0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Maternal Labor-Related Complications and Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks of Gestation vs Expectant Management : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes are experienced following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management?

          Findings

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies with more than 1.6 million participants, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with improved maternal labor-related and neonatal complications, including a reduced likelihood of perineal injury, macrosomia, and low 5-minute Apgar score after birth. However, among nulliparous women only, induction of labor was associated with an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia compared with expectant management.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks may be safe and beneficial for some women; however, potential risks should be discussed with nulliparous women.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes associated with elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is common. Thus, there is a need to assess maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes associated with elective induction of labor.

          Objective

          To examine maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management.

          Data Sources

          A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Library, World Health Organization, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and registries to search for articles published between database inception and December 8, 2022.

          Study Selection

          This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies reporting perinatal outcomes following induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed studies for bias. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. This study is reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 guideline, and the protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Maternal outcomes of interest included emergency cesarean section, perineal injury, postpartum hemorrhage, and operative vaginal birth. Neonatal outcomes of interest included admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, low 5-minute Apgar score (<7) after birth, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia.

          Results

          Of the 5827 records identified in the search, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies reported outcomes for 1 625 899 women birthing a singleton pregnancy. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with a 37% reduced likelihood of third- or fourth-degree perineal injury (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]), in addition to reductions in operative vaginal birth (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]), macrosomia (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.48-0.91]), and low 5-minute Apgar score (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.96]). Results were similar when confined to multiparous women only, with the addition of a substantial reduction in the likelihood of emergency cesarean section (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38-0.98]) and no difference in operative vaginal birth (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.84-1.21]). However, among nulliparous women only, induction of labor was associated with an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.02-1.46]) compared with expectant management.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this study, induction of labor at 39 weeks was associated with improved maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes. However, among nulliparous women, induction of labor was associated with shoulder dystocia. These results suggest that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks may be safe and beneficial for some women; however, potential risks should be discussed with nulliparous women.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women

              The perinatal and maternal consequences of induction of labor at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women are uncertain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                12 May 2023
                May 2023
                12 May 2023
                : 6
                : 5
                : e2313162
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 28, 2023.
                Published: May 12, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Hong J et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Roxanne Hastie, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, 163 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia ( hastie.r@ 123456unimelb.edu.au ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Hong and Hastie had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Hong and Ms Atkinson as well as Drs Lindquist and Hastie contributed equally to this work.
                Concept and design: Hong, Tong, Walker, Hastie.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hong, Atkinson, Roddy Mitchell, Middleton, Lindquist, Hastie.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Hong, Atkinson, Tong, Lindquist, Hastie.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Hong, Roddy Mitchell, Hastie.
                Obtained funding: Lindquist.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Hong, Atkinson, Middleton, Hastie.
                Supervision: Tong, Walker, Lindquist.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: Drs Tong, Lindquist, and Hastie receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi230405
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162
                10182428
                37171818
                2ff421a9-ea82-4b03-be24-3b6b2a990026
                Copyright 2023 Hong J et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 26 January 2023
                : 28 March 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Obstetrics and Gynecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article