Impacts of embracing 39-week elective induction across an entire labor and delivery unit.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor among low-risk, 39-week nulliparas increased significantly in the United States following publication of the outcomes of A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management trial. However, the rates of labor induction and outcomes in non-nulliparous patients and the wider impacts on the labor unit have not been reported widely. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the induction of labor rates and outcomes before and after liberal implementation of 39-week elective induction at a single center. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the delivery characteristics of pregnancies 1 year before and 1 year after adoption of a new 39-week elective induction policy at a single, tertiary-care center. Notably, elective induction was not restricted to nulliparas. We examined all live, singleton, in-born deliveries ≥36 weeks gestation, excluding those with fetal anomalies and prolonged antenatal admission. Deliveries at ≥39 weeks gestation were further subcategorized as being high risk (diabetes mellitus, chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction, history of fetal demise or cholestasis) or low risk, nulliparas vs multiparas, and with or without a previous cesarean delivery. Elective deliveries were those without a maternal, fetal, or obstetrical indication. Primary outcomes included gestational age and indications for delivery, rates of labor induction and elective induction, and time from admission to delivery. Secondary outcomes included the rate of cesarean deliveries, indications for cesarean deliveries, and maternal and newborn morbidities. The outcomes were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests or chi-square tests as appropriate. The odds of cesarean delivery were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression and controlling for relevant confounders. RESULTS: A total of 2672 pre-implementation and 2526 post-implementation deliveries were studied. Among patients at ≥39 weeks gestation, elective delivery increased (pre-implementation, 344/1788 [19.2%] vs post-implementation, 684/1710 [40.0%]; P<.01) and admission for labor or ruptured membranes decreased (pre-implementation, 920/1788 [51.5%] vs post-implementation, 579/1710 [33.9%]; P<.01). Labor induction in the 39th week of gestation increased among low-risk and high-risk nulliparas, multiparas, and those with a previous cesarean delivery (P<.05 for each pairwise comparison), and the rate of 39-week elective inductions increased in all low-risk subgroups. Deliveries at 36 to 38 weeks gestation were similar in the proportion, timing, indications for delivery, and rate of labor induction. The odds of cesarean delivery was unchanged overall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14) and for low-risk, ≥39-week nulliparas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.23) and low-risk, ≥39-week multiparas (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.98). Among all deliveries, the median (interquartile range) time from admission to delivery increased significantly (pre-implementation, 12.8 [6.0-21.6] hours vs post-implementation, 15.6 [7.1-25.1] hours; P<.01) and the total cumulative patient care time from admission to delivery increased by 15% (pre-implementation, 41,578 hours vs post-implementation, 47,605 hours) when normalized by delivery volume. Chorioamnionitis incidence increased, whereas other maternal and neonatal morbidities were unchanged. CONCLUSION: Following adoption of a nonrestrictive, 39-week elective induction policy at a single, tertiary-care center, the rates of 39-week induction of labor and elective inductions increased among nulliparas, multiparas, and those with a previous cesarean delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was unchanged, and the median time from admission to delivery and the cumulative admission to delivery hours increased significantly. Future studies are needed to further explore the full scope of the impacts on labor unit operations, costs, and patient experiences and outcomes.

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.

Objective This study examined the accuracy, sources of error, and limitations of gravimetric quantification of blood loss (QBL) during cesarean delivery. Study Design Blood loss determined by assays of the hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with QBL in 50 parturients. Results QBL was moderately correlated to the actual blood loss ( r = 0.564; p < 0.001). Compared with the reference assay, QBL overestimated blood loss for 44 patients (88%). QBL deviated from the assayed blood loss by more than 250 mL in 34 patients (68%) and by more than 500 mL in 16 cases (32%). Assayed blood loss was more than 1,000 mL in four patients. For three of these patients, QBL was more than 1,000 mL (sensitivity = 75%). QBL was more than 1,000 mL in 12 patients. While three of these had an assayed blood loss of more than 1,000 mL, 9 of the 46 patients with blood losses of less than 1,000 mL by the assay (20%) were incorrectly identified as having postpartum hemorrhage by QBL (false positives). The specificity of quantitative QBL for detection of blood loss more than or equal to 1,000 mL was 80.4%. Conclusion QBL was only moderately correlated with the reference assay. While overestimation was more common than underestimation, both occurred. Moreover, QBL was particularly inaccurate when substantial bleeding occurred. Key Points QBL is inaccurate in cesarean delivery.QBL deviated from the assay result by more than 500 mL in 32% of cases.QBL sensitivity and specificity for hemorrhage is 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.93) and 80.4% (95% CI: 0.69-0.92), respectively.

Accuracy of Blood Loss Measurement during Cesarean Delivery.

Objective This study aims to compare the accuracy of visual, quantitative gravimetric, and colorimetric methods used to determine blood loss during cesarean delivery procedures employing a hemoglobin extraction assay as the reference standard. Study Design In 50 patients having cesarean deliveries blood loss determined by assays of hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with obstetricians' visual estimates, a quantitative gravimetric method, and the blood loss determined by a novel colorimetric system. Agreement between the reference assay and other measures was evaluated by the Bland-Altman method. Results Compared with the blood loss measured by the reference assay (470 ± 296 mL), the colorimetric system (572 ± 334 mL) was more accurate than either visual estimation (928 ± 261 mL) or gravimetric measurement (822 ± 489 mL). The correlation between the assay method and the colorimetric system was more predictive (standardized coefficient = 0.951, adjusted R2 = 0.902) than either visual estimation (standardized coefficient = 0.700, adjusted R2 = 00.479) or the gravimetric determination (standardized coefficient = 0.564, adjusted R2 = 0.304). Conclusion During cesarean delivery, measuring blood loss using colorimetric image analysis is superior to visual estimation and a gravimetric method. Implementation of colorimetric analysis may enhance the ability of management protocols to improve clinical outcomes.