COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Elective Induction of Labor in the 39th Week of Gestation Compared With Expectant Management of Low-Risk Multiparous Women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal and maternal outcomes in low-risk multiparous women who underwent elective induction of labor in the 39th week of gestation with those who were expectantly managed.

METHODS: We performed a single center retrospective cohort study of low-risk multiparous women delivering nonanomalous singletons between 39 and 42 completed weeks of gestation from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of death, neonatal respiratory support, a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less, and shoulder dystocia. Groups were compared using χ, Fisher exact, two sample t-test, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, as appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS: Of the 3,703 low-risk multiparous women meeting inclusion criteria, 453 (12%) delivered between 39 0/7 and 39 4/7 after an elective induction of labor. Women who underwent elective induction of labor were more likely to be privately insured, non-Hispanic, and weigh more at their first prenatal visit (all P<.01) compared with expectant management. An elective induction of labor was associated with decreased frequency of the perinatal composite morbidity (4.0% vs 7.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.96) compared with expectant management. Fewer cesarean deliveries occurred among women in the elective induction of labor group (5.1% vs 6.6%; aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.97). Other maternal outcomes (hypertensive disorders, chorioamnionitis, and operative vaginal deliveries) as well as neonatal intensive care unit admissions were not different between groups.

CONCLUSION: Elective induction of labor in low-risk multiparous women in the 39th week of gestation was associated with decreased perinatal morbidity and a lower frequency of cesarean delivery compared with expectant management.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app