Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2022 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Study of the Risk Factors for Cesarean Delivery among Pregnant Women Requiring Induction of Labor in a Tertiary Care Institute

Anitha A Manjappa, Aruna B Patil, Kaarthiga R Gopinath

Keywords : Bishop score, Induction of labor, Pregnant women, Retrospective study, Risk of cesarean delivery

Citation Information : Manjappa AA, Patil AB, Gopinath KR. Study of the Risk Factors for Cesarean Delivery among Pregnant Women Requiring Induction of Labor in a Tertiary Care Institute. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2022; 14 (2):122-127.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2021

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Labor induction is the most commonly performed intervention in obstetrics and is usually carried out for maternal, fetal, and placental conditions when the benefits to either mother or fetus outweigh those of continuing the pregnancy. Labor induction process in itself is not without complications and is associated with a higher risk of maternal and fetal complications. However, in carefully selected high-risk pregnant women, labor induction is associated with higher chance of vaginal delivery with least maternal and fetal complications. The present study was conducted to identify the factors which determine the risk of failed induction and to compare the maternal and fetal outcome between spontaneous and induced labor pregnant women. Materials and methods: This retrospective study was done in a teaching institute of Chennai for a period of 6 months. The required medical and obstetrical details were obtained from case records. Chi-square test was used to compare the proportions of various clinical parameters between cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Binary logistic regression method was applied for estimating factors that were associated with higher chances of cesarean delivery. Results: Among 292 deliveries, 35.95% women required labor induction and 27.73% women had spontaneous labor; 50% of labor-induced women had successful vaginal delivery compared to 79% of women who had spontaneous labor with insignificant maternal and neonatal complications. Women with unfavorable preinduction Bishop score were at higher risk for cesarean delivery in labor-induced women. The risk factors such as advanced age, nulliparity, neonatal birth weight >3.5 kg, and labor induction for oligohydramnios, glucose intolerance, hypertension, premature rupture of membranes, and low-risk pregnancy at 40 weeks were not associated with higher chance of cesarean delivery. Conclusion: To curtail the increase in cesarean delivery rate, there is definite need for labor induction. Labor induction should be considered in pregnant women with medical and obstetric complications after assessing the clinical condition. Mechanical methods and sweeping of membranes may be attempted in women with unfavorable Bishop score prior to pharmacological methods of cervical ripening.


PDF Share
  1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al. Induction and augmentation of labour. Williams obstetrics. 25th ed. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill; 2018. p. 503–512.
  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries. ACOG Committee Opinion. No. 831. Obstet Gynecol 2021;138(1):e35–e39. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004447.
  3. Induction of labor: good clinical practice recommendations. FOGSI ICOG. 2018. Available from: https://www.fogsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/XGCPR-IOL-26July.pdf [Accessed October 22, 2021].
  4. WHO recommendations: induction of labour at or beyond term 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277233/9789241550413-eng.pdf?ua=1 [Accessed October 22, 2021].
  5. NICE guideline DRAFT. Inducing labour. 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/GID-NG10082/documents/draft-guideline-2 [Accessed October 22, 2021].
  6. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107. Induction of labor. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386–397. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5.
  7. Cnattingius R, Hoglund B, Kieler H. Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:456–462. DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00620.x.
  8. Bergholt T, Skjeldestad FE, Pyykönen A, et al. Maternal age and risk of cesarean section in women with induced labor at term–a nordic register-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020;99(2):283–289. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13743.
  9. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, et al. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(6):486.e1–486.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.014.
  10. Ehrenberg HM, Durnwald CP, Catalano P, et al. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191(3):969–974. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.057.
  11. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018;379(6):513–523. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
  12. Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(6):1565–1572. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.458.
  13. Batinelli L, Serafini A, Nante N, et al. Induction of labour: clinical predictive factors for success and failure. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018;38(3):352–358. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1361388.
  14. Puhl A, Weiss C, Schneid, et al. Does induction of labor for preterm premature rupture of membranes at 34 weeks of gestation increase the risk for cesarean section? Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2020;224(5):269–274. Available from: https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-1110-1132.
  15. Manzanares S, Carrillo MP, González-Perán E, et al. Isolated oligohydramnios in term pregnancy as an indication for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007;20(3):221–224. DOI: 10.1080/14767050601127391.
  16. Melamed N, Pardo J, Milstein R, et al. Perinatal outcome in pregnancies complicated by isolated oligohydramnios diagnosed before 37 weeks of gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205(3):241.e1–241.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.013.
  17. Rosenberg TJ, Garbers S, Lipkind H, et al. Maternal obesity and diabetes as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences among 4 racial/ethnic groups. Am J Public Health 2005;95(9):1545–1551. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449396/.
  18. Grabowska K, Stapińska-Syniec A, Saletra A, et al. Labour in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Ginekol Pol 2017;88(2):81–86. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28326517/.
  19. ACOG practice bulletin. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(6):e237. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003891.
  20. Zhang J, Meikle S, Trumble A. Severe maternal morbidity associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in the United States. Hypertens Pregnancy 2003;22(2):203–212. DOI: 10.1081/PRG-120021066.
  21. Begum J, Samal R. Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor Compared with Expectant Management in Nulliparous Women with Unfavorable Cervix. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2018;10(1):23–28. https://www.jsafog.com/abstractArticleContentBrowse/JSAFOG/6/10/1/12679/abstractArticle/Article.
  22. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ 2011; 89(9):657–665. PMID: 21897486.
  23. Panicker S, Thirunavukkarasu S, Bhat C. Analysis of Classification Systems and Outcome of Labor in Women Undergoing Induction of Labor in South Indian Population. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2021;13(5):310–314. https://www.jsafog.com/abstractArticleContentBrowse/JSAFOG/6/13/5/25955/abstractArticle/Article.
  24. Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117(3):583–587. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/03000/Elective_Induction_Compared_With_Expectant.10.aspx.
  25. Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(3):249.e1–249.e16. PMID: 24631440.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.