Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review.


Journal

JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports
ISSN: 2202-4433
Titre abrégé: JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101648258

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 10 10 2018
medline: 21 8 2020
entrez: 10 10 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The objective of this review was to identify, assess and synthesize the best available evidence on the effects of induction prior to post-term on the mother and fetus. Maternal and fetal outcomes after routine labor induction in low-risk pregnancies at 41+0 to 41+6 gestational weeks (prior to post-term) were compared to routine labor induction at 42+0 to 42+6 gestational weeks (post-term). Induction of labor when a pregnancy exceeds 14 days past the estimated due date has long been used as an intervention to prevent adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Over the last decade, clinical procedures have changed in many countries towards earlier induction. A shift towards earlier inductions may lead to 15-20% more inductions. Given the fact that induction as an intervention can cause harm to both mother and child, it is essential to ensure that the benefits of the change in clinical practice outweigh the harms. This review included studies with participants with expected low-risk deliveries, where both fetus and mother were considered healthy at inclusion and with no known risks besides the potential risk of the ongoing pregnancy. Included studies evaluated induction at 41+1-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+1-6 gestational weeks. Randomized control trials (n = 2), quasi-experimental trials (n = 2), and cohort studies (n = 3) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were cesarean section, instrumental vaginal delivery, low Apgar score (≤ 7/5 min.), and low pH (< 7.10). Secondary outcomes included additional indicators of fetal or maternal wellbeing related to prolonged pregnancy or induction. The following information sources were searched for published and unpublished studies: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Swemed+, POPLINE; Cochrane, TRIP; Current Controlled Trials; Web of Science, and, for gray literature: MedNar; Google Scholar, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, and guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, according to the published protocol. In addition, OpenGrey and guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, World Health Organization, and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada were sought. Included papers were assessed by all three reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). The standardized data extraction tool from JBI SUMARI was used. Data were pooled in a statistical meta-analysis model using RevMan 5, when the criteria for meta-analysis were met. Non-pooled results were presented separately. Induction at 41+0-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+0-6 gestational weeks was found to be associated with an increased risk of overall cesarean section (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.14), cesarean section due to failure to progress (RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.01), chorioamnionitis (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.21), labor dystocia (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37), precipitate labor (RR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.45-5.2), uterine rupture (RR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.54-2.52), pH < 7.10 (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.48-2.43), and a decreased risk of oligohydramnios (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.67) and meconium stained amniotic fluid (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91). Data lacked statistical power to draw conclusions on perinatal death. No differences were seen for postpartum hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, meconium aspiration, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. A policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labor until 42+0-6 gestational weeks showed, that approximately 70% went into spontaneous labor. Induction prior to post-term was associated with few beneficial outcomes and several adverse outcomes. This draws attention to possible iatrogenic effects affecting large numbers of low-risk women in contemporary maternity care. According to the World Health Organization, expected benefits from a medical intervention must outweigh potential harms. Hence, our results do not support the widespread use of routine induction prior to post-term (41+0-6 gestational weeks).

Identifiants

pubmed: 30299344
doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003587
pmc: PMC6382053
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

170-208

Références

JAMA. 2013 May 8;309(18):1930-6
pubmed: 23652524
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2005 Apr-Jun;19(2):134-44
pubmed: 15923963
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Feb 10;106(2):154-7
pubmed: 12551783
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2009 Mar;(176):1-257
pubmed: 19408970
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187(4):858-63
pubmed: 12388964
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;53(4):381-7
pubmed: 18586192
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Dec;59(12):1019-21
pubmed: 16286486
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Oct 5;103(19):1436-43
pubmed: 21931068
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Dec;31(12):1124-30
pubmed: 20085677
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Feb;17(2):170-208
pubmed: 30299344
ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Sep 25;2013:178415
pubmed: 24187627
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012 Apr;34(4):330-40
pubmed: 22472332
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Dec;207(6):502.e1-8
pubmed: 23063017
Midwifery. 2015 May;31(5):526-31
pubmed: 25726005
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jul;169(1):10-6
pubmed: 23434325
Science. 2000 Dec 22;290(5500):2261-2
pubmed: 11188724
CMAJ. 1999 Apr 20;160(8):1145-9
pubmed: 10234344
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;195(3):700-5
pubmed: 16949399
J Reprod Med. 2011 Jan-Feb;56(1-2):25-30
pubmed: 21366123
Birth. 2016 Jun;43(2):125-33
pubmed: 26776817
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD004945
pubmed: 22696345
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Sep;209(3):209.e1-8
pubmed: 23702296
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(2):247-9
pubmed: 18240379
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;115(1):70-76
pubmed: 20027037
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Jan;27(2):173-6
pubmed: 23682721
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008 Sep;30(9):800-810
pubmed: 18845050
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Mar;109(3):609-17
pubmed: 17329511
N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 11;326(24):1587-92
pubmed: 1584259
Birth. 2003 Sep;30(3):168-74
pubmed: 12911799
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):672-5
pubmed: 9310574
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Sep;25(9):1716-8
pubmed: 22339273
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Jan;11(1):50-3
pubmed: 12380609
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;122(4):761-769
pubmed: 24084532
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jun 1;120(2):164-9
pubmed: 15925045
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 May;93(2):144-5
pubmed: 16603164
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012 Dec;3(4):129-34
pubmed: 23182444
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Apr 1;125(2):206-10
pubmed: 16139416
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):252-63, W53-63
pubmed: 19687492
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Jul;286(1):37-41
pubmed: 22298204
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;209(4):375.e1-7
pubmed: 23707677
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jul;31(7):621-626
pubmed: 19761635
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;120(1):76-82
pubmed: 22914394
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;22(6):587-96
pubmed: 19000297
BMJ. 2012 May 10;344:e2838
pubmed: 22577197
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 May;132(1):70-5
pubmed: 16884843
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(6):657-65
pubmed: 17520395
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jun;25(6):728-31
pubmed: 21827344
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Feb;31(2):410-7
pubmed: 10672100
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(1):6-17
pubmed: 19140042
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;289(1):79-84
pubmed: 23839535
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Apr;32(3):257-9
pubmed: 22369399
BMJ Open. 2016 May 27;6(5):e011333
pubmed: 27235300
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Jan;30(2):219-223
pubmed: 27002548
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(6):663-8
pubmed: 16752256
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Feb;91(2):198-203
pubmed: 21995778
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;212(1):103.e1-7
pubmed: 24983681
BJOG. 2011 Apr;118(5):578-88
pubmed: 21265999
Dan Med J. 2014 Sep;61(9):A4913
pubmed: 25186547
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;27(5):442-51
pubmed: 23930780
East Mediterr Health J. 2003 May;9(3):316-23
pubmed: 15751924
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2010 Nov 4;130(21):2114
pubmed: 21052111
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Apr;32(3):260-3
pubmed: 22369400
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;192(1):185-90
pubmed: 15672023
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120

Auteurs

Eva Rydahl (E)

Department of Midwifery and Therapeutic Sciences, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Danish Center of Systematic Reviews: a Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Department of Health Science and Technology, University of Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark.

Lena Eriksen (L)

The Research Unit Women's and Children's Health, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Mette Juhl (M)

Department of Midwifery and Therapeutic Sciences, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH