PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH OUTCOMES AFTER LABOR INDUCTION
Abstract
Aim. To study the course of pregnancy and labor in patients with labor induction. Materials and Methods. I retrospectively reviewed 216 case histories of women admitted to Podgorbunskiy Regional Clinical Emergency Hospital in 2016, half of which (n = 108) experienced labor induction. Inclusion criteria were 3741 weeks of gestation, induced labor, and singleton pregnancy. Exclusion criteria were preterm birth and cesarean section. Results. Indications for labor induction included exacerbation of somatic disorders (42/108, 38.9%), pre-eclampsia (33/108, 30.6%), postterm pregnancy (27/108, 25.0%), and premature rupture of membranes (16/108, 14.8%) patients. Out of 108 patients with induced labor, only 10 (9.3%) patients had Bishop's score < 6 SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT while 69 (63.9%) patients had Bishop's score ≥ 8. Further, 10 (9.3%) patients with induced labor had placenta previa, 12 (11.1%) were diagnosed with oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios, and 29 (26.9%) women had impaired fetal heart rate. The most common complications of induced as compared to non-induced labor were traumatic delivery (OR=7,857 (4,15514,856), р=0,038) and labor abnormalities OR=13,549 (4,625-39,693), р=0,045 including weak uterine contractions (OR=12,793 (2,91856,080), р=0,048,and abnormal uterine activity (OR=19,989 (2,609-153,129), р=0,013). Conclusions. Labor induction is associated with traumatic delivery and higher risk of labor abnormalities.
About the Author
OKSANA N. Novikova
Kemerovo State Medical University (22a, Voroshilova Street, Kemerovo, 650056), Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Мухаметова Э.Е., Кзылбаева М., Канатова М., Кенесбаева Н., Нурболаткызы А., Темирбеков А. Анализ исходов индуцированных родов в зависимости от методов индукции // Вестник КазНМУ. 2016. № 1. С. 26-27
2. Беттихер О.А., Зазерская И.Е., Попова П.В., Кустаров В.Н. Исходы индуцированных родов у пациенток с гестационным сахарным диабетом // Сахарный диабет. 2016. Т. 19 № 2. С. 158-163
3. Благодарный Г.В., Мозговая Е.В. Оценка эффективности и безопасности методов родовозбуждения с применением простагландина Е1 // Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. 2017. Т. 66, № 1. С. 9-20
4. Baev OR, Rumyantseva VP, Tysyachnyu OV, Kozlova OA, Sukhikh GT. Outcomes of mifepristone usage for cervical ripening and induction of labour in full-term pregnancy. Randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 217: 144-149. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.038.
5. Бексултанова М.У., Танышева Г.А., Кинаятова Ш.К. Влияние методов индукции родов на материнские и перинатальные исходы родов // Наука и здравоохранение. 2015. № 5. С. 42-51
6. Наумов А.Д., Подгурская К.В., Кришталь В.С., Косинец М.В. Сравнительный анализ способов подготовки шейки матки к родам и исход родов. Особенности применения мифепристона для подготовки шейки матки к родам // Молодой ученый. 2016. № 10 (114). С. 517-520
7. Баев О.Р., Тысячный О.В., Румянцева В.П., Усова Е.А. Эффективность подготовки шейки матки и родовозбуждения в схеме с использованием антипрогестина мифепристон // Медицинский совет. 2015. № 9. С. 72-76
8. WHO. Recommendations WHO for induction of labor. Geneva: WHO Publishing, 2014. 38 p.
9. Баев О.Р., Румянцева В.П., Кан Н.Е., Тетруашвили Н.К., Тютюнник В.Л., Ходжаева З.С. и др. Подготовка шейки матки к родам и родовозбуждение. Клинический протокол // Акушерство и гинекология. 2012. № S4-2. С. 14-23.
10. Faucett AM, Daniels K, Lee HC, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YG. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term. J Perinatol. 2014; 34 (2): 95-99. doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.133.
11. Sister Morning Star. The times and tools of induction. Midwifery Today Int Midwife. 2013; (107): 15-18.
12. Ashwal E, Hadar E, Chen R, Aviram A, Hiersch L, Gabbay-Benziv R. Effect of fetal gender on induction of labor failure rates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30 (24): 3009-3013. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1271410.
13. Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: A randomized trial // Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 210: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.026.
14. Kehl S, Böhm L, Weiss C, Heimrich J, Dammer U, Baier F, et al. Timing of sequential use of double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for induction of labor // J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016; 42 (11): 1495-1501. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.507.
15. Esin S, Yirci B, Yalvac S, Kandemir O. Use of translabial threedimensional power Doppler ultrasound for cervical assessment before laborinduction. J Perinat Med. 2017; 45 (5): 559-564. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0206.
Review
For citations:
Novikova O.N. PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH OUTCOMES AFTER LABOR INDUCTION. Fundamental and Clinical Medicine. 2018;3(3):59-64. (In Russ.)
Views:
4291
Email this article 