Am J Perinatol 2020; 37(07): 695-707
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688471
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management among Obese Women at ≥39 Weeks

Anna Palatnik
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
,
Michelle A. Kominiarek
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 September 2018

25 March 2019

Publication Date:
30 April 2019 (online)

Abstract

Objective Maternal obesity is associated with many adverse obstetric outcomes including cesarean delivery. It is unclear whether induction of labor can reduce these risks. Previous studies report conflicting results on the outcomes of elective induction of labor among obese women. This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between obese women undergoing elective induction of labor and those undergoing expectant management at ≥39 weeks.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study from the Consortium on Safe Labor of obese women (defined by prepregnancy body mass index≥ 30kg/m2) with singleton gestations at ≥39 weeks without medical comorbidities from 2002 through 2008. Women scheduled for medically indicated induction of labor were excluded. The primary outcome of cesarean delivery was compared between obese women undergoing elective induction of labor and expectant management during 39th, 40th, and 41st weeks using univariable and multivariable analyses, stratifying by parity.

Results In all, 7,298 nulliparous and 9,789 parous women were eligible for analysis. After controlling for potential confounders, elective induction of labor during 39th week in nulliparous and parous women was associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery (39.1 vs. 41.6%, adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30–0.74 for nulliparous and 5.5 vs. 10.1%, adjusted OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20–0.61 for parous women) compared with expectant management. Elective induction of labor during 40th and 41st weeks was not associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery. In addition, macrosomia was reduced in nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor during the 40th week (12.1 vs. 18.5%, adjusted OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35–0.87) and in parous women undergoing elective induction of labor during 39th (11.6 vs. 17.6%, adjusted OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38–0.66) and 40th weeks (16.4 vs. 22.2%, adjusted OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36–0.78).

Conclusion Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks, when compared with expectant management, was associated with lower cesarean deliveries in obese nulliparous and parous women.

Note

This study was an oral presentation at the 38th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Dallas, TX, January 31–February 3, 2018.


Condensation

Elective induction of labor during the 39th week among obese nulliparous and parous women, compared with expectant management, is associated with decreased cesarean delivery rate.


 
  • References

  • 1 Fisher SC, Kim SY, Sharma AJ, Rochat R, Morrow B. Is obesity still increasing among pregnant women? Prepregnancy obesity trends in 20 states, 2003-2009. Prev Med 2013; 56 (06) 372-378
  • 2 Branum AM, Kirmeyer SE, Gregory EC. Prepregnancy body mass index by maternal characteristics and state: data from the birth certificate, 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016; 65 (06) 1-11
  • 3 National Center for Health Statistics data - most recent website. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_13_14/obesity_adult_13_14.htm . Accessed October 28, 2018
  • 4 Bodnar LM, Catov JM, Klebanoff MA, Ness RB, Roberts JM. Prepregnancy body mass index and the occurrence of severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Epidemiology 2007; 18 (02) 234-239
  • 5 Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D. , et al; FASTER Research Consortium. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate--a population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (04) 1091-1097
  • 6 Kominiarek MA, Vanveldhuisen P, Hibbard J. , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. The maternal body mass index: a strong association with delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (03) 264.e1-264.e7
  • 7 O'Dwyer V, O'Kelly S, Monaghan B, Rowan A, Farah N, Turner MJ. Maternal obesity and induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92 (12) 1414-1418
  • 8 Chu SY, Kim SY, Schmid CH. , et al. Maternal obesity and risk of cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2007; 8 (05) 385-394
  • 9 Chu SY, Kim SY, Lau J. , et al. Maternal obesity and risk of stillbirth: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (03) 223-228
  • 10 Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Maternal body mass index and the risk of fetal death, stillbirth, and infant death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2014; 311 (15) 1536-1546
  • 11 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG practice bulletin no. 102: management of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (03) 748-761
  • 12 Yao R, Ananth CV, Park BY, Pereira L, Plante LA. ; Perinatal Research Consortium. Obesity and the risk of stillbirth: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (05) 457.e1-457.e9
  • 13 Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (02) 128.e1-128.e7
  • 14 Wolfe H, Timofeev J, Tefera E, Desale S, Driggers RW. Risk of cesarean in obese nulliparous women with unfavorable cervix: elective induction vs expectant management at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (01) 53.e1-53.e5
  • 15 Lee VR, Darney BG, Snowden JM. , et al. Term elective induction of labour and perinatal outcomes in obese women: retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2016; 123 (02) 271-278
  • 16 Gibbs Pickens CM, Kramer MR, Howards PP, Badell ML, Caughey AB, Hogue CJ. Term elective induction of labor and pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (01) 12-22
  • 17 Kawakita T, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Reddy UM. Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (04) 451.e1-451.e8
  • 18 Robinson CJ, Hill EG, Alanis MC, Chang EY, Johnson DD, Almeida JS. Examining the effect of maternal obesity on outcome of labor induction in patients with preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy 2010; 29 (04) 446-456
  • 19 Arrowsmith S, Wray S, Quenby S. Maternal obesity and labour complications following induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy. BJOG 2011; 118 (05) 578-588
  • 20 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
  • 21 Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (04) 805-811
  • 22 Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (04) 986-994
  • 23 Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166 (6 Pt 1): 1690-1696
  • 24 Smith LP, Nagourney BA, McLean FH, Usher RH. Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148 (05) 579-585
  • 25 Nicholson JM, Caughey AB, Stenson MH. , et al. The active management of risk in multiparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (03) 250.e1-250.e13
  • 26 Gibbs Pickens CM, Kramer MR, Badell ML, Caughey AB, Hogue CJ. In reply. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (06) 1162
  • 27 Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: preliminary data for 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (03) 1-20
  • 28 Sewell MF, Huston-Presley L, Super DM, Catalano P. Increased neonatal fat mass, not lean body mass, is associated with maternal obesity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (04) 1100-1103
  • 29 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 173: fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (05) e195-e209
  • 30 Hull HR, Dinger MK, Knehans AW, Thompson DM, Fields DA. Impact of maternal body mass index on neonate birthweight and body composition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198 (04) 416.e1-416.e6
  • 31 Osmundson SS, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (03) 601-605
  • 32 Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (03) 583-587
  • 33 Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M. , et al; 35/39 Trial Group. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (09) 813-822
  • 34 Palatnik A, Grobman WA. Induction of labor versus expectant management for women with a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (03) 358.e1-358.e6
  • 35 Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ 2012; 344: e2838
  • 36 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
  • 37 Edelson PK, Bastek JA, Levine LD. Evaluating the obstetrical implications of antenatal testing for women with morbid obesity: maternal and fetal outcomes of increased surveillance. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (09) 839-843
  • 38 Brown S, Wolfe MD, Coalson R, Myers OB, Rayburn WF. Maternal obesity and nonstress testing. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28 (09) 723-728