Outcomes of induction versus spontaneous onset of labour at 40 and 41 GW: findings from a prospective database, Sri Lanka.
Full term pregnancy
Induction of labour
Late term pregnancy
Low risk pregnancies
Pregnancy outcomes
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jun 2022
27 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
01
06
2021
accepted:
01
06
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
30
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization recommends induction of labour (IOL) for low risk pregnancy from 41 + 0 gestational weeks (GW). Nevertheless, in Sri Lanka IOL at 40 GW is a common practice. This study compares maternal/newborn outcomes after IOL at 40 GW (IOL40) or 41 GW (IOL41) versus spontaneous onset of labour (SOL). Data were extracted from the routine prospective individual patient database of the Soysa Teaching Hospital for Women, Colombo. IOL and SOL groups were compared using logistic regression. Of 13,670 deliveries, 2359 (17.4%) were singleton and low risk at 40 or 41 GW. Of these, 456 (19.3%) women underwent IOL40, 318 (13.5%) IOL41, and 1585 (67.2%) SOL. Both IOL40 and IOL41 were associated with an increased risk of any maternal/newborn negative outcomes (OR = 2.21, 95%CI = 1.75-2.77, p < 0.001 and OR = 1.91, 95%CI = 1.47-2.48, p < 0.001 respectively), maternal complications (OR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.71-2.77, p < 0.001 and OR = 2.34, 95%CI = 1.78-3.07, p < 0.001 respectively) and caesarean section (OR = 2.75, 95%CI = 2.07-3.65, p < 0.001 and OR = 3.01, 95%CI = 2.21-4.12, p < 0.001 respectively). Results did not change in secondary and sensitivity analyses. Both IOL groups were associated with higher risk of negative outcomes compared to SOL. Findings, potentially explained by selection bias, local IOL protocols and CS practices, are valuable for Sri Lanka, particularly given contradictory findings from other settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35761191
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04800-1
pii: 10.1186/s12884-022-04800-1
pmc: PMC9235207
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
518Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Womens Health. 2013 Feb 06;13:5
pubmed: 23388103
PLoS Med. 2019 Jul 2;16(7):e1002838
pubmed: 31265456
Women Birth. 2020 May;33(3):219-230
pubmed: 31285166
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;134 Suppl 1:16S-21S
pubmed: 31568036
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 16;9(12):e032815
pubmed: 31848171
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 2;8(3):e019509
pubmed: 29500211
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 17;13(4):e0194906
pubmed: 29664907
Lancet. 2004 Jan 10;363(9403):157-63
pubmed: 14726171
BMJ. 2019 Feb 20;364:l344
pubmed: 30786997
J Perinatol. 2017 Feb;37(2):139-143
pubmed: 27929532
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 03;8(6):e65612
pubmed: 23755259
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 09;379(6):513-523
pubmed: 30089070
BMJ. 2007 Apr 21;334(7598):833
pubmed: 17337455
Acta Paediatr. 2014 Jul;103(7):e295-9
pubmed: 24597526
BMJ. 2019 Nov 20;367:l6131
pubmed: 31748223
BMJ. 2018 Jan 24;360:k55
pubmed: 29367432
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;221(4):304-310
pubmed: 30817905
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e023706
pubmed: 30782885
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020 Jan;105(1):50-55
pubmed: 31123055
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017 Aug;39(8):e164-e174
pubmed: 28729108
J Health Popul Nutr. 2013 Mar;31(1):96-109
pubmed: 23617210
BJOG. 2017 Aug;124(9):1335-1344
pubmed: 28139878
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228196
pubmed: 31995603
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 10;8(2):e019120
pubmed: 29440158
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 09;5:CD004945
pubmed: 29741208
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):813-22
pubmed: 26962902
Midwifery. 2019 Feb;69:17-28
pubmed: 30390463
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Feb;17(2):170-208
pubmed: 30299344
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e027317
pubmed: 30782951