağlı Kuruluşların teşkilat ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun hükmünde Kararname ile Bazı Kanun ve Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun. Resmi Gazete, 28351.
• 2009. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol, 114, 386-97.
• 2013. ACOG committee opinion no. 561: Nonmedically indicated early-term deliveries. Obstet Gynecol, 121, 911-5.
• ALFIREVIC, Z., KEENEY, E., DOWSWELL, T., WELTON, N., MEDLEY, N., DIAS, S., JONES, L. & CALDWELL, D. 2017. Methods to Induce Labour: A Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Obstetric anesthesia digest, 37, 145-146.
• BATTISTA, L., CHUNG, J. H., LAGREW, D. C. & WING, D. A. 2007. Complications of labor induction among multiparous women in a community-based hospital system. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 197, 241. e1-241. e7.
• BEKSAC, M. S., TANACAN, A., BACAK, H. O. & LEBLEBICIOGLU, K. 2018. Computerized prediction system for the route of delivery (vaginal birth versus cesarean section). Journal of perinatal medicine.
• BETRÁN, A. P., YE, J., MOLLER, A.-B., ZHANG, J., GÜLMEZOGLU, A. M. & TORLONI, M. R. 2016. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS one, 11, e0148343.
• CANDA, T., DEMIR, N. & SEZER, O. 2010. Comparison of Two Methods in Labor Induction in Nulliparous Women with Unfavorable Cervix at Term: Oxytocin Alone Versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Slow-Release System (Propess®)+ Oxytocin. Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, 16.
• CAUGHEY, A. B., SUNDARAM, V., KAIMAL, A. J., GIENGER, A., CHENG, Y. W., MCDONALD, K. M., SHAFFER, B. L., OWENS, D. K. & BRAVATA, D. M. 2009. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Annals of internal medicine, 151, 252-263.
• CLARK, S. L., MILLER, D. D., BELFORT, M. A., DILDY, G. A., FRYE, D. K. & MEYERS, J. A. 2009. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 200, 156. e1-156. e4.
• CRANE, J. M. 2006. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology, 49, 573-584.
• DIETZ, P. M., RIZZO, J. H., ENGLAND, L. J., CALLAGHAN, W. M., VESCO, K. K., BRUCE, F. C., BULKLEY, J. E., SHARMA, A. J. & HORNBROOK, M. C. 2012. Early term delivery and health care utilization in the first year of life. The Journal of pediatrics, 161, 234-239. e1.
• EHRENTHAL, D. B., HOFFMAN, M. K., JIANG, X. & OSTRUM, G. 2011. Neonatal outcomes after implementation of guidelines limiting elective delivery before 39 weeks of gestation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 118, 1047-1055.
• GIBSON, K. S. & WATERS, T. P. Measures of success: Prediction of successful labor induction. Seminars in perinatology, 2015. Elsevier, 475-482.
• GROBMAN, W. A. 2007. Elective induction: when? ever? Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 50, 537-546.
• GROBMAN, W. A. 2014. Costs of elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 57, 363-8.
• HEFFNER, L. J., ELKIN, E. & FRETTS, R. C. 2003. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 102, 287-293.KOLKMAN, D., VERHOEVEN, C., BRINKHORST, S. J., VAN DER POST, J., PAJKRT, E., OPMEER, B. C. & MOL, B. 2013. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol, 30, 625-30.
• LUTHY, D. A., MALMGREN, J. A. & ZINGHEIM, R. W. 2004. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 191, 1511-1515.
• MISHANINA, E., ROGOZINSKA, E., THATTHI, T., UDDIN-KHAN, R., KHAN, K. S. & MEADS, C. 2014. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal, cmaj. 130925.
• MOLINA, G., WEISER, T. G., LIPSITZ, S. R., ESQUIVEL, M. M., URIBE-LEITZ, T., AZAD, T., SHAH, N., SEMRAU, K., BERRY, W. R. & GAWANDE, A. A. 2015. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. Jama, 314, 2263-2270.
• MYLONAS, I. & FRIESE, K. 2015. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 112, 489.
• OSTERMAN, M. J. & MARTIN, J. A. 2014. Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age.
• QUEENAN, J. T. 2011. How to stop the relentless rise in cesarean deliveries. LWW.
• ROSENSTEIN, M. G., CHENG, Y. W., SNOWDEN, J. M., NICHOLSON, J. M., DOSS, A. E. & CAUGHEY, A. B. 2012. The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 206, 309. e1-309. e7.
• TEIXEIRA, C., LUNET, N., RODRIGUES, T. & BARROS, H. 2012. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 286, 739-753.
• TÖRE, G., GURBET, A., ŞAHIN, Ş., TÜRKER, G., YAVAŞCAOĞLU, B. & KORKMAZ, S. 2009. Türkiye'de Obstetrik Anestezi Uygulamalarindaki Değişimin Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of the Turkish Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Society-JTAICS/Türk Anestezi ve Reanimasyon Dergisi, 37.
• VAHRATIAN, A., ZHANG, J., TROENDLE, J. F., SCISCIONE, A. C. & HOFFMAN, M. K. 2005. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105, 698-704.
• WOLFE, K. B., ROSSI, R. A. & WARSHAK, C. R. 2011. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 205, 128. e1-128. e7.
• YEAST, J. D., JONES, A. & POSKIN, M. 1999. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 180, 628-633.