Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix

Sarah S. Osmundson, Robin J. Ou-Yang, William A Grobman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

55 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcomes of labor between nulliparous women with a favorable cervix who underwent either elective labor induction or expectant management beyond 39 weeks of gestation. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of nulliparous women with a singleton gestation who had a favorable cervix (modified Bishop score of at least 5) and delivered between 2006 and 2008. Two hundred ninety-four nulliparous women who underwent elective induction of labor between 39 and 40 5/7 weeks of gestation were compared with 294 nulliparous women who were expectantly managed beyond 39 weeks of gestation. Results: The primary outcome, cesarean delivery, was similar between the two groups (20.8% compared with 20.1%, respectively, P=.84), a result that did not change in multivariable analysis. There were also no significant differences in other maternal (eg, chorioamnionitis, meconium, operative vaginal delivery, third-and fourth-degree lacerations, postpartum hemorrhage), or neonatal (arterial cord pH less than 7.0, Apgar score less than 4 at 5 minutes, neonatal intensive care unit admission) outcomes. Women who underwent an elective labor induction did have longer duration in labor and delivery between admission and delivery (median 12.7 compared with 9.0 hours, P<.001). Conclusion: For nulliparous women with a favorable cervix, elective labor induction has a similar chance of resulting in cesarean delivery as expectant management, although it appears to result in an increase in resource use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)601-605
Number of pages5
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology
Volume116
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2010

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this