Maternal factors affecting outcome of induction of labour

Shravani Devarasetty, S. Habeebullah


Background: Induction of labour is a common procedure in modern obstetrics and accounts for 20% among all deliveries. This study aims to assess the factors associated with success/failure of induction of labour.

Methods: This is a cohort study involving 220 women who underwent induction of labour in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, MGMCRI from December 2016 to May 2018. After obtaining informed consent, patients were recruited into the study. Maternal parameters like age, parity, gestational age, BMI, Bishop score, indication of induction, method of induction, mode of delivery, maternal complications and neonatal parameters like Apgar score, birth weight and NICU admission were analyzed. Association of all parameters with mode of delivery was done by chi square test or Fisher exact test.

Results: Out of 220 women who were induced, vaginal delivery rate was 56.4%. Vaginal delivery rate was high in young women of age 20-25 years (65.2%), multiparous women (65.1%), gestational age of > 40-42 weeks (64.7%), with normal BMI (67.7%), with Bishop score ≥ 5(94.6%), induced for PROM and postdates (68.6%) and induced with single agent (74%). Most common indication of caesarean section was fetal distress (43.7%) followed by meconium stained liquor (30.2%). There were no adverse perinatal outcomes.

Conclusions: Women of age 20-25 years, normal BMI and induced with single agent showed statistically significant successful induction of labour.


Bishop score, Caesarean section, Induction of labour, Vaginal delivery

Full Text:



Inducing labour, Guidance and guidelines, NICE. 2008: Available at: URI: /guidance/qs60.

Zhang J, Yancey MK, Henderson CE. U.S. national trends in labor induction, 1989-1998. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(2):120-4.

Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(1):164-7.

Järvelin MR, Hartikainen-Sorri AL, Rantakallio P. Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100(4):310-5.

Vrouenraets FPJM, Roumen FJME, Dehing CJG, van den Akker ESA, Aarts MJB, Scheve EJT. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):690-7.

Zeitlin J, Mohangoo AD, Delnord M, Cuttini M, EURO-PERISTAT scientific committee. The second European perinatal health report: documenting changes over 6 years in the health of mothers and babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2013;67(12):983-5.

WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJK, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep Cent Dis Control Prev Natl Cent Health Stat Natl Vital Stat Syst. 2013;62(1):1-69.

Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns and outcomes of induction of labour in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and neonatal health. PlosOne. 2013;8(6):e65612.

Khan NB, Ahmed I, Malik A, Sheikh L. Factors associated with failed induction of labour in a secondary care hospital. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(1):6-10.

Marroquin GA, Tudorica N, Salafia CM, Hecht R, Mikhail M. Induction of labor at 41 weeks of pregnancy among primiparas with an unfavorable Bishop score. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(5):989-93.

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386-97.

Lee HR, Kim MN, You JY, Choi SJ, Oh SY, Roh CR, et al. Risk of cesarean section after induced versus spontaneous labor at term gestation. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015;58(5):346-52.

Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King VJ. Indications for induction of labour: A best-evidence review. MCN Am J Matern Nurs. 2009;34:6.

Mishanina E, Rogozinska E, Thatthi T, Uddin-Khan R, Khan KS, Meads C. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J Assoc Medicale Can. 2014;186(9):665-73.

Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley Catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Int J Repro Med. 2015. Available at:

Dahlia Mary A. Induction of Labour - Foley’s Catheter versus Prostaglandin E2 Gel. Madras Medical College, Chennai; 2010. Available at:

Bello. Predictors of successful induction of labour at a tertiary obstetric service in Southwest Nigeria. Available at: ?issn=0189-5117;year=2016;volume=33;issue= 2;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Bello.

Zandvakili F, Shahoei R, Roshani D, Nasab LH. Labor induction and the risk of cesarean delivery among term pregnancies. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2018;5(10):128-33.

Sultana R, Begum K, Sultana N, Sultana N, Munmun SA, Ara R, et al. Induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy and its outcome. Med Today. 2015;26(2):100-3.

Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(5 Pt 1):943-51.

Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD006971.

Davey MA, King J. Caesarean section following induction of labour in uncomplicated first births: a population-based cross-sectional analysis of 42,950 births. BMC Preg Childbirth. 2016;16:92.