Cesarean delivery after non-medically indicated induction of labor: A population-based study using different definitions of expectant management

8Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Most observational studies found that non-medically indicated induction of labor (IOL) is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery compared with expectant management, defined as all births at a later gestation. However, given the higher rate of cesarean delivery at late term, this definition of the expectant management group might bias the results of observational studies in favor of IOL at early or full term when estimating the risk of short-term (eg up to 1 week) expectant management. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 447 066 singleton term and post-term hospital births that occurred in Austria between 2008 and 2016. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test the association of IOL and cesarean delivery at each week of gestation from 37-41. Expectant management was either defined as all births at “next week or beyond” or “at next week”. Results: Non-medically indicated IOL was associated with increased odds for cesarean delivery at 37 and 38 weeks, and reduced odds at 40 and 41 weeks. At 39 weeks, IOL resulted in comparable cesarean rates compared with expectant management defined as “next week or beyond” (17.2% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00; P =.059). However, when defined as births “at the next week”, expectant management was associated with significantly reduced odds for cesarean delivery (13.6%; adjusted OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.82; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zenzmaier, C., Pfeifer, B., Leitner, H., & König-Bachmann, M. (2021). Cesarean delivery after non-medically indicated induction of labor: A population-based study using different definitions of expectant management. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 100(2), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13989

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free