Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – observational study

doi:10.21203/rs.2.17345/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – observational study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.17345/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 23 Nov, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Objective: To demonstrate that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference in the labour outcome among induced nulliparous and multiparous women

Methods: Obstetric outcome, specifically caesarean section rates, among induced term nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous caesarean section were analyzed using the Robson 10 group classification 2 for the year 2016.

Results: The caesarean rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.8% (151/1925) and 32.6% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.4% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B 2 were 3.9% (133/3397) and 2.8% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term.

Conclusion: The data strongly suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity and should probably be confined to nulliparous women.

Maternal & Fetal Medicine

nulliparous women

multiparous women

induction of labour

The overall induction of labour rate in Ireland is 25%¹. The induction rate among single cephalic nulliparous women, ≥ 37weeks of gestation (SCNT) cohort group has increased in our hospital from 17.5 % when the Robson classification² was introduced in 1994 to 39.4 % in 2016 (Table 1). This increase in the induction rate is due to a variety of reasons including, ‘prolonged pregnancy’, gestational diabetes, cholestasis in pregnancy, patient’s request; indications which are usually recurrent and will, most likely, present a problem in subsequent pregnancies for women who have been delivered by caesarean section for failed induction in their first pregnancy.

A PubMed search (years 2010–2016) for publications on induction of labour was performed to determine how many abstracts mentioned parity. A search produced 404 abstracts of which only 77(19.1%) specifically stated that the study was confined to nulliparous or multiparous women. Of the remaining, 136(33.7%) mentioned parity as a variable in the analysis of results and 191 (47.2%) did not mention parity at all.

This was a retrospective observational study of data collated at the time of delivery on a computer database at the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin. Caesarean rates for Robson term single cephalic nulliparous and multiparous women were taken from data published in the annual hospital report. It is important to note that women with a previous caesarean section were excluded from the analysis. The indication for induction were classified under 6 headings: preeclampsia (hypertension and proteinuria)/ hypertension, postdates >=42 weeks, SROM, maternal reasons/pains, fetal reasons (IUGR, reduced liquor, GDM, obstetric cholestasis and others.) and nonmedical reasons (maternal request for postdates in prolonged pregnancy but not >= 42 weeks). (Table 4)

Table 4: Indications for induction among group 2A and 4A and the associated caesarean section rates (NMH 2016)

	Group 2A (n=1339)	CS rate for group 2A	Group 4A (n=1005)	CS rate for group 4A
Fetal reasons	32.5%(435)	26.4%(115/435)	27.5%(277)	4.3%(12/277)
SROM	24.4%(327)	33%(108/327)	14.7%(148)	6%(9/148)
Postdates (>=42 weeks)	14.8%(199)	44.2%(99/199)	12.8%(129)	3.9%(5/129)
PET/hypertension	11.8%(159)	29.6%(47/159)	5.8%(59)	6.7%(4/59)
Maternal reasons (pains)	9%(121)	26.4%(32/121)	19.2%(193)	3.1%(6/193)
Nonmedical reasons/dates (<42 weeks)	7.3%(98)	48%(47/121)	19.8%(199)	3.9%(8/199)
Total	39.4%(1339)	32.6%(437/1339)	28.8%(1005)	4.4%(44/1005)

The classification of caesarean section, performed during induction process or after labour was diagnosed, was classified as fetal reasons (without the use of oxytocin) and dystocia (which was further sub classified).^{3, 4}(Table 5)

Table 5: Indication for cesarean delivery among Robson group 2A and 4A

	Group 2A (n=1339)	Group 4A (n=1005)
Fetal reasons	7.5%(100)	1.0%(10)
Dyst/IUA/ITT/FI	9%(121)	0.8%(8)
Dyst/IUA/ITT/OC	5%(68)	0.7%(7)
Dyst/IUA/PR	8.1%(108)	1.4%(14)
Dyst (no oxytocin)	1.1%(15)	0.1%(1)
Dyst/EUA/CPD/POP	1.9%(25)	0.4%(4)
Total	32.6%(437)	4.4%(44)

Following admission for induction of labour a CTG was performed and the cervix was assessed by an experienced obstetrician. When the cervix was thought to be favorable artificial rupture of the membranes was performed (ARM) and an oxytocin infusion was commenced the following day if labour had not commenced.

When the cervix was deemed to be unfavorable, a prostaglandin PGE2 intravaginal gel was administrated and repeated if necessary, in 6 hours provided the repeat CTG were normal. A number of women were treated with Propess instead of PGE2 gel by the same principle. If labour had not commenced by the following day, the induction process was repeated; ARM or prostaglandin gel. When there was no change in cervical status after 2 days of induction process, a caesarean section was performed but was included in Robson group 2A or 4A.

The induction rate among single cephalic nulliparous women at term (SCNT) increased from 17.5 % in 1994 to 39.4 % in 2016 and caesarean section rate increased from 21.5% (97/451) to 32.6% (437/1339) respectively. The induction rate among term multiparous women without previous caesarean section (group 4A) increased from 17% in 1994 (626/3677) to 28.8% (1005/3494) in 2016 and the respective caesarean section rates were 5.1% (32/626) in 1994 and 4.4% in 2016 (44/1005).

There were 8851 women delivered in 2016 of whom 3397 were group 1 and 2. Among these 56.7% (1925/3397) went into spontaneous labour, 39.4% (1339/3397) were induced and 3.9% (133/3397) had pre labour caesarean section. The corresponding number for multiparous women group 3 and 4 were 68.4% (2389/3494), 28.8% (1005/3494) and 2.9% (100/3494). Excluded from analysis from multiparous women group were 1069 women with at least 1 previous caesarean section and a single cephalic pregnancy (Robson group 5).

Patient demographics, method of induction, obstetric and neonatal outcome are shown in table 2. Of note group 4A were significantly older and had significantly larger babies. However, the percentage of obese women (BMI = > 30) was similar. More nulliparous women required prostaglandins combined with oxytocin infusion for induction. (Table 2).

The caesarean rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, groups 1 and 2A, were 7.8% (151/1925) and 32.6% (437/1339) and among multiparous, group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.4% (44/1005), respectively. (Table 3)

Overall the caesarean section rate by indication was lowest in both groups when the indication for induction was for fetal reasons or maternal pains. Among nulliparous women, the highest caesarean section rate by indication were for postdates pregnancies ( = > 42weeks) 44 % and 48% for nonmedical reasons and late pregnancies < 42 weeks. (Table 4)

The indications for caesarean sections are shown in table 5 and as expected, the main difference between group 2A and 4A was the number indicated for dystocia and suspected fetal distress. (Table 5).

As the number of inductions are seemingly increasing there is a realization that the most significant groups to study are groups 2A and 4A from the Robson classification. In particular though, it is Group 2A.

Nulliparous women are always three to four times more likely to be delivered by caesarean section when labour is induced. Despite every effort over the years to address this important clinical problem including ARM, oxytocin infusion and prostaglandin in a variety of combinations, it remains difficult to induce labour in nulliparous women. In delivery units that report lower caesarean section rates in nulliparous women who are being induced it is often associated with a much longer labour process something which is certainly not viewed positively by all women and may have higher postpartum hemorrhage rates. In addition it is not easy to audit the results in that induction of labour needs to be compared with expectant management and not directly with spontaneous labour ⁴.

On the other hand, multiparous women who have previously delivered vaginally and without a cesarean section are the lowest risk of our obstetric population with a low cesarean rate birth in spontaneous and induced labour of 1% and 4.4%. Achieving vaginal delivery in nulliparous women therefore is important. The cesarean rate for nulliparous by indication for induction is important and the rate is highest (over 40%) in those induced in late pregnancy either for the strict definition of > = 42 weeks or those induced for nonmedical reason or dates <42 weeks.

As we search for new methods for induction of labour we would hope that the data presented here proves beyond all doubt that trials of any new techniques for labor induction should be confined to nulliparous women. We have not attempted to address the separate and contentious problem of labour induction in women with a previous cesarean section; avoiding the first cesarean section seems to be the only solution, either by trying to avoid induction or prelabour caesarean section when possible, or by introducing new techniques to increase the success of induction of labour in nulliparous women.

ETHICS APPROVAL:

Ethics committee approval has been waived as the data used in this study is published in the hospital annual report and therefore, it’s accessible to the general public.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION:

Not applicable

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS:

All the data used in this study is published in hospital annual report.

COMPETING INTERESTS:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

FUNDING:

No funding declared.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS:

Dr BD, Dr MR and Prof. MF were the principal writers of the manuscript. Dr RM helped in conducting the study. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Authors would like to thank all the staff in the National Maternity Hospital who have helped collecting the data especially Tina Murphy who has sadly passed away.

[1] Sinnotts SJ, Layte R, Brick A, Turner MJ. Variation in induction of labour rates across Irish hospitals; a cross-sectional study. Eur J Public Health. 2016 Oct; 26(5):753–760.

[2] Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001; 12(1); 23–39.

[3] Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10‐Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 131: S23-S27

[4] Little SE, Caughey AB. Induction of labor and cesarean: What is the true relationship? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun; 58(2):269–81.

Table 1: Robson 10 group classification and the results for NMH 2016.

Group	Description	Total numbers of caesarean sections (2303/8851)	Contribution of the group in overall hospital population	Caesarean section rate within each group	Contribution of each group to overall CS (26%)
1	Nulliparous, single cephalic, >=37 weeks, in spontaneous labour	151/1925	21.8%	7.8%	1.7%
2	Nulliparous, single cephalic, >=37 weeks, induced and CS before labour	570/1472	16.6%	38.7%	6.4%
2A	Nulliparous, single cephalic, >=37 weeks, induced	437/1339	15.1%	32.6%	4.9%
2B	Nulliparous, single cephalic, >=37 weeks, CS before labour	133	1.5%	100%	1.5%
3	Multiparous(excluding prev. CS), single cephalic, >=37 weeks, in spontaneous labour	24/2389	27%	1%	0.3%
4	Multiparous(excluding prev. CS), single cephalic, >=37 weeks, induced and CS before labour	144/1105	12.5%	13%	1.6%
4A	Multiparous(excluding prev. CS), single cephalic, >=37 weeks, induced	44/1005	11.4%	4.4%	0.5%
4B	Multiparous(excluding prev. CS), single cephalic, >=37 weeks, CS before labour	100	1.1%	100%	1.1%
5	Previous CS, single cephalic, >=37 weeks	821/1069	12.1%	76.8%	9.3%
6	All nulliparous breeches	162/171	1.9%	94.7%	1.8%
7	All multiparous breeches (including prev. CS)	115/124	1.4%	92.7%	1.3%
8	All multiple pregnancies (including prev. CS)	119/187	2.1%	63.6%	1.4%
9	All abnormal lies (including prev. CS)	30	0.3%	100%	0.3%
10	All single cephalic,<=36 weeks (including prev. CS)	167/379	4.3%	44.1%	1.9%

Table 2: Patient demographics, method of induction, maternal and fetal outcome (NMH 2016)

Group 2A

Group 4A

95% CI

p-value

Age>=35 years

439/1339(32.8%)

531/1005(52.8%)

15.9859 to 23.9354

P < 0.0001

BMI=>30	166/1339(12.4%)	145/1005(14.4%)	-0.7663 to 4.8407	P = 0.1577
Prostaglandin gel/Propess	666/1339(49.7%)	348/1005(34.6%)	11.0857 to 19.0287	P < 0.0001
Oxytocin	961/1339(71.8%)	323/1005(32.1%)	35.8527 to 43.3627	P < 0.0001
Artificial rupture of membranes	882/1339(65.9%)	851/1005(84.7%)	15.3708 to 22.1234	P < 0.0001
Fetal blood sampling	380/1339(28.4%)	68/1005(6.8%)	18.6832 to 24.4419	P < 0.0001
Vaginal operative delivery	392/1339(29.3%)	57/1005(5.7%)	20.7305 to 26.3998	P < 0.0001
Full dilatation caesarean section	34/1339(2.5%)	2/1005(0.2%)	1.4173 to 3.2926	P < 0.0001
PPH=>1000ml	63/1339(4.7%)	27/1005(2.7%)	0.4345 to 3.5197	P = 0.0127
HIE	5/1339(0.4%)	0/1005(0%)	-0.0419 to 0.9081	P= 0.0448
Blood transfusion	45/1339(3.4%)	9/1005(0.9%)	1.3370 to 3.6902	P = 0.0001
OASIS	29/1339(2.2%)	12/1005(1.2%)	-0.1021 to 2.0640	P = 0.0694
Apgar<7 at 5 min.	20/1339(1.5%)	8/1005(0.8%)	-0.2310 to 1.5947	P = 0.1235
Cord pH<7.0	5/1339(0.4%)	2/1005(0.2%)	-0.3702 to 0.7284	P = 0.3920
Admission to Neonatal unit	405/1339(30.2%)	145/1005(14.4%)	12.4717 to 19.0337	P < 0.0001
Babies>=4 kg	242/1339(18.1%)	264/1005(26.3%)	4.8030 to 11.6306	P < 0.0001
Episiotomy	570/1339(42.6%)	85/1005(8.5%)	30.8686 to 37.1941	P < 0.0001
Epidural	1023/1339(76.4%)	517/1005(51.4%)	21.1281 to 28.7909	P < 0.0001
Electronic monitoring	1238/1339(92.5%)	913/1005(90.8%)	-0.5430 to 4.0358	P = 0.1384
Length of labour>12h	103/1339(7.7%)	9/1005(0.9%)	5.2656 to 8.4092	P < 0.0001

Table 3: Caesarean section rates among nulliparous and multiparous women in spontaneous and induced labour (NMH 2016)

	Spontaneous labor	Induced labour
Nulliparous women	7.8%(151/1925)	32.6%(437/1339)
Multiparous women	1%(24/2389)	4.4%(44/1005)

Table 4: Indications for induction among group 2A and 4A and the associated caesarean section rates (NMH 2016)

	Group 2A (n=1339)	CS rate for group 2A	Group 4A (n=1005)	CS rate for group 4A
Fetal reasons	32.5%(435)	26.4%(115/435)	27.5%(277)	4.3%(12/277)
SROM	24.4%(327)	33%(108/327)	14.7%(148)	6%(9/148)
Postdates (>=42 weeks)	14.8%(199)	44.2%(99/199)	12.8%(129)	3.9%(5/129)
PET/hypertension	11.8%(159)	29.6%(47/159)	5.8%(59)	6.7%(4/59)
Maternal reasons (pains)	9%(121)	26.4%(32/121)	19.2%(193)	3.1%(6/193)
Nonmedical reasons/dates (<42 weeks)	7.3%(98)	48%(47/121)	19.8%(199)	3.9%(8/199)
Total	39.4%(1339)	32.6%(437/1339)	28.8%(1005)	4.4%(44/1005)

Table 5: Indication for cesarean delivery among Robson group 2A and 4A

	Group 2A (n=1339)	Group 4A (n=1005)
Fetal reasons	7.5%(100)	1.0%(10)
Dyst/IUA/ITT/FI	9%(121)	0.8%(8)
Dyst/IUA/ITT/OC	5%(68)	0.7%(7)
Dyst/IUA/PR	8.1%(108)	1.4%(14)
Dyst (no oxytocin)	1.1%(15)	0.1%(1)
Dyst/EUA/CPD/POP	1.9%(25)	0.4%(4)
Total	32.6%(437)	4.4%(44)

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 23 Nov, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth →

Editorial decision: Major revision
19 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
20 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
20 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
16 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
29 Oct, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited by journal
28 Oct, 2019
First submitted to journal
25 Oct, 2019

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – observational study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

ETHICS APPROVAL:

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION:

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS:

COMPETING INTERESTS:

FUNDING:

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1