Induction of labour and its feto-maternal outcome
Keywords:Fetal distress, Fetal outcome, Induction of labour, Maternal outcome, Misoprost
Background: Induction of labour is an iatrogenic deliberate attempt to terminate the pregnancy in order to achieve vaginal delivery in cases of valid indication. It should be carefully supervised as it is a challenge to the clinician, mother and the fetus. Aim of this study was to find out common indications for IOL in a tertiary care teaching centre and its feto-maternal outcome.
Methods: An institutional based retrospective observational study was conducted to describe the prevalence of labour induction and factors associated with its outcome, during the time-period of one year from January 2018 to December 2018, at SRMS IMS, Bareilly. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the relative effect of determinants and statistical tests were used to see the associations.
Results: Most of the patients were primigravidas of younger age-group. Idiopathic oligohydramnios and postdatism were the commonest indications for induction of labour and Misoprost was the commonest drug used for it. Though majority had vaginal delivery, as the method was changed to combined method it was significantly associated with increased likelihood of LSCS. Similarly there was increased association with maternal cervico-vaginal tear / lacerations as the method was changed to combined type. However there were no association between post-partum hemorrhage, meconium stained liquor or fetal distress.
Conclusions: Common indications for induction of labour were oligohydramnios and postdatism. Misoprost can be safely used for induction of labour without any increased risk for LSCS or any fetal / neonatal risks.
WHO recommendations for induction of labour [PDF] who.int. World Health Organization - 2011 - apps.who.int. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf.
Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu 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. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65612.
Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, BeaverJ, Reddy UM, et al. Induction of labour in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2012;206:486.e1-9.
Gulmezoglu A, Crowther C, Middleton P, Heatly E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD004945.
Stock S, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expected management: population-based study. BMJ. 2012;344:e2838.
Little SE, Caughey AB. Induction of labor and cesarean: What is the true relationship? Cli Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58(2):269-81.
Tolcher MC, Holbert MR, Weaver AL, McGree ME. Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):1059-68.
Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, Jessica Dy. Induction of Labour: Review. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;37(4):380-1.
Middleton P, Shepherd E, Flenady V, McBain RD, Crowther CA. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017(1).
Saccone G, Berghella V. Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(5):629-36.
Bailit JL, Grobman W, Zhao Y, Wapner RJ, Reddy UM, Varner MW et al. Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):103.e1-7.
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallet G, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-23.
Sinkey RG, Lacevic J, Reliic T, Hozo I, Gibson KS, Odibo AO, et al. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks among nulliparous women: The impact on maternal and neonatal risk. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0193169.
Gibbs Pickens CM, Kramer MR, Howards PP, Badell ML, Caughey AB, Hoque CJ. Term elective induction of labor and pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):12-22.
Vilchez GA, Dai J, Hoyos LR, Gill N, Bahado-Singh R, Sokol RJ. Labor and neonatal outcomes after term induction of labor in gestational diabetes. J Perinatol. 2015;35(11):924-9.
Melamed N, Ray JG, Geary M, Bedard D, Yang C, Spraque A, et al. Induction of labor before 40 weeks is associated with lower rate of cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):364.e1-8.
Friberg AK, Zingmark V, Lyndrup J. Early induction of labor in high-risk intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: what are the costs? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294(4):709-14.
Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):167-79.
De Bonrostro Torralba C, Teiero Cabreias EL, Envid Lazaro BM, Franco Royo MJ, Roca Arquillue M, Campillos Maza JM. Low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019:PMID:30723912.
Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, Lang J, Ma L, Chen W. Efficacy snd safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(4):897-906.
Wang L, Zheng J, Wang W, Fu J, Hou L. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(8):1297-307.
Daniele B, Saskia VW, Anda-Petronela R, Maria LG, Luigi R, Martin M, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:149.