Is indication for induction of labor associated with mode of delivery in term first births? A Norwegian registry-based study.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Lisa Tangnes Leeves, Trond Melbye Michelsen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Aslak Vimme Solhoff, Nina Gunnes, Ingvil Krarup Sørbye
{"title":"Is indication for induction of labor associated with mode of delivery in term first births? A Norwegian registry-based study.","authors":"Lisa Tangnes Leeves, Trond Melbye Michelsen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Aslak Vimme Solhoff, Nina Gunnes, Ingvil Krarup Sørbye","doi":"10.1111/aogs.70060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Few previous studies have examined the association between the indication for induction of labor (IOL) and the mode of delivery. To improve information for clinicians and women undergoing IOL, our study aimed to assess the association between the indication for IOL and the risk of cesarean and operative vaginal birth among nulliparous women with single cephalic term pregnancies. Furthermore, we examined whether associations varied by gestational length. Lastly, we evaluated reasons for cesarean and operative vaginal birth across indications for IOL.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Data were extracted from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway from 2020 to 2021. We used the registered main indication for IOL. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cesarean and operative vaginal birth versus spontaneous vaginal birth for the different IOL indications, using prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) as the reference indication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth was four times higher for women induced due to large fetus compared to women induced due to PROM (adjusted RRR: 4.39; 95% CI: 3.21 to 5.99). Indications such as maternal request, post-term pregnancy, oligo-/polyhydramnios, preeclampsia/hypertension, and diabetes were associated with a 40%-91% increased relative risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth compared to PROM. Relative risk of operative vaginal versus spontaneous vaginal birth was increased by 23%-29% for oligo-/polyhydramnios, diabetes, and post-term pregnancy compared to PROM. Indication large fetus had similar relative risk ratios at all gestational lengths. Rate of operative delivery for fetal distress was highest for IOL due to intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). For secondary outcomes, IOL due to IUGR had the highest proportions of cesarean and operative vaginal birth for fetal distress. Indication post-term pregnancy had the highest proportion of cesarean birth for prolonged labor, while large fetus had the highest proportion of operative vaginal birth for prolonged labor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nulliparous women undergoing IOL for indications such as large fetus, post-term pregnancy, oligo-/polyhydramnios, preeclampsia/hypertension, and diabetes are at an elevated relative risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth compared to IOL for PROM. In contrast, the relative risk of operative vaginal birth showed less variation by indication for IOL.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.70060","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Few previous studies have examined the association between the indication for induction of labor (IOL) and the mode of delivery. To improve information for clinicians and women undergoing IOL, our study aimed to assess the association between the indication for IOL and the risk of cesarean and operative vaginal birth among nulliparous women with single cephalic term pregnancies. Furthermore, we examined whether associations varied by gestational length. Lastly, we evaluated reasons for cesarean and operative vaginal birth across indications for IOL.

Material and methods: Data were extracted from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway from 2020 to 2021. We used the registered main indication for IOL. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cesarean and operative vaginal birth versus spontaneous vaginal birth for the different IOL indications, using prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) as the reference indication.

Results: Risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth was four times higher for women induced due to large fetus compared to women induced due to PROM (adjusted RRR: 4.39; 95% CI: 3.21 to 5.99). Indications such as maternal request, post-term pregnancy, oligo-/polyhydramnios, preeclampsia/hypertension, and diabetes were associated with a 40%-91% increased relative risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth compared to PROM. Relative risk of operative vaginal versus spontaneous vaginal birth was increased by 23%-29% for oligo-/polyhydramnios, diabetes, and post-term pregnancy compared to PROM. Indication large fetus had similar relative risk ratios at all gestational lengths. Rate of operative delivery for fetal distress was highest for IOL due to intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). For secondary outcomes, IOL due to IUGR had the highest proportions of cesarean and operative vaginal birth for fetal distress. Indication post-term pregnancy had the highest proportion of cesarean birth for prolonged labor, while large fetus had the highest proportion of operative vaginal birth for prolonged labor.

Conclusions: Nulliparous women undergoing IOL for indications such as large fetus, post-term pregnancy, oligo-/polyhydramnios, preeclampsia/hypertension, and diabetes are at an elevated relative risk of cesarean versus spontaneous vaginal birth compared to IOL for PROM. In contrast, the relative risk of operative vaginal birth showed less variation by indication for IOL.

引产指征与足月第一胎分娩方式有关吗?一项挪威注册研究。
引言:以前很少有研究检查引产指征(IOL)与分娩方式之间的关系。为了提高临床医生和接受IOL的妇女的信息,我们的研究旨在评估IOL的指征与单头足月未生育妇女剖宫产和手术阴道分娩风险之间的关系。此外,我们还研究了这种关联是否随妊娠期长短而变化。最后,我们评估了剖宫产和手术阴道分娩的原因。材料和方法:数据提取自挪威医学出生登记处2020年至2021年。我们采用注册的主要指征进行人工晶状体手术。以产膜破裂(PROM)为参考指征,应用多项logistic回归估计不同IOL指征剖宫产、手术阴道分娩与自然阴道分娩的相对风险比(RRRs)和相关95%置信区间(CIs)。结果:与因胎膜早破引产的女性相比,因胎大引产的女性剖宫产与自然阴道分娩的风险高4倍(调整后RRR: 4.39; 95% CI: 3.21至5.99)。与胎膜早破相比,产妇要求、足月妊娠、羊水少/多、先兆子痫/高血压和糖尿病等适应症与剖宫产与自然阴道分娩的相对风险增加40%-91%相关。与胎膜早破相比,羊水少/多、糖尿病和足月妊娠的手术阴道分娩相对于自然阴道分娩的相对风险增加了23%-29%。大胎儿在所有妊娠期均有相似的相对危险比。由于宫内生长受限(IUGR)导致的人工晶状体术后胎儿窘迫的手术分娩率最高。对于继发性结局,IUGR所致的人工晶状体在胎儿窘迫的剖宫产和手术阴道分娩中所占比例最高。适应证足月后妊娠以剖宫产延长产程比例最高,大胎以手术顺产延长产程比例最高。结论:与因胎大、足月妊娠、羊水少/多、先兆子痫/高血压和糖尿病等适应症而接受人工晶状体植入术的未生育妇女相比,因胎早破而接受人工晶状体植入术的剖宫产和自然阴道分娩的相对风险较高。相比之下,手术阴道分娩的相对风险因人工晶状体的适应症而变化较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信