Maternal and perinatal outcomes of failed prostaglandin induction of labour: A retrospective cohort study.
Adverse outcomes
Cervical ripening
Failure
Induction of labor
Prostaglandins
Risk factors
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
18
10
2022
revised:
28
12
2022
accepted:
13
01
2023
entrez:
23
2
2023
pubmed:
24
2
2023
medline:
24
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Induction of labor is performed in up to 25% of pregnant women. When the cervix is unfavorable, cervical ripening may be safely and effectively performed using slow-release vaginal inserts of prostaglandin E2. However, the risk factors, management, and outcome of patients who fail to respond remain unclear. To evaluate the outcomes of women who fail to respond to cervical ripening with prostaglandins. A retrospective cohort analysis (2013-2019) was conducted. Women with a singleton gestation who underwent induction of labor due to post-date pregnancy using a slow-release prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert for cervical ripening were included. Data on clinical and outcome factors were derived from the medical files, and findings were compared between patients who achieved ripening within 24 h of treatment onset and those who did not. The primary outcome measure was the vaginal delivery rate following the ripening process. Secondary outcome measures were adverse composite maternal and neonatal outcomes. A model combining maternal characteristics and response rates to ripening was constructed. The final cohort included 1285 women: 1202 responded to cervical ripening (93.54%) and 83 (6.46%) did not. Compared to non-responders, responders had higher rates of vaginal delivery (96.51% vs. 66.27%, Women who achieve cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal inserts are younger and more often multiparous than women who fail to respond. Good response to the cervical ripening process is associated with lower rates of intrapartum cesarean delivery and of adverse outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Induction of labor is performed in up to 25% of pregnant women. When the cervix is unfavorable, cervical ripening may be safely and effectively performed using slow-release vaginal inserts of prostaglandin E2. However, the risk factors, management, and outcome of patients who fail to respond remain unclear.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the outcomes of women who fail to respond to cervical ripening with prostaglandins.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A retrospective cohort analysis (2013-2019) was conducted. Women with a singleton gestation who underwent induction of labor due to post-date pregnancy using a slow-release prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert for cervical ripening were included. Data on clinical and outcome factors were derived from the medical files, and findings were compared between patients who achieved ripening within 24 h of treatment onset and those who did not. The primary outcome measure was the vaginal delivery rate following the ripening process. Secondary outcome measures were adverse composite maternal and neonatal outcomes. A model combining maternal characteristics and response rates to ripening was constructed.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The final cohort included 1285 women: 1202 responded to cervical ripening (93.54%) and 83 (6.46%) did not. Compared to non-responders, responders had higher rates of vaginal delivery (96.51% vs. 66.27%,
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Women who achieve cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal inserts are younger and more often multiparous than women who fail to respond. Good response to the cervical ripening process is associated with lower rates of intrapartum cesarean delivery and of adverse outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36820163
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13055
pii: S2405-8440(23)00262-1
pmc: PMC9938492
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13055Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Apr;95(4):589-95
pubmed: 10725495
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;124(2 Pt 1):390-396
pubmed: 25050770
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jan;26(2):132-6
pubmed: 22928537
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):252-63, W53-63
pubmed: 19687492
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019 Nov;68(13):1-47
pubmed: 32501202
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Oct;17(5):707-16
pubmed: 12972009
Am J Perinatol. 1991 Mar;8(2):128-30
pubmed: 2006938
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):346-54
pubmed: 26538408
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Jun;23(6):536-40
pubmed: 19895355
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(4):402-7
pubmed: 19330572
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Oct;29(19):3229-33
pubmed: 26572735
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Dec;44(6):562-7
pubmed: 15598298
Obstet Gynecol. 1964 Aug;24:266-8
pubmed: 14199536
BJOG. 2015 Jan;122(1):129-36
pubmed: 25327872
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 19;(6):CD003101
pubmed: 24941907
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 1):386-397
pubmed: 19623003
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116(6):1281-1287
pubmed: 21099592
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Feb;30(4):461-465
pubmed: 27050812
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 1):261-267
pubmed: 19622986
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005 Oct;15(10):616-9
pubmed: 19810299