Labor induction at 41+0 gestational weeks or expectant management for the nulliparous woman: The Finnish randomized controlled multicenter trial.

INTRODUCTION: Neonatal and maternal risks increase in term pregnancy as gestational age advances and become increasingly evident post-term. Management practices of late- and post-term pregnancies vary, and the optimal time point for intervention by labor induction is yet to be determined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial of 381 nulliparous women with unripe cervices compared labor induction at 41+0 gestational weeks (early induction) with expectant management and labor induction at 41+5 to 42+1 gestational weeks (expectant management). This multicenter study included all five university hospitals and the largest central hospital in Finland. The study period was 2018-2022. Participants were randomized to either early induction (48.8%, n = 186) or expectant management (51.2%, n = 195) with equal randomization ratios of 1:1. This was a superiority trial, and the primary outcomes were rates of cesarean section (CS) and composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN83219789, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83219789). RESULTS: The rates of CS (16.7% [n = 31] vs. 24.1% [n = 47], RR 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5-1.0], p = 0.07) and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (9.7% [n = 18] vs. 14.4% [n = 28], RR 0.7 [95% CI: 0.4-1.2] p = 0.16) did not significantly differ between the groups, but the operative delivery rate was lower in the early induction group than in the expectant management group (30.6% [n = 57] vs. 45.6% [n = 89], p = 0.003). The rates of hemorrhage ≥1000 mL and neonatal weight ≥4000 g were also lower in the early induction group, as was the vacuum extraction rate in women with vaginal delivery. Of the women with expectant management, 45.6% (n = 89) had spontaneous onset of labor. No perinatal deaths occurred, but one case of eclampsia appeared in the expectant management group. CONCLUSIONS: Offering labor induction to nulliparous women at 41+0 gestational weeks may decrease the probability of operative delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal weight ≥4000 g. However, this study was underpowered to affirm the trends of rising rates of CS and adverse neonatal outcomes in the expectant management group. Thus, expectant management could remain an option for some, as one in two women with expectant management had a spontaneous onset of labor.

Women's subjective perceptions and background factors associated with poor maternal childbirth experience among induced and spontaneous onset of labour: a two-year tertiary hospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) more often have poor childbirth experience compared to women with spontaneous onset of labour (SOL). For understanding and optimizing childbirth experience in IOL, we investigated the subjective maternal reasons and perceptions leading to poor childbirth experience in IOL compared to SOL, as well as the background factors and delivery outcomes associated with the poor experience. METHODS: Two-year retrospective cohort study included 836/19442 deliveries (4.3%) with poor childbirth experience in induced or spontaneous onset at term in Helsinki University Hospital. Poor childbirth experience occurred in 389/5290 (7.4%) cases of IOL and in 447/14152 (3.2%) of SOL. Childbirth experience was measured after delivery using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, with poor experience defined as VAS < 5. The primary outcome of the study were the maternal reasons for poor childbirth experience. The parameters were collected in the hospital database and statistical analyses were performed by using Mann-Whitney U-test and t-test. RESULTS: The subjective maternal reasons for poor childbirth experience were pain (n = 529, 63.3%), long labour (n = 209, 25.0%), lack of support by care givers (n = 108, 12.9%), and unplanned caesarean section (CS) (n = 104, 12.4%). The methods of labour analgesia were similar among the women who expressed pain as the main reason compared with those who didn't. When comparing the reasons according to the onset of labour, IOL group more often reported unplanned CS (17.2% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.001) and lack of support by the care givers (15.4% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.04), while SOL group more often named pain (68.7% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.001) and rapid labour (6.9% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.007). In multivariable logistic regression model, IOL was associated with lower risk for pain compared to SOL (adjusted OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.5-0.8; p < 0.01). Primiparas more often reported long labour (29.3% vs. 14.3%; p < 0.001) and concern over own or baby's wellbeing (5.7% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03) compared to multiparas. Women who feared childbirth more often reported lack of support compared to women with no fear (22.6% vs. 10.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The main reasons for poor childbirth experience were pain, long labour, unplanned CS and the lack of support by care givers. The childbirth experience is complex and could be optimized by information, support and presence of care givers especially in induced labour.

Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth.

OBJECTIVE: First birth and labor induction are risk factors for negative childbirth experiences. As labor inductions are increasing, research into this high-risk group's childbirth experiences is important. We aimed to investigate whether nulliparity or factors related to labor induction, labor, and delivery explain the association. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 711 women undergoing labor induction at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The participants answered the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) after delivery (response rate 69.4%). The patient characteristics and delivery outcomes were collected from patient records. We analyzed the results for nulliparous and parous women. RESULTS: The mean CEQ scores were 2.9 (SD 0.5) for nulliparous women (n = 408) and 3.2 (SD 0.5) for parous women (n = 303), on a scale of 1-4; higher scores represent more positive experiences. However, 7.3% of the women had negative childbirth experiences (8.8% nulliparous; 5.3% parous, p = 0.08). Negative experiences were associated with a cesarean section (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.8-9.3, p < 0.001) and a hemorrhage ≥ 1500 ml in vaginal delivery (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.03). In the separate CEQ domains analyses, nulliparity was associated with negative experiences in the "Own Capacity" domain (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.4, p = 0.03). Cervical ripening, oxytocin use, and daytime delivery were associated with negative experiences in at least one domain, whereas epidural or spinal analgesia was regarded positively in two domains and negatively in one. CONCLUSIONS: Nulliparous women undergoing labor induction risk negative childbirth experiences mainly due to labor and delivery-related factors, similar to parous women. Their perceptions of their capacity and preparedness for labor and delivery should be enhanced antenatally. An effective labor induction protocol promoting as high a rate of vaginal delivery as possible and preparedness to promptly respond to postpartum hemorrhage are key for avoiding negative childbirth experiences.

Comparison of primiparous women's childbirth experience in labor induction with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol - a prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS).

INTRODUCTION: Primiparity and labor induction, especially when cervical ripening is required, are risk factors for a negative childbirth experience. Our aim was to compare childbirth experience in primiparous women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol using the validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). We also wanted to compare assessment of a negative childbirth experience by visual analogue scale (VAS) and CEQ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of 362 primiparous women undergoing cervical ripening and labor induction by balloon catheter (67.4%) or oral misoprostol (32.6%) at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020. After delivery, the women assessed their childbirth experience using the CEQ, and patient records provided the patient characteristics, delivery outcomes and VAS ratings. We analyzed the results using IBM SPSS Statistics. RESULTS: Overall, the women experienced their labor and delivery rather positively, with a mean CEQ score of 2.9 (SD 0.6) (scale 1-4), and no differences were detectable when comparing women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or misoprostol. However, women with balloon catheter were more often satisfied with the method chosen for them and would choose the same method in a future pregnancy. Compared with CEQ, VAS seems mainly to reflect the women's perception of their own capacity to give birth and the safety of the hospital setting, not the level of professional support or participation in decision-making. According to our results, CEQ and VAS are comparable, but the usability of the CEQ is limited by its inability to distinguish the most negative and the most positive experiences, and the VAS is limited by its simplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol experienced their childbirth rather positively, results being similar in both groups. However, women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter were more content with their labor induction. The CEQ and VAS can both be used to assess the childbirth experience of primiparous women undergoing labor induction, but both methods have limitations.

Vaginal streptococcus B colonization is not associated with increased infectious morbidity in labor induction.

INTRODUCTION: Labor induction rates are increasing and, in Finland today, one of three labors is induced. Group B streptococcus (GBS) is a bacterium found in 10%-30% of pregnant women and it can be transmitted to the neonate during vaginal delivery. Although GBS is rarely harmful in the general population, it is the leading cause of severe neonatal infections such as sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis. In addition, GBS can cause maternal morbidity. Labor induction in GBS-positive women has not yet been investigated but concerns of infectious morbidity associated with balloon catheters have been raised. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A historical cohort study of 1959 women undergoing labor induction by balloon catheter in Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017. Women with viable singleton term pregnancy in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), and intact amniotic membranes were included. GBS was screened by rapid qualitative in vitro test (XPert® GBS) from vaginal and perineal culture upon admission for labor induction. All women testing positive received prophylactic antibiotics. RESULTS: Of the women, 469 (23.9%) were GBS-positive. The rate of maternal intrapartum infection was 7.4%, being lower in the GBS-positive group compared with the GBS-negative group (4.7% vs 8.3%; p = 0.01). The rate of maternal postpartum infection was 3.9%, and the rate of neonatal infection was 3.3%, both being similar between the groups. Also, no difference in the rates of other adverse neonatal outcomes was seen. No GBS sepses occurred in the study. In multivariable logistic regression, rupture of membranes to delivery interval ≥12 hours was associated with maternal intrapartum and postpartum infection, as well as neonatal infection. Other risk factors for maternal intrapartum infection were GBS-negativity, nulliparity, prolonged pregnancy (≥41 weeks), and Bishop score <3 at the start of induction. Cesarean section was associated with postpartum endometritis, while nulliparity, gestational diabetes, and maternal intrapartum infection were associated with neonatal infection. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity, labor induction with balloon catheter appears safe in women colonized with GBS when prophylactic antibiotics are administered at the onset of labor or at membrane rupture.

Balloon catheter use for cervical ripening in women with term pre-labor rupture of membranes: A 5-year cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the safety of balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with term pre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) and to compare the incidence of maternal and neonatal infections in women with PROM and women with intact membranes undergoing cervical ripening with a balloon catheter. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 1923 women with term singleton pregnancy and an unfavorable cervix undergoing cervical ripening with a balloon catheter was conducted in Helsinki University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2018. For each case of PROM, two controls were assigned. The main outcome measures were the rates of maternal and neonatal infections. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS. RESULTS: In all, 641 (33.3%) women following PROM and 1282 (66.6%) women with intact amniotic membranes underwent labor induction. The rates of intrapartum infection (3.7% vs 7.7%; P = .001) and neonatal infection (1.7% vs 3.8%; P = .01) were not increased in women induced by balloon catheter following PROM. Intrapartum infections were associated with nulliparity (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-6.5), history of previous cesarean section (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.4), extended gestational age ≥41 weeks (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0) and an induction to delivery interval of 48 hours or more (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.3). The risk of neonatal infection was associated with nulliparity (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-8.0), gestational age ≥41 weeks (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.09-3.36) and induction to delivery interval of 48 hours or more (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.9-6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Use of balloon catheter in women with term PROM appears safe and was not associated with increased maternal or neonatal infectious morbidity.

Success of trial of labor in women with a history of previous cesarean section for failed labor induction or labor dystocia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The rates of cesarean section (CS) are increasing worldwide leading to an increased risk for maternal and neonatal complications in the subsequent pregnancy and labor. Previous studies have demonstrated that successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with the least maternal morbidity, but the risks of unsuccessful TOLAC exceed the risks of scheduled repeat CS. However, prediction of successful TOLAC is difficult, and only limited data on TOLAC in women with previous failed labor induction or labor dystocia exists. Our aim was to evaluate the success of TOLAC in women with a history of failed labor induction or labor dystocia, to compare the delivery outcomes according to stage of labor at time of previous CS, and to assess the risk factors for recurrent failed labor induction or labor dystocia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 660 women with a prior CS for failed labor induction or labor dystocia undergoing TOLAC was carried out in Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between 2013 and 2015. Data on the study population was obtained from the hospital database and analyzed using SPSS. RESULTS: The rate of vaginal delivery was 72.9% and the rate of repeat CS for failed induction or labor dystocia was 17.7%. The rate of successful TOLAC was 75.6% in women with a history of labor arrest in the first stage of labor, 73.1% in women with a history of labor arrest in the second stage of labor, and 59.0% in women with previous failed induction. The adjusted risk factors for recurrent failed induction or labor dystocia were maternal height < 160 cm (OR 1.9 95% CI 1.1-3.1), no prior vaginal delivery (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.5-19.8), type 1 or gestational diabetes (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.0-3.0), IOL for suspected non-diabetic fetal macrosomia (OR 10.8 95% CI 2.1-55.9) and birthweight ≥4500 g (OR 3.3 95% CI 1.3-7.9). CONCLUSIONS: TOLAC is a feasible option to scheduled repeat CS in women with a history of failed induction or labor dystocia. However, women with no previous vaginal delivery, maternal height < 160 cm, diabetes or suspected neonatal macrosomia (≥4500 g) may be at increased risk for failed TOLAC.