The active management of risk in multiparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes

James M. Nicholson, Aaron B. Caughey, Morghan H. Stenson, Peter Cronholm, Lisa Kellar, Ian Bennett, Katie Margo, Joseph Stratton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether exposure of multiparous women to a high rate of preventive labor induction was associated with a significantly lower cesarean delivery rate. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study involving 123 multiparous women, who were exposed to the frequent use of preventive labor induction, and 304 multiparous women, who received standard management. Rates of cesarean delivery and other adverse birth outcomes were compared in the 2 groups. Logistic regression controlled for confounding covariates. Results: The exposed group had a lower cesarean delivery rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.09; 0.8% vs 9.9%; P = .02) and a higher uncomplicated vaginal delivery rate (odds ratio, 0.53; 78.9% vs 66.4%; P = .01). Exposure was not associated with higher rates of other adverse birth outcomes. Conclusion: Exposure of multiparous women to a high rate of preventive labor induction was significantly associated with improved birth outcomes, including a very low cesarean delivery rate. A prospective randomized trial is needed to determine causality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)250.e1-250.e13
JournalAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology
Volume200
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2009
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • active management of risk
  • cesarean delivery
  • neonatal intensive care unit admission
  • preventive induction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The active management of risk in multiparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this