The CErebro Placental RAtio as indicator for delivery following perception of reduced fetal movements, protocol for an international cluster randomised clinical trial; the CEPRA study.

BACKGROUND: Routine assessment in (near) term pregnancy is often inaccurate for the identification of fetuses who are mild to moderately compromised due to placental insufficiency and are at risk of adverse outcomes, especially when fetal size is seemingly within normal range for gestational age. Although biometric measurements and cardiotocography are frequently used, it is known that these techniques have low sensitivity and specificity. In clinical practice this diagnostic uncertainty results in considerable 'over treatment' of women with healthy fetuses whilst truly compromised fetuses remain unidentified. The CPR is the ratio of the umbilical artery pulsatility index over the middle cerebral artery pulsatility index. A low CPR reflects fetal redistribution and is thought to be indicative of placental insufficiency independent of actual fetal size, and a marker of adverse outcomes. Its utility as an indicator for delivery in women with reduced fetal movements (RFM) is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess whether expedited delivery of women with RFM identified as high risk on the basis of a low CPR improves neonatal outcomes. Secondary aims include childhood outcomes, maternal obstetric outcomes, and the predictive value of biomarkers for adverse outcomes. METHODS: International multicentre cluster randomised trial of women with singleton pregnancies with RFM at term, randomised to either an open or concealed arm. Only women with an estimated fetal weight ≥ 10th centile, a fetus in cephalic presentation and normal cardiotocograph are eligible and after informed consent the CPR will be measured. Expedited delivery is recommended in women with a low CPR in the open arm. Women in the concealed arm will not have their CPR results revealed and will receive routine clinical care. The intended sample size based on the primary outcome is 2160 patients. The primary outcome is a composite of: stillbirth, neonatal mortality, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, cord pH < 7.10, emergency delivery for fetal distress, and severe neonatal morbidity. DISCUSSION: The CEPRA trial will identify whether the CPR is a good indicator for delivery in women with perceived reduced fetal movements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry (NTR), trial NL7557 . Registered 25 February 2019.

Inter-institutional variations in oxytocin augmentation during labour in German university hospitals: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: There are several international guidelines on oxytocin regimens for induction and augmentation of labour, but no agreement on a standardised regimen in Germany. This study collated and reviewed the oxytocin regimens used for labour augmentation in university hospitals, with the long-term aim of contributing to the development of a national clinical guideline. METHODS: Germany has 34 university hospital compounds, representing 39 maternity units. In this observational study we asked units to provide standard operational procedures on oxytocin augmentation during labour or provide the details in a structured survey. Data were collected on the dosage of oxytocin, type and volume of solutions used, indications and contraindications for use and discontinuation, case-specific administration, and on who developed the procedures. Findings were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 35 (90%) units participated in this study. Standard operating procedures were available in 24 units (69%), seven units (20%) did not have procedures and information was missing from four units (11%). Midwives participated in the development of standard operating procedures in 15 units (43%). Infusions were most commonly prepared using six units of oxytocin in 500 ml 0.9% normal saline solution (12 mU/ml). The infusions were started at 120 mU/hour and increased by 120 mU/hour at 20-min intervals up to a maximum dosage of 1200 mU/hour. The most common indication for use was delayed progress in labour. Infusions were stopped when uterine contractions became hypertonic and/or the fetal heart rate showed signs of distress. Most of the practices described aligned with international guidance. All units used reduced oxytocin dosages for women with a history of previous caesareans section, as recommended in the international guidelines, and restrictive use was advised in multiparous women. The main difference between units related to combined use of amniotomy and oxytocin, recommended by three guidelines but used in only four maternity units (11%). CONCLUSIONS: While there was considerable variation in the oxytocin augmentation procedures, most but not all practices used in these 35 German maternity units were comparable. Establishing a national guideline on the criteria for and administration of oxytocin for augmentation of labour would eliminate the observed differences and minimise risk of administration and medication error.

Women's experiences of postterm induction of labor: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, induction of labor (IOL) in postterm pregnancies has increased. Studies have shown the medical advantages of postterm IOL, but less is known about the perspectives of the pregnant women. This review aimed to summarize the current qualitative evidence on women's experience of postterm IOL. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in three databases. A total of 3193 publications were identified, but only eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis guided the data extraction and synthesis. The Confidence in the Evidence for Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach was used to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Three major findings were identified. First, for some women, IOL required a shift in expectations because the hope of spontaneous labor had to be given up. Second, the IOL decision was considered a recommendation from health care professionals and was experienced as a nondecision. Finally, the induction process was experienced as a sequential set of steps where the women were expected to fit into the existing hospital organization. The CERQual assessment suggested moderate confidence in all findings. DISCUSSION: The negative experiences identified in this review can be greatly reduced by a communicative and patient-centered approach. To support informed choice and shared decision making, women need high-quality, unbiased information about IOL, alternative options, and potential outcomes, in addition to time for reflection on their personal values and preferences. Women may need a professionally initiated and supported opportunity to re-evaluate their hopes and expectations before IOL.

[The ARRIVE Trial†: is it time to move towards a universal recommendation of induction of labor at term?] / Etude «â€ ARRIVE†¼â€ : vers une recommandation globale de déclenchement du travail d'accouchement à terme†?

Both cesarean surgery and induction of labor have become common procedures performed in all labor wards in an attempt to reduce adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Thus, recent evidence, led by the ARRIVE Trial, demonstrated that elective induction at 39 weeks reduced the rates of cesarean deliveries and of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. However, some concerns must be addressed, as the benefits of universal policies have to be outweighed with the current circumstances of implementation, the economic impact, the number of procedures needed to effectively reduce complications, and, above all, women's perception towards this approach. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore individualization strategies, instead of general recommendations, to offer personalized care.

Afin de réduire les complications obstétricales et néonatales, la césarienne ainsi que le déclenchement de l'accouchement sont souvent pratiqués. Récemment, l'étude ARRIVE a démontré que le déclenchement à 39 semaines d'aménorrhée (SA) permet de diminuer le taux de césariennes et de complications hypertensives de la grossesse. Il reste à déterminer les avantages d'une recommandation universelle dans les circonstances actuelles, son impact économique, le nombre de déclenchements nécessaire pour réduire efficacement le taux des complications obstétricales et, surtout, la perception des femmes à l'égard de cette procédure. Finalement, il serait plus intéressant de développer des stratégies individualisées de prise en charge plutôt que des recommandations globales, afin d'offrir une prise en charge la plus personnalisée possible.

Oxytocin Use in Labor: Legal Implications.

Oxytocin is one of the most commonly used medications in obstetrics and has been associated with claims of negligence in cases of adverse outcomes. Errors involving intravenous oxytocin administration for induction or augmentation of labor are most commonly dose related and include failure to avoid or treat tachysystole or failure to asses or treat a fetal heart rate pattern indicative of disruption in oxygenation. Clinicians should be knowledgeable regarding pharmacokinetics of oxytocin and the effect of uterine contractions on fetal oxygenation as well as safe titration of oxytocin to achieve the desired effect while minimizing harm.

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

In this column, Sara Wickham takes a sideways look at issues relevant to midwives, students, women and families, inviting us to sit down with a cup of tea and ponder what we think we know. Here, she looks at one of the latest papers to join the trend of attempting to justify induction of labour in healthy women, raising questions about the language and stance used within the research and suggesting that women and midwives might gain from referring to the precautionary principle.

Patient safety during induction of labor.

Rates of induction of labor have risen rapidly since 1990, from 9.6% in that year to a peak of 23.8% of the 2010 singleton births in the United States. Even as the definition of term pregnancy has been refined to reflect the continuing maturation needs of the fetus, and mothers have been encouraged to "go the full forty," management strategies for pregnancy conditions that increase risk have included early induction. Labor induction should only be undertaken when there are specific indications for interrupting the normal processes of pregnancy. These indications may relate to maternal, fetal, or placental conditions or simply reflect the understanding that in all pregnancies, the placenta will eventually lose its ability to adequately provide oxygen, nutrition, and waste removal for the fetus. Patient safety-for both the mother and the child-can be improved when clinicians practice within clinical guidelines that follow the best available evidence and women are able to make informed decisions regarding plans for labor.

[Impact of a Guideline for Management of Pregnancy beyond Term and its Influence on Clinical Routine]. / Einfluss der Leitlinie zum Vorgehen bei Terminüberschreitung auf den klinischen Alltag.

PURPOSE: Many international guidelines recommend induction of labour beyond 41 weeks to reduce perinatal morbidity and mortality. In 2010, a new German guideline with this recommendation was published. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this recommendation influenced clinical outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All cases with induction of labour beyond 40 weeks in 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012 were examined. Multiple pregnancy and Caesarean section in the case history were exclusion criteria. The years before publication of the new German guideline (2008 and 2009) were compared with those afterwards (2011 and 2012) with regard to several outcome parameters like rate of labour induction, efficacy of induction of labour and foetal outcome. RESULTS: After publication of the guideline there were more inductions of labour undertaken (300 [11.2%] vs. 472 [15.4%], p<0.0001) with less pregnancies beyond 42 weeks (9 [3%] vs. 5 [1%], p=0.0489). However, there was no difference concerning the efficacy of induction of labour, e. g., the ratio of Caesarean sections was not increased. There was no impairment of foetal outcome, in contrast, the ratio of postpartal admission to NICU was decreased (42 [14.2%] vs. 31 [6.7%], p=0.0006). CONCLUSION: The new recommendation of the German guideline to induce labour beyond 41 weeks leads to more cases with induction of labour without any negative impact on its efficacy or foetal outcome.

Evaluation of outcomes after implementation of an induction-of-labor protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether adherence to an induction of labor (IOL) protocol decreases the rate of failed IOL (FIOL). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a 1-year retrospective chart review around the implementation of a hospital IOL protocol and compared maternal and neonatal outcomes from deliveries managed per protocol (n = 369) with those deliveries that were not (n = 230). Women at least 24 weeks' gestation with cervical dilation up to 2 cm who underwent an indicated IOL were included. Protocol-adherent (PA) inductions had amniotomy within 24 hours of starting oxytocin, intrauterine pressure catheter placement in latent labor, Montevideo units titrated to 200-300 or to adequate cervical change, and oxytocin administered for at least 12 hours after amniotomy before FIOL was diagnosed (defined as delivery by cesarean during latent labor as a result of failure to enter active labor). The primary outcome was the rate of FIOL. Control for possible confounders was made by stratification and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: FIOL rates were lowest in the PA group, which remained significant after stratification on parity and multivariate analysis (nulliparous women, 3.8% vs 9.8%; P = .043; multiparous women, 0% vs 6%; P < .0004). Median time to delivery was shortest in the PA group by 3.5 hours in nulliparous women (16.0 vs 19.5 hours, respectively; P = .0002) and 1.5 hours in multiparous women (10.75 vs 12.25 hours, respectively; P < .0001). There were no differences in infectious morbidity or neonatal outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Adherence to a standardized IOL protocol is associated with a decreased rate of FIOL and length of labor.

Women's experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's experience of induction of labor. DESIGN: Mixed methods study. SETTING: English maternity units. SAMPLE: Women who gave birth in a two-week period in late 2009, excluding women aged less than 16 years and women whose baby had died. METHODS: This study involved secondary analysis of data from questionnaires relating to care in childbirth. Women's experience of induction of labor was compared with that of women who had spontaneous labor by analysis of responses to structured survey questions. Responses to open questions relating to induction were analysed qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction with care, mode of delivery, experience of induction of labor. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 55.1% representing 5333 women, 20% of whom were induced. Nulliparous women, those with long-term health problems, or specific pregnancy-related problems were significantly more likely to be induced. Women who were induced were generally less satisfied with aspects of their care and significantly less likely to have a normal delivery. In the qualitative analysis the main themes that emerged concerned delay, staff shortages, neglect, pain and anxiety in relation to getting the induction started and once it was underway; and in relation to failed induction, the main themes were plans not being followed, wasted effort and pain, and feeling let down and disappointed. CONCLUSIONS: Women having an induction were generally less satisfied with their care, suggesting the need for a focused service for these women to address their additional needs.

Induction of labour.

OBJECTIVE: To review the most current literature in order to provide evidence-based recommendations to obstetrical care providers on induction of labour. OPTIONS: Intervention in a pregnancy with induction of labour. OUTCOMES: Appropriate timing and method of induction, appropriate mode of delivery, and optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes. EVIDENCE: Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library in 2010 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., labour, induced, labour induction, cervical ripening) and key words (e.g., induce, induction, augmentation). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. There were no date or language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to the end of 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES: The evidence in this document was rated using criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (Table 1). SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Prostaglandins E(2) (cervical and vaginal) are effective agents of cervical ripening and induction of labour for an unfavourable cervix. (I) 2. Intravaginal prostaglandins E(2) are preferred to intracervical prostaglandins E(2) because they results in more timely vaginal deliveries. (I).

Objectif : Analyser la littérature la plus récente afin de formuler des recommandations factuelles à l'intention des fournisseurs de soins obstétricaux au sujet du déclenchement du travail. Options : Mise en œuvre d'un déclenchement du travail dans le cadre d'une grossesse. Issues : Chronologie et méthode appropriées pour ce qui est du déclenchement, mode d'accouchement approprié et issues maternelles et périnatales optimales. Résultats : La littérature publiée a été récupérée par l'intermédiaire de recherches menées dans PubMed, CINAHL et The Cochrane Library en 2010, au moyen d'un vocabulaire contrôlé (p. ex. « labour ¼, « induced ¼, « labour induction ¼, « cervical ripening ¼) et de mots clés (p. ex. « induce ¼, « induction ¼, « augmentation ¼) appropriés. Les résultats ont été restreints aux analyses systématiques, aux essais comparatifs randomisés / essais cliniques comparatifs et aux études observationnelles. Aucune restriction n'a été appliquée en matière de date ou de langue. Les recherches ont été mises à jour de façon régulière et intégrées à la directive clinique jusqu'à la fin de 2010. La littérature grise (non publiée) a été identifiée par l'intermédiaire de recherches menées dans les sites Web d'organismes s'intéressant à l'évaluation des technologies dans le domaine de la santé et d'organismes connexes, dans des collections de directives cliniques, dans des registres d'essais cliniques et auprès de sociétés de spécialité médicale nationales et internationales. Valeurs : La qualité des résultats est évaluée au moyen des critères décrits dans le rapport du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (Tableau 1). Validation : Les données, les déclarations sommaires et les recommandations que contient la présente directive clinique ont été vérifiées en les comparant à celles de directives cliniques similaires. Commanditaire : Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Déclarations sommaires 1. Les prostaglandines E2 (administrées par voie cervicale et vaginale) constituent des agents efficaces de maturation cervicale et de déclenchement du travail en présence d'un col non favorable. (I-A) 2. L'utilisation de PGE2 intravaginales, plutôt qu'intracervicales, est à privilégier puisqu'elle donne lieu à plus d'accouchements vaginaux en temps opportun. (I) Recommandations 1. L'indication justifiant le recours au déclenchement doit être documentée et la discussion devrait aborder la raison motivant le déclenchement, la méthode de déclenchement et les risques (y compris l'incapacité d'obtenir le travail et la hausse possible du risque de césarienne). (III-B) 2. Lorsque le déclenchement du travail échoue, l'indication et la méthode de déclenchement devraient être réévaluées. (III-B) 3. Un déclenchement ne devrait pas être mené seulement en raison de la présence soupçonnée d'une macrosomie fœtale. (III-D) 4. Un déclenchement ne devrait pas être mené seulement parce que cela convient à la patiente ou au fournisseur de soins. (III-D) 5. Les fournisseurs de soins devraient évaluer le col utérin (au moyen de la cotation de Bishop) en vue de déterminer la probabilité de réussite du déclenchement et de sélectionner la méthode de déclenchement appropriée. (II-2A) 6. La cotation de Bishop devrait être documentée. (III-B) 7. Les fournisseurs de soins doivent tenir compte du fait que, en présence d'un col non favorable, le déclenchement est associé à un taux d'échec accru chez les patientes nullipares, ainsi qu'à un taux de césarienne accru chez les patientes tant nullipares que pares. (II-2A) 8. Idéalement, toutes les femmes devraient subir une échographie, préférablement au cours du premier trimestre, en vue de confirmer l'âge gestationnel. (I-A) 9. Les établissements devraient disposer de programmes d'assurance-qualité et de politiques en matière de déclenchement (dont des outils de sécurité tels que des listes de contrôle), en vue de s'assurer que les déclenchements ne sont menés qu'en raison d'indications acceptables. (II-2B) 10. Un déclenchement du travail devrait être offert aux femmes entre 41+0 et 42+0 semaines, puisque cette intervention pourrait réduire les taux de mortalité périnatale et de syndrome d'aspiration méconiale, sans entraîner une hausse du taux de CS. (I-A) 11. Les femmes qui choisissent de différer le déclenchement au-delà de 41+0 semaines devraient être soumises à une évaluation du bien-être fœtal deux fois par semaine. (I-A) 12. Les sondes de Foley intracervicales constituent des méthodes acceptables (II-2B) qui s'avèrent sûres tant dans le contexte d'un AVAC (I-B) qu'en clinique externe. (II-2B) 13. Les sondes à double lumière pourraient être considérées comme étant une solution de deuxième intention. (II-2B) 14. Les PGE2 (administrées par voie cervicale et vaginale) ne devraient pas être utilisées dans le cadre d'un AVAC, et ce, en raison d'un risque accru de rupture utérine. (II-2D) 15. L'utilisation de PGE2 administrées par voie vaginale peut être envisagée en présence d'une rupture des membranes à terme. (I-A) 16. Le misoprostol peut être considéré comme un agent sûr et efficace aux fins du déclenchement du travail en présence de membranes intactes et en milieu hospitalier. (I-A) 17. Le misoprostol ne devrait pas être utilisé dans le cadre d'un AVAC, en raison du risque accru de rupture utérine. (II-3D) 18. Le traitement à l'oxytocine ne devrait pas être entamé avant que quatre heures ne se soient écoulées depuis l'administration de la dernière dose de misoprostol. (III-B) 19. L'amniotomie devrait être réservée aux femmes qui présentent un col favorable. Lorsque la présentation est non engagée, des soins particuliers devraient être mis en œuvre, et ce, en raison du risque de prolapsus du cordon. (III-B) 20. À la suite de l'amniotomie, le traitement à l'oxytocine devrait être entamé tôt de façon à faire démarrer le travail. (III-B) 21. En présence d'une rupture des membranes à terme, le recours à l'oxytocine devrait être envisagé avant la mise en œuvre d'une prise en charge non interventionniste. (I-A) 22. Les femmes qui présentent des streptocoques du groupe B devraient se voir administrer de l'oxytocine dès que possible à la suite de la rupture des membranes, de façon à faire démarrer le travail dans un délai de 24 heures. (III-B) 23. Le recours aux protocoles d'oxytocine tant à forte qu'à faible dose peut être envisagé dans le cadre d'un protocole hospitalier. (III-B) 24. En raison de la diversité des concentrations, les taux de perfusion d'oxytocine devraient toujours être consignés en mU/min plutôt qu'en ml/h. (III-L) 25. Le déclenchement à l'oxytocine peut être envisagé dans le cas d'un AVAC se déroulant en milieu hospitalier. (II-3B).

Quality of guidelines on the management of diabetes in pregnancy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes during pregnancy can lead to severe risks for both mother and fetus when it is not managed properly. The use of rigorously developed guidelines with a robust implementation process can have a positive influence on the management of diabetes during pregnancy. This study aims to compare recommendations and assess the quality of clinical guidelines on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pre-existing diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. METHODS: Guidelines were selected by searching PubMed, the Guideline Clearing House and Google. All guidelines developed since 2000 on diabetes during pregnancy in English or Dutch were considered. Recommendations of the guidelines were compared. Furthermore, the quality was assessed by two authors independently, using the AGREE instrument. RESULTS: Eight guidelines were included. According to the AGREE instrument, the quality of most guidelines was low. The domains editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and rigour of development had the lowest scores. Recommendations were mainly comparable on glycemic control, preconceptional counseling and prenatal care and labour. Differences between recommendations were found for screening on GDM and induction of labour. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of most guidelines concerning the management of diabetes during pregnancy needs to be improved. A more systematic approach in the development of these guidelines, more attention for updating procedures and piloting of the guidelines and involvement of target users and patients is recommended.

Assimilating evidence quality at a glance using graphic display: research synthesis on labor induction.

Evidence profiled in the World Health Organization induction of labor guideline extended to 84 tables and 116 pages, which is hard to assimilate. Summarizing this evidence graphically can present information on key outcomes succinctly, illustrating where the gaps, strengths and weaknesses lie. For induction of labor, graphic representation clearly showed that evidence was lacking on maternal complications when comparing oxytocin with other agents, evidence was strong on birth within 24 h when comparing vaginal prostaglandins with placebo or no treatment, but again it was weak on uterine hyperstimulation when comparing oxytocin with vaginal prostaglandins. These graphs/plots allow readers to capture the essence of the information gathered at a glance. The use of graphical displays when interpreting and publishing data on several comparisons and outcomes is encouraged.

Elective delivery at less than 39 weeks.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence and impact of elective deliveries occurring prior to 39 weeks' gestation has been the focus of several important studies published in recent medical literature. Defined as scheduled deliveries in the absence of medical or obstetrical indications, concern has been raised that many of these procedures are not performed within the parameters of existing clinical guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that no elective delivery should be performed before the gestational age of 39 weeks; however, studies report rates of 28-35.8% of elective deliveries occurring before 39 weeks and reveal that they also contribute to increased rates of late-preterm births (34 0/7-36 6/7 weeks). These deliveries are associated with increased neonatal morbidity, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and associated hospital costs compared to deliveries (37 0/7-38 6/7 weeks) occurring at 39-40 weeks. Prevention of early-term elective deliveries has not demonstrated an increased risk for stillbirth. The implementation of hospital quality improvement programs has successfully reduced the occurrence of elective early-term and late-preterm deliveries, as well as associated neonatal morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Improved compliance with ACOG recommendations and a reduction in elective deliveries before 39 weeks can be achieved through the use of quality improvement processes involving education, tracking of data, and strict enforcement of clinical practice policies.

Induction of Labor: An Overview of Guidelines.

IMPORTANCE: Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention that stimulates the onset of labor using artificial methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize and compare recommendations from 4 national or international medical societies on the IOL. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A descriptive review was conducted of major published guidelines on IOL: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' "Induction of Labor" and "Management of Late-Term and Postterm Pregnancies," the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) on "Induction of Labour," those of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on "Inducing Labour," and the World Health Organization's (WHO's) "Recommendations for Induction of Labour" and "WHO Recommendations: Induction of Labour at or Beyond Term." These guidelines were compared in terms of their recommendations on clinical indications and methods. RESULTS: Many similar indications and contraindications to IOL are identified between American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC, whereas NICE and WHO do not mention any contraindications. The timing of IOL in postterm pregnancies also differs among the guidelines. Regarding the methods of induction, all the medical societies recommend the use of membrane sweeping, mechanical methods, prostaglandins, and oxytocin, whereas NICE argues against the use of misoprostol for IOL. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC consider amniotomy a method of IOL, whereas NICE and WHO do not recommend it. All the guidelines also make similar recommendations regarding the management of uterine tachysystole in cases of IOL. CONCLUSIONS: The World Health Organization seems to be the most evidence-based guideline with recommendations based mainly on Cochrane reviews. The variation in the clinical indications and methods of IOL highlights the need to adopt an international consensus, which may help to optimize the quality of obstetric care and further promote evidence-based medicine.

[Elective induction of labour at 39 weeks; better than expectant management in low-risk women]. / Electief inleiden van de baring bij 39 weken.

The ARRIVE trial has shown that elective induction of labour at 39 weeks improves maternal and foetal outcomes in comparison with expectant management. Caesarean sections, hypertensive disorders and neonatal ventilator support were all found to be reduced after elective induction. The trial was performed in an American nulliparous low-risk population. Several American professional organizations have now adapted their recommendation on elective induction in nulliparous low-risk women. These organizations now suggest informing women about the potential benefits, and offer elective induction in a model of shared decision-making. In the Netherlands there has been some reluctance amongst professionals to address this issue. This might be related to a conservative obstetric approach and the Dutch obstetric model with its three separate levels of care. Nevertheless, this subject should be addressed in a scientific, professional and unprejudiced way, given the evidence and potential implications for the large group of low-risk women and neonates in the Netherlands.

Dissatisfaction of women with induction of labour according to parity: Results of a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors associated with dissatisfaction in women whose labour was induced, according to parity. DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: Seven French perinatal health networks including 94 maternity units PARTICIPANTS: Among 3042 consecutive women who underwent induction of labour (IoL) with a live foetus from November 17 to December 20, 2015, in participating maternity units, this study included the 1453 who answered the self-administered questionnaire about their experience of IoL at two months post-delivery. MEASUREMENTS: The associations between women's dissatisfaction at two months post-delivery and the characteristics of their pregnancy, labour, and delivery were assessed with multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were stratified for nulliparous and parous women. Multivariable mixed models were used to take a random effect for the maternity unit into account. FINDINGS: The response rate was 47.8% (n = 1453/3042). Overall, 30% of the nulliparous women were dissatisfied (n = 231/770) and 19.7% (n = 130/659) of the parous women. The specific independent determinants of dissatisfaction for nulliparous women were antenatal birth classes that failed to include discussion of IoL (OR: 2.68, 95% CI [1.37; 5.23]) and lack of involvement in the decision-making process (OR: 1.92, 95% CI [1.23; 3.02]). For the parous women, a specific determinant was a delivery that lasted more than 24 h (OR: 4.04, 95% CI [1.78; 9.14]). Determinants of maternal dissatisfaction common to both groups were unbearable vaginal discomfort (respectively, OR: 1.98, 95% CI [1.16; 3.37] and OR: 4.23, 95% CI [2.04; 8.77]), inadequate pain relief (respectively, OR: 5.55, 95% CI [3.48; 8.86] and OR: 9.17, 95% CI [5.24; 16.02]), lack of attention to requests (respectively OR: 3.81, 95% CI [2.35; 6.19] and OR: 5.01, 95% CI [2.38; 10.52]), caesarean delivery (respectively, OR: 5.55, 95% CI [3.41; 9.03] and OR: 4.61, 95% CI [2.02; 10.53]) and severe maternal complications (respectively, OR: 2.45, 95% CI [1.02; 5.88] and OR: 5.29, 95% CI [1.32; 21.21]). KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To reduce dissatisfaction in nulliparous women, IoL should be discussed during antenatal birth classes and women should be made to feel that they shared in the medical decision to perform IoL. For parous women, care providers should inform them that the duration of delivery may exceed 24 h. Continuous support for all women during IoL should pay closer attention to vaginal discomfort, pain and women's requests. Postpartum discussions with mothers should be arranged to enable conversation about the experience of unexpected events.

Labor induction process improvement: a patient quality-of-care initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects that medical staff education and a new process for scheduling inductions had on decreasing inappropriate inductions. METHODS: At our institution in 2004, guidelines were developed and shared with the medical staff and reinforced in 2005. The guidelines for elective induction required patients to have completed 39 weeks of gestation and to have a Bishop score of at least 8 for nulliparas and 6 for multiparas. In 2006, the induction scheduling process was changed and the guidelines were strictly enforced. All scheduled inductions during the same 3-month time period (June through August) in 2004 (n=533) and 2005 (n=454) and during a 13-month period from November 2006 to December 2007 (n=1,806) were compared. Outcomes included elective inductions less than 39 weeks, cesarean birth rate for elective inductions among nulliparas, and the overall induction rate. RESULTS: From 2004-2007, the overall induction rate dropped from 24.9% to 16.6%, a 33% reduction(P<.001); the elective induction rate dropped from 9.1% to 6.4%, a 30% reduction (P<.001); the percentage of elective inductions before 39 weeks of gestation dropped from 11.8% to 4.3%, a decrease of 64% (P<.001); and the frequency of cesarean delivery among nulliparas undergoing elective induction dropped from 34.5% to 13.8%, a decrease of 60%. (P=.01). CONCLUSION: Medical staff education and the development and enforcement of induction guidelines contributed to a decrease in inappropriate inductions, a lower cesarean birth rate for electively induced nulliparas, and a lower elective and overall induction rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Women's experiences of induction of labour: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and synthesise evidence of women's experiences of induction of labour (IoL). DESIGN: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed qualitative evidence. Relevant databases were searched from inception to the present day. Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative research appraisal tool. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Low and high risk women who had experienced IoL in an inpatient or outpatient setting. FINDINGS: Eleven papers (representing 10 original studies) published between 2010 and 2018 were included for thematic synthesis. Four key analytical themes were identified: ways in which decisions regarding induction were made; women's ownership of the process; women's social needs when undergoing IoL; and the importance of place in the induction process. The review indicates that IoL is a challenging experience for women, which can be understood in terms of the gap between women's needs and the reality of their experience concerning information and decision-making, support, and environment. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Providing good quality appropriately timed information and supporting women's self-efficacy to be involved in decision-making around IoL may benefit women by facilitating a sense of ownership or control of labour. Compassionate support from significant others and healthcare professionals in a comfortable, private and safe environment should be available to all women.