Does induction of labor for constitutionally large-for-gestational-age fetuses identified in utero reduce maternal morbidity?

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Didier Lémery¹  Brigitte Neveu²  Olivier Rivière³  Françoise Vendittelli¹ 

[1] Clermont Université, Université d’Auvergne, EA 4681, PEPRADE (Périnatalité, grossesse, Environnement, PRAtiques médicales et DEveloppement), CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Site Estaing, 1 place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand Cedex 1, France;Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 40 Boulevard Jourdan, 75674 Paris Cedex 14, France;Faculté de médecine RTH Laennec, The AUDIPOG Sentinel Network (Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers informatisés en Pédiatrie, Obstétrique et Gynécologie), 7 Rue guillaume Paradin, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France

关键词: Perineal tears;    Neonatal morbidity;    Maternal morbidity;    Large-for-gestational-age;    Induced labor;    Fetal macrosomia;    Episiotomy;    Delivery;    Cesarean;   

Others  :  1127381
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-156

 received in 2013-10-26, accepted in 2014-04-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The number of infants with a birth weight > 97^th percentile for gestational age has increased over the years. Although some studies have examined the interest of inducing labor for fetuses with macrosomia suspected in utero, only a few have analyzed this suspected macrosomia according to estimated weight at each gestational age. Most studies have focused principally on neonatal rather than on maternal (and still less on perineal) outcomes. The principal aim of this study was to assess whether a policy of induction of labor for women with a constitutionally large-for-gestational-age fetus might reduce the occurrence of severe perineal tears; the secondary aims of this work were to assess whether this policy would reduce either recourse to cesarean delivery during labor or neonatal complications.

Methods

This historical cohort study (n = 3077) analyzed records from a French perinatal database. Women without diabetes and with a cephalic singleton term pregnancy were eligible for the study. We excluded medically indicated terminations of pregnancy and in utero fetal deaths. Among the pregnancies with fetuses suspected, before birth, of being large-for-gestational-age, we compared those for whom labor was induced from ≥ 37 weeks to ≤ 38 weeks^{+ 6 days} (n = 199) to those with expectant obstetrical management (n = 2878). In this intention-to-treat analysis, results were expressed as crude and adjusted relative risks.

Results

The mean birth weight was 4012 g ± 421 g. The rate of perineal lesions did not differ between the two groups in either primiparas (aRR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86-1.31) or multiparas (aRR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84-1.05). Similarly, neither the cesarean rate (aRR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.50) nor the risks of resuscitation in the delivery room or of death in the delivery room or in the immediate postpartum or of neonatal transfer to the NICU (aRR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.59-1.50) differed between the two groups.

Conclusions

A policy of induction of labor for women with a constitutionally large-for-gestational-age fetus among women without diabetes does not reduce maternal morbidity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Vendittelli et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers Informatisés en Pédiatrie, Obstétrique et Gynécologie: Database access. [http://www.audipog.net/interro-choix.php webcite]
• [2]Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Crenn-Hébert C, Giraud-Roufast A: Do perinatal guidelines have an impact on obstetric practices? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2012, 60:355-362.
• [3]Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français: French episiotomy guideline 2006. [http://www.cngof.asso.fr/D_PAGES/PURPC_14.HTM webcite]
• [4]De Leeuw JW, Struijk PC, Vierhout ME, Walleburg HCS: Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during deliver. Bri J Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 108:383-387.
• [5]Angioli R, Gomez-Marin O, Cantuaria G, O’Sullivan M: Severe perineal lacerations during vaginal delivery: the University of Miami experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000, 182:1083-1085.
• [6]Christanson LM, Bovbjerg VE, McDavitt EC, Hullfish KL: Risk factors for perineal injury during delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 189:255-260.
• [7]Culligan PJ, Myers JA, Golberg RP, Blackwell L, Gohmann SF, Abell TD: Elective caesarean section to prevent anal incontinence and brachial plexus injuries associated with macrosomia - a decision analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2005, 16:19-23.
• [8]Gonen R, Bader D, Ajami M: Effects of a policy of elective cesarean delivery in cases of suspected fetal macrosomia on the incidence of brachial plexus injury and the rate of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000, 183:1296-1300.
• [9]Boulet SL, Salihu HM, Alexander GR: Mode of delivery and the survival macrosomic infants in the United States, 1995–1999. Birth 2006, 33:278-283.
• [10]Gilbert WM, Nesbitt TS, Danielsen B: Associated factors in 1611 cases of brachial plexus injury. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 93:536-540.
• [11]Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B: Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998, 179:476-480.
• [12]McFarland LV, Raskin M, Daling JR, Benedetti TJ: Erb/Duchenne’s palsy: a consequence of fetal macrosomia and method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1986, 68:784-788.
• [13]Oral E, Cagdas A, Gezer A, Kaleli S, Aydinli K, Oçer F: Perinatal and maternal outcomes of fetal macrosomia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 99:167-171.
• [14]Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Buttarelli M, Franchi M, Dürig P, Brühwiler H: Perinatal outcome of fetuses with a birth weight greater than 4500 g: an analysis of 3356 cases. Eur J Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003, 109:160-165.
• [15]Stotland NE, Caughey AB, Breed EM, Escobar GJ: Risk factors and obstetrics complications associated with macrosomia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004, 87:220-226.
• [16]Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Laros RK, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB: Impending macrosomia: will induction of labour modify the risk of caesarean delivery? BJOG 2012, 119:402-409.
• [17]Horrigan TJ: Physicians who induced labor for fetal macrosomia do not reduce cesarean delivery rates. J Perinatol 2001, 21:91-96.
• [18]Irion O, Boulvain M: Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1998., (2) Art. N°.:CD000938. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000938
• [19]Sanchez-Ramos L, Bernstein S, Kaunitz AM: Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002, 100:997-1002.
• [20]Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC: Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 1993, 81:492-496.
• [21]Tey A, Eriksen NL, Blanco JD: A prospective randomized trial of induction versus expectant management in non-diabetic pregnancies with fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 172:293.
• [22]Leaphart WL, Meyer MC, Capeless EL: Labor induction with a prenatal diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Med 1997, 6:99-102.
• [23]Boulvain M, Senat MV, Rozenberg P, Irion O: Indiction of labor or expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 1(1):309. e6
• [24]Carroli G, Mignini L: Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009., (1) Art. No.: CD000081. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2
• [25]Vendittelli F, Pons JC, Lémery D, Mamelle N: The term breech presentation: neonatal results and obstetric practices in France. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006, 125:176-184.
• [26]Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Crenn-Hébert C, Rozan MA, Maria B, Jacquetin B, AUDIPOG Sentinel Network: Is a breech presentation at term more frequent in women with a history of caesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 198:521-526.
• [27]Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers Informatisés en Pédiatrie, Obstétrique et Gynécologie: Neonatal morphometric curves. [http://www.audipog.net/courbes_morpho.php webcite]
• [28]Comité National Technique de L’Echographie de Dépistage Prénatal: rapport d’avril 2004. La Documentation Française. [http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/054000356/ webcite]
• [29]Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK: Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements – a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985, 151:333-337.
• [30]Lee PA, Chernausek SD, Hokken-Koelega ACS, Czernichow P, for the International SGA Advisory Board: International Small for Gestational Age Advisory Board consensus development conference statement: management of short children born small for gestational age, April 24-October 1, 2001. Pediatrics 2003, 111:1253-1261.
• [31]Herbst MA: Treatment of suspected fetal macrosomia: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193:1035-1039.
• [32]Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP: The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996, 276:1480-1486.
• [33]Hankins GD, Clark SM, Munn MB: Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy, and intrauterine fetal demise. Semin Perinatol 2006, 30:276-287.
• [34]Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH, Bréart G: Postpartum maternal mortality and caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108:541-548.
• [35]Liu S, Liston RB, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, for the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System: Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007, 176:455-460.
• [36]Hemminki E, Merilainen J: Long-term effects of caesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174:1569-1574.
• [37]Kudish B, Sokol RJ, Kruger M: Trends in major modifiable risk factors for severe perineal trauma; 1996–2006. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008, 102:165-170.
• [38]Weeks JW, Pitman T, Spinnato J: Fetal macrosomia: does antenatal prediction affect delivery route and birth outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173:1215-1219.
• [39]Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S: Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2013. doi:10.111/1471-0528-12328
• [40]Stock SJ, Fergusson 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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2838
• [41]Sinclair BA, Rowan JA, Timothy O: Macrosomic infants are not all equal. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007, 47:101-105.
• [42]King JR, Korst LM, Miller DA, Ouzounian JG: Increased composite maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with ultrasonographically suspected fetal macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012, 25:1953-1959.
• [43]Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, Carreno CA: Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of caesarean delivery for labor arrest? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 200:340. e1-340.e3
• [44]Little SE, Eldlow AG, Thomas AM, Smith NA: Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for caesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 297:309. e1-6
• [45]Walsh JM, McAuliffe FM: Prediction and prevention of the macrosomic fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012, 162:125-130.
• [46]Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA, Chauhan VB, Chang G, Magann EF, Hendrix NW: Suspicion and treatment of macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193:332-346.
• [47]Gonen R, Spiegel D, Abend M: Is macrosomia predictable, and are shoulder dystocia and birth trauma preventable? Obstet Gynecol 1996, 88:526-529.
• [48]Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé. La Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (Drees): Enquête nationale Périnatale 2010. Les naissances en 2010 et leur évolution depuis 2003. [http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Les_naissances_en_2010_et_leur_evolution_depuis_2003.pdf webcite]
• [49]Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Bréart G, physicians of the AUDIPOG Sentinel Network: Is prenatal identification of fetal macrosomia useful? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012, 161:170-176.