Informed decision making around induction of labour at 39 weeks

We recently argued the case for offering induction of labour (IOL) at 39 weeks gestational age to all women with a lowrisk pregnancy.1 The purpose of this article is to respond to the authors of the other side of the debate.2 There are many points of agreement. All authors believed in a woman’s right to choose, that IOL prevents caesarean section and that the ARRIVE Trial3 (in isolation) did not show an improvement in perinatal outcomes.

[1]  D. Randall,et al.  Offering routine induction of labour at 39 weeks in low‐risk nulliparous women: No need for hasty change , 2019, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[2]  A. Gordon,et al.  Induction of labour at 39 weeks should be routinely offered to low‐risk women , 2019, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[3]  A. Caughey,et al.  Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. , 2019, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  A. Caughey,et al.  Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2019, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  F. Figueras,et al.  Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta‐analysis , 2018, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[6]  U. Reddy,et al.  The impact of induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk women on the incidence of stillbirth. , 2019, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  M. Rice,et al.  Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low‐Risk Nulliparous Women , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  K. Howard,et al.  Women’s preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  E. Rogozińska,et al.  Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2014, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[10]  S. Ross,et al.  Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of trials in women with intact membranes , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  M. Spaanderman,et al.  Cost‐effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (PROBAAT trial) , 2013, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  I. Ford,et al.  Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  P. Middleton,et al.  Induction of Labour for Improving Birth Outcomes for Women at or Beyond Term , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.