Defining failed induction of labor

Autor: William A. Grobman, Jennifer Bailit, Yinglei Lai, Uma M. Reddy, Ronald J. Wapner, Michael W. Varner, John M. Thorp, Kenneth J. Leveno, Steve N. Caritis, Mona Prasad, Alan T.N. Tita, George Saade, Yoram Sorokin, Dwight J. Rouse, Sean C. Blackwell, Jorge E. Tolosa, G. Mallett, M. Ramos-Brinson, A. Roy, L. Stein, P. Campbell, C. Collins, N. Jackson, M. Dinsmoor, J. Senka, K. Paychek, A. Peaceman, M. Talucci, M. Zylfijaj, Z. Reid, R. Leed, J. Benson, S. Forester, C. Kitto, S. Davis, M. Falk, C. Perez, K. Hill, A. Sowles, J. Postma, S. Alexander, G. Andersen, V. Scott, V. Morby, K. Jolley, J. Miller, B. Berg, K. Dorman, J. Mitchell, E. Kaluta, K. Clark, K. Spicer, S. Timlin, K. Wilson, L. Moseley, M. Santillan, J. Price, K. Buentipo, V. Bludau, T. Thomas, L. Fay, C. Melton, J. Kingsbery, R. Benezue, H. Simhan, M. Bickus, D. Fischer, T. Kamon, D. DeAngelis, B. Mercer, C. Milluzzi, W. Dalton, T. Dotson, P. McDonald, C. Brezine, A. McGrail, C. Latimer, L. Guzzo, F. Johnson, L. Gerwig, S. Fyffe, D. Loux, S. Frantz, D. Cline, S. Wylie, J. Iams, M. Wallace, A. Northen, J. Grant, C. Colquitt, D. Rouse, W. Andrews, J. Moss, A. Salazar, A. Acosta, G. Hankins, N. Hauff, L. Palmer, P. Lockhart, D. Driscoll, L. Wynn, C. Sudz, D. Dengate, C. Girard, S. Field, P. Breault, F. Smith, N. Annunziata, D. Allard, J. Silva, M. Gamage, J. Hunt, J. Tillinghast, N. Corcoran, M. Jimenez, F. Ortiz, P. Givens, B. Rech, C. Moran, M. Hutchinson, Z. Spears, C. Carreno, B. Heaps, G. Zamora, J. Seguin, M. Rincon, J. Snyder, C. Farrar, E. Lairson, C. Bonino, W. Smith, K. Beach, S. Van Dyke, S. Butcher, E. Thom, M. Rice, Y. Zhao, P. McGee, V. Momirova, R. Palugod, B. Reamer, M. Larsen, C. Spong, S. Tolivaisa, J.P. Van Dorsten
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2018
Předmět:
DOI: 10.17615/wtjh-m364
Popis: BACKGROUND: While there are well-accepted standards for the diagnosis of arrested active-phase labor, the definition of a "failed" induction of labor remains less certain. One approach to diagnosing a failed induction is based on the duration of the latent phase. However, a standard for the minimum duration that the latent phase of a labor induction should continue, absent acute maternal or fetal indications for cesarean delivery, remains lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes as a function of the duration of the latent phase among nulliparous women undergoing labor induction. METHODS: This study is based on data from an obstetric cohort of women delivering at 25 U.S. hospitals from 2008-2011. Nulliparous women who had a term singleton gestation in the cephalic presentation were eligible for this analysis if they underwent a labor induction. Consistent with prior studies, the latent phase was determined to begin once cervical ripening had ended, oxytocin was initiated and rupture of membranes (ROM) had occurred, and was determined to end once 5 cm dilation was achieved. The frequencies of cesarean delivery, as well as of adverse maternal (e.g., cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis) and perinatal outcomes (e.g., a composite frequency of either seizures, sepsis, bone or nerve injury, encephalopathy, or death), were compared as a function of the duration of the latent phase (analyzed with time both as a continuous measure and categorized in 3-hour increments). RESULTS: A total of 10,677 women were available for analysis. In the vast majority (96.4%) of women, the active phase had been reached by 15 hours. The longer the duration of a woman's latent phase, the greater her chance of ultimately undergoing a cesarean delivery (P
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: