Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health
ISSN 2618-8430 (Print), 2686-7184 (Online)

The assessment of labor induction efficacy in inpatient department

VAK

Scopus

E-libraryDOAJ

russian citation indexroad

ebscoULRICHS

cyberleninkagoogle-scholar

ВИНИТИРГБ

Open accessCrossrefAntiplagiat

RMJ.ru

License Creative Commons
All papers are licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.


Impact factor - 1,090*

* Impact factor according to the SCIENCE INDEX 2022

DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2020-3-1-9-15

D.L. Guryev1,2, M.B. Okhapkin2, D.D. Guryeva2, I.V. Kabanov2, M.S. Gureva1, L.N. Nidershtrat1, T.A. Sorokina1

1Regional Perinatal Center, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation

2Yaroslavl State Medical University, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation

Aim: to assess the efficacy of labor induction using similar techniques in various groups, to determine the groups of pregnant women with the best and the worst response to labor induction, and to identify clinical anamnestic factors which reduce the efficacy of labor induction in certain groups of pregnant women.

Patients and Methods: retrospective analysis of delivery case histories of 765 women admitted to the Regional Perinatal Center was performed. All women underwent labor induction according to the protocol “Cervical ripening and labor induction” developed in 2013. All women were subdivided into the groups applying a 10-group classification system of the efficacy of labor induction developed by T.A. Nippita. Labor induction was considered to be effective in case of vaginal delivery in the lack of perinatal mortality and severe postnatal asphyxia.

Results: cephalic, term (39–40 weeks), multiparous women comprised the largest group (n=211, 27.6%) while non-cephalic women comprised the least group (n=16, 2.1%). Cesarean section rate following labor induction  was maximum (n=22, 44%) in women after one previous cesarean and minimum (n=1, 4.5%) in women with multiple pregnancy. In the Regional Perinatal Center, the rate of cesarean section was 15.5% following labor induction and 20.7% without labor induction. In T.A. Nippita Center, the rate of cesarean section following labor induction was 21.0%. The rate of severe postnatal asphyxia was 5.4 following labor induction and 6.5 without labor induction (р=0.94). No postnatal mortality following labor induction was reported.

Conclusions: labor induction in the Regional Perinatal Center should be considered as effective. Repeat births, cephalic presentation, more than 38 weeks of pregnancy, and multiple pregnancy improve the efficacy of labor induction. Less cervical ripening, breech presentation, and previous cesarean section reduce the efficacy of labor induction. 10-group classification system developed by T.A. Nippita provides objective analysis of the efficacy of labor induction in various groups of pregnant women to compare these findings with data derived from other institutions.

Keywords: labor induction, risk factors, efficacy classification system, rate of cesarean section, natural birth.

For citation: Guryev D.L., Okhapkin M.B., Guryeva D.D. et al. The assessment of labor induction efficacy in inpatient department. Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health. 2020;3(1):–15. DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2020-3-1-9-15.




About the authors:

1,2Dmitry L. Guryev — MD, PhD, Head Doctor, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ORCID iD 0000-0002-3728-8840;

2Mikhail B. Okhapkin — MD, PhD, Professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ORCID iD 0000-0001-6277-2987;

2Darya D. Guryeva — student of 5th course of the Medical Faculty, ORCID iD 0000-0002-1245-7521;

2Ivan V. Kabanov — student of 5th course of the Medical Faculty, ORCID iD 0000-0002-4412-2195;

1Marina S. Guryeva — MD, Deputy of the Head physician, ORCID iD 0000-0003-4362-3171;

1Luobov N. Nidershtrat — MD, obstetrician of the Department of Pathological Pregnancy, ORCID iD 0000-0003-4212-4266;

1Tatiana A. Sorokina — MD, obstetrician of Physiological Obstetrical Department, ORCID iD 0000-0001-8249-4785.

1Regional Perinatal Center. 31V, Tutaevskoe shosse, Yaroslavl, 150042, Russian Federation.

2Yaroslavl State Medical University. 5, Revolutsyonnaya str., Yaroslavl, 150000, Russian Federation.

Contact information: Dmitry L. Guryev, e-mail: d_guriev@mail.ru. Financial Disclosure: no authors have a financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned. There is no conflict of interests. Received 21.11.2019.




References
1. Nippita T.A., Khambalia A.Z., Seeho S.K. et al. Methods of classification for women undergoing induction of labour: a systematic review and novel classification system. BJOG. 2015;122:1284–1293. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13478.
2. Caughey A.B., Musci T.J. Complications of term pregnancies beyond 37 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:57–62. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000109216.24211.D4.
3. Bacak S., Olson-Chen C., Pressman E. Timing of induction of labor. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39:450–458. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.007.
4. Ehrenthal D.B., Jiang X., Strobino D.M. Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:35–42. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e10c5c.
5. Wood S., Cooper S., Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG. 2014;121:674–685. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12328.
6. Grobman W.A., Rice M.M., Reddy U.M. et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:513–523. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
7. Thomas J. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. Induction of labour. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
8. Nakano T., Muto H., Ishii K. et al. Factors associated with emergency cesarean delivery during induction of labor in nulliparous women aged 35 years or older at term. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research. 2018;44(9):1747–1751. DOI: 10.1111/jog.13708.
9. Гурьев Д.Л., Троханова О.В., Гурьева М.С. и др. Применение классификации Робсона для анализа работы акушерского стационара 3-го уровня и поиска путей снижения частоты кесарева сечения. Мать и Дитя в Кузбассе. 2018;4(75):70–74. [Guriev D.L., Trokhanova O.V., Gurieva M.S. et al. The use of Robson’s classification for analyzing the work of an obstetric hospital of the 3rd level and finding ways to reduce the frequency of cesarean section. Mother and Child in Kuzbass. 2018;4(75):70–74 (in Russ.)].
10. ACOG Practice Bulletin Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):e217–e233. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002398.
11. Frydman R., Lelaidier C., Baton-Saint-Mleux C. et al. Labor induction in women at term with mifepristone (RU 486): a doble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:972–975. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7292(93)90660-O.
12. Delaney S., Shaffer B.L., Cheng Y.W. et al. Labor induction with a foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1239–1245. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181dec6d0.



License Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.
Previous paper
Next paper

Register now and get access to useful services:
  • Загрузка полнотекстовых версий журналов (PDF)
  • Медицинские калькуляторы
  • Список избранных статей по Вашей специальности
  • Видеоконференции и многое другое

С нами уже 50 000 врачей из различных областей.
Присоединяйтесь!
[Error] 
Call to undefined function get_registration_form_description_popup() (0)
/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/en/include/reg_form.php:89
#0: include
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/modules/main/classes/general/main.php:1419
#1: CAllMain->IncludeFile(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/local/templates/.default/include/cl-footer.php:217
#2: include_once(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/local/templates/cl_inner_sidebar_en/footer.php:11
#3: include_once(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/modules/main/include/epilog_before.php:93
#4: require(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/modules/main/include/epilog.php:2
#5: require_once(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/footer.php:4
#6: require(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/en/articles/index.php:150
#7: include_once(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/modules/main/include/urlrewrite.php:184
#8: include_once(string)
	/home/c/cb72209/wchjournal/public_html/bitrix/urlrewrite.php:2
----------