Normal Progress of Induced Labor

OBJECTIVE: To compare the normal labor progress of women whose labor was induced with that of women who labored spontaneously. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive women admitted for labor at 37 weeks or more of gestation from 2004–2008 who reached the second stage of labor. Women whose labor was induced and women whose labor was augmented were compared with women who labored spontaneously without augmentation. Results were stratified by parity. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed; interval censored regression was used to estimate the median time spent to progress 1 cm in dilation and the total time from 4–10 cm dilation by parity. RESULTS: Of 5,388 women in the cohort, 2,021 spontaneously labored, 1,720 were augmented, and 1,647 were induced. After adjusting for race, obesity, macrosomia, and Bishop score, women who were induced had a significantly longer total time in labor than women who labored spontaneously (median [95th percentile] in hours for nulliparous women: 5.5 [16.8] induced compared with 3.8 [11.8] spontaneous; for multiparous women 4.4 [16.2] induced compared with 2.4 [8.8] spontaneous). However, median time to progress 1 cm dilation in active labor (6 cm or greater) was similar in induced and spontaneous labor. The time to progress 1 cm dilation in latent labor (less than 6 cm) was significantly longer in women who were induced compared with women who experienced spontaneous labor. CONCLUSION: The latent phase of labor is significantly longer in induced labor compared with spontaneous labor, although the active phase of labor (greater than 6 cm) is similar between the two groups. Arrest diagnoses before 6 cm in women undergoing induction should be made cautiously. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

[1]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  A. Sweeny Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  Williams: Obstetrics , 1957 .

[4]  J. Troendle,et al.  The impact of parity on course of labor in a contemporary population. , 2006, Birth.

[5]  J D Yeast,et al.  Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  A. Maslow,et al.  Elective Induction of Labor as a Risk Factor for Cesarean Delivery Among Low‐Risk Women at Term , 2000, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Contemporary labor patterns: the impact of maternal body mass index. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  Aaron B Caughey,et al.  The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Contemporary Patterns of Spontaneous Labor With Normal Neonatal Outcomes , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Acog ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: Dystocia and augmentation of labor. , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  J. Macer,et al.  Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  G. Macones,et al.  Impact of fetal gender on the labor curve. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  J. Martin,et al.  Births: final data for 2007. , 2010, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[15]  A. Zimerman,et al.  The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J. Troendle,et al.  Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. , 2006, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[17]  B. K. Rinehart,et al.  Lack of utility of standard labor curves in the prediction of progression during labor induction. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  G. Martens,et al.  Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  R. Adams,et al.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , 2018, Obstetrics & Gynecology.

[20]  Jun Zhang,et al.  The effect of early epidural versus early intravenous analgesia use on labor progression: a natural experiment. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  M. Socol,et al.  Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.