The Journal of reproductive medicine · 2005
Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Glantz J Christopher
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors and outcomes associated with elective medical induction of labor as compared with spontaneous labor in low-risk women.
STUDY DESIGN: Using a birth certificate database including 11,849 low-risk, laboring women, univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and obstetric factors associated with elective labor induction. Low risk was defined as singleton, vertex, 37-41 weeks' gestation, no prior cesarean section, and no presenting medical/obstetric diagnoses considered indications for cesarean or induction. Adverse neonatal outcome was defined as 1- or 5-minute Apgar score < 7, neonatal intensive care unit admission or respiratory distress. Spontaneously laboring women (n = 10,608) were compared with women who underwent induced labor for no apparent medical/obstetric reason (n = 1,241). Interventions and outcomes during and after labor induction were adjusted for relevant associated variables.
RESULTS: Odds ratios for epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery and diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns were independently increased following elective induction; odds ratios for cephalopelvic disproportion, instrumental delivery and adverse neonatal outcome were not. Maternal length of stay was 0.34 days longer with induction than with spontaneous labor (p < 0.0001). Slightly more induced labors ended before midnight.
CONCLUSION: As compared with spontaneous labor, elective labor induction is independently associated with more intrapartum interventions, more cesarean deliveries and longer maternal length of stay. Neonatal outcome is unaffected.
STUDY DESIGN: Using a birth certificate database including 11,849 low-risk, laboring women, univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and obstetric factors associated with elective labor induction. Low risk was defined as singleton, vertex, 37-41 weeks' gestation, no prior cesarean section, and no presenting medical/obstetric diagnoses considered indications for cesarean or induction. Adverse neonatal outcome was defined as 1- or 5-minute Apgar score < 7, neonatal intensive care unit admission or respiratory distress. Spontaneously laboring women (n = 10,608) were compared with women who underwent induced labor for no apparent medical/obstetric reason (n = 1,241). Interventions and outcomes during and after labor induction were adjusted for relevant associated variables.
RESULTS: Odds ratios for epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery and diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns were independently increased following elective induction; odds ratios for cephalopelvic disproportion, instrumental delivery and adverse neonatal outcome were not. Maternal length of stay was 0.34 days longer with induction than with spontaneous labor (p < 0.0001). Slightly more induced labors ended before midnight.
CONCLUSION: As compared with spontaneous labor, elective labor induction is independently associated with more intrapartum interventions, more cesarean deliveries and longer maternal length of stay. Neonatal outcome is unaffected.