Standardized Cesarean Risk Counseling with Induction: Impact on Racial Disparities in Birth Satisfaction

Objective Our prior work demonstrated decreased birth satisfaction for Black women undergoing labor induction. We aimed to determine if implementation of standardized counseling around calculated cesarean risk during labor induction could reduce racial disparities in birth satisfaction. Study Design We implemented use of a validated calculator that provides an individual cesarean risk score for women undergoing induction into routine care. This prospective cohort study compared satisfaction surveys for 6 months prior to implementation (preperiod: January 2018–June 2018) to 1 year after (postperiod: July 2018–June 2019). Women with full-term (≥37 weeks) singleton gestations with intact membranes and an unfavorable cervix undergoing induction were included. In the postperiod, providers counseled patients on individual cesarean risk at the beginning of induction using standardized scripts. This information was incorporated into care at patient–provider discretion. The validated 10-question Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) subdivided into three domains was administered throughout the study. Patients were determined to be “satisfied” or “unsatisfied” if total BSS-R score was above or below the median, respectively. In multivariable analysis, interaction terms evaluated the differential impact of the calculator on birth satisfaction by race (Black vs. non-Black women). Results A total of 1,008 of 1,236 (81.6%) eligible women completed the BSS-R (preperiod: 330 [79.7%] versus postperiod: 678 [82.5%], p = 0.23), 63.8% of whom self-identified as Black. In the pre-period, Black women were 50% less likely to be satisfied than non-Black women, even when controlling for differences in parity (Black: 39.0% satisfied vs. non-Black: 53.9%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30–0.79). In the postperiod, there was no difference in satisfaction by race (Black: 43.7% satisfied vs. non-Black: 44.0%, aOR = 0.97. 95% CI: 0.71–1.33). Therefore, disparities in birth satisfaction were no longer present at postimplementation (interaction p = 0.03). Conclusion Implementation of standardized counseling with a validated calculator to predict cesarean risk after labor induction is associated with a decrease in racial disparities in birth satisfaction. Key Points

Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol

Background This study attempts to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 50μgm intracervical misoprostol in comparison with intravaginal and sublingual for the induction of labor at term pregnant women. Methods This study is designed as a parallel clinical trial study. Three hundred and fifteen term pregnancies requiring induction of labor were treated with the maximum used misoprostol intracervical, sublingual, and vaginal doses. Participants were randomly allocated into three groups of 105. The dose was repeated every 4 h until adequate uterine contraction and Bishop Score were achieved. The duration of induction to births, time to the active phase, the rate of births, and the need for caesarean section were compared in three groups. Additionally, labor course and side effects were recorded and analyzed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered for statistical analyses. Findings Labor was successfully induced in all cases most (63%) of which required a single dose of misoprostol. Ninety-three (93.0%, p < 0.05) cervical participants proceeded to vaginal births. This figure was also the same in the vaginal and sublingual group of 83 cases (83.0%). The other 41 cases received caesarean section with more indications of failure to progress and meconium-stained liquor. The results indicated that 278 (92.7%) births were achieved in less than 10 h. Time from start of medication to the active phase of labor and childbirth was 3.01 ± 0.86 and 6.1 ± 1.3 h in the Cervical group, 4.2 ± 0.66 and 8.4 ± 0.92 h in the sublingual group, and 5.06 ± 1.1 and 9.2 ± 1.5 h in the vaginal group respectively (p < 0.001). The Caesarean rate was lower in the cervical group than in the two other groups (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the study groups in terms of Apgar score and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Furthermore, no maternal and neonatal complications were observed. Conclusion In addition to the sublingual and intravaginal routes of administration, intracervical misoprostol at a single dose of 50μgm appears to be an effective method for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix. Like all medical interventions, a discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to induction of labor with this medication in each woman should be undertaken before treatment. Trial registration This clinical study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with IRCT ID: IRCT20190415043278N1. Registration date was on May 13, 2019 and May 27, 2019 respectively (http://www.irct.ir).

COMPARISON OF MISOPROSTOLAND DINOPROSTONE FOR ELECTIVE INDUCTION OF LABOUR IN NULLIPAROUS WOMEN AT FULL TERM: A RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background: The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efcacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation. Material And Methods: One hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome. Results: The induction-delivery interval was signicantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically signicant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone. Conclusions: Vaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth

Risk of Cesarean Delivery for Women with Obesity Using a Standardized Labor Induction Protocol

Objective We aimed to determine the risk of cesarean among women with obesity undergoing labor induction within a prospective trial that utilized a standardized labor protocol. Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of induction methods. Term (≥37 weeks) women with intact membranes undergoing induction with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop's score ≤6 and dilation ≤2 cm) were included. The trial utilized a labor protocol that standardized induction and active labor management, with recommendations for interventions at particular time points. Only women with a recorded body mass index (BMI) at prenatal care start were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery compared between obese (≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese (<30 kg/m2) women. Indication for cesarean was also evaluated. Results A total of 465 women were included: 207 (44.5%) obese and 258 (55.5%) nonobese. Women with obesity had a higher risk of cesarean compared with women without obesity (33.3 vs. 23.3%, p = 0.02), even when adjusting for parity, weight change over pregnancy, and indication for induction (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.34–2.39]). Compared with women without obesity, women with obesity had a higher risk of failed induction (47.8 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.01) without a difference in arrest of active phase (p = 0.39), arrest of descent (p = 0.95) or fetal indication (p = 0.32), despite adherence to a standardized labor protocol. Conclusion Compared with women without obesity, women with obesity undergoing an induction are at increased risk of cesarean, in particular a failed induction, even within the context of standardized induction management. As standardized practices limit provider variation in labor management, this study may support physiologic differences in labor processes secondary to obesity. Key Points

Chorioamnionitis after premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas undergoing labor induction: prostaglandin E2 vs. oxytocin

Objectives To assess the risk of chorioamnionitis in nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) pregnancies with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix undergoing labor induction with either prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) or oxytocin only. Methods Retrospective cohort of NTSV pregnancies presenting with PROM who underwent labor induction with either PGE2 (n=94) or oxytocin (n=181) between October 2015 and March 2019. The primary outcome of chorioamnionitis was compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis included Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, as well as logistic regression. For time to delivery, a Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine the hazard ratio (HR) and adjusted HR (aHR). Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Cervical ripening with PGE2 was associated with an increased rate of chorioamnionitis (18.1 vs. 6.1%; aOR 4.14, p=0.001), increased neonatal intensive care unit admissions (20.2 vs. 9.9%; aOR 2.4, p=0.02), longer time interval from PROM to delivery (24.4 vs. 17.9 h; aHR 0.56, p=<0.0001), and lower incidence of meconium (7.4 vs. 14.4%; aOR 0.26, p=0.01), compared to the oxytocin group. Conclusions Based on our data, the use of oxytocin appears both superior and safer compared to PGE2 in NTSV pregnancies with PROM undergoing labor induction.

PREGNANCY OUTCOME IN ECLAMPSIA INFLUENCED BY THE MODE OF DELIVERY

BACKGROUND: To study the association between mode of delivery and maternal and perinatal outcome in eclampsia. METHODS: This was a tertiary care based prospective observational study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, between the study period October 2018-September 2020.Atotal 165 cases of eclampsia, with >32 weeks gestation, reassuring foetal heart and no other complications were included in the study. They were divided into two groups; Group I undergoing planned vaginal delivery, Group II undergoing early caesarean delivery, maternal and perinatal outcome was analysed and compared between the two groups. RESULT: Maximum number 75 (45.45%) of the study participants were in between 37.1-40 weeks of gestation at the time of admission, Majority of the study participants 125 (75.76%) had an unfavorable cervix i.e., Bishop's score ≤5 on initial assessment at the time of admission. There was no maternal mortality in our study. There was no statistically signicant difference in maternal morbidity. The still births and perinatal deaths were seen to be higher in the planned vaginal delivery group (1 still birth and 3 perinatal deaths). Perinatal morbidity was affected by mode of delivery of delivery, gestational age, BISHOP's score, number of convulsions at time of induction and convulsion delivery interval. CONCLUSIONS:The maternal outcome was seen to be comparable between both the groups and there was no statistically signicant difference between them, the perinatal outcome was better in the early caesarean delivery group as compared to the planned vaginal delivery group, specically in those with an unfavorable cervix and away from term. Early caesarean section to expedite delivery cannot be recommended for all cases of ante partum eclampsia.