Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-1990-8411
Original Article

Outcomes among Nulliparous Women Undergoing Nonmedically Indicated Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks Compared with Expectant Management Differ by Maternal Age

Alyssa R. Hersh
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Erin Urbanowicz
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Bharti Garg
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Eleanor M. Schmidt
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Claire H. Packer 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Aaron B. Caughey
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Prior studies have demonstrated the potential benefit of nonmedically indicated induction of labor for nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation, yet few have studied the impact of this management strategy in different maternal age groups on obstetric outcomes. We sought to assess whether obstetric outcomes among women undergoing nonmedically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation as compared with expectant management vary based on maternal age.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton, nonanomalous, deliveries between 2007 and 2012 in California. We defined nonmedically indicated induction of labor as induction of labor without a specific medical indication, and women with planned cesarean sections were excluded. We compared induction of labor with expectant management beyond the gestational age of induction and examined this comparison in different maternal age groups. Numerous maternal and neonatal outcomes were examined. Chi-squared and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used for statistical comparisons and a p-value of less than 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

Results A total of 630,485 women–infant dyads met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. At 39 weeks' gestation, 6% of women underwent nonmedically indicated induction of labor and 94% underwent expectant management. Women 20 to 34 and ≥35 years old had lower odds of cesarean delivery if they underwent induction of labor. Women of all ages undergoing nonmedically indicated induction of labor had higher odds of operative vaginal delivery. Neonatal outcomes were better with nonmedically indicated induction of labor, including lower odds of neonatal intensive care unit admission and neonatal respiratory distress.

Conclusion Our study demonstrated that obstetric outcomes vary among women undergoing nonmedically indicated induction of labor compared with expectant management when stratified by maternal age. These findings illustrate the importance of understanding age-related differences in outcomes associated with nonmedically indicated induction of labor.

Key Points

  • Outcomes are different by age with nonmedically indicated induction of labor (IOL).

  • The odds of cesarean delivery with IOL decreases with increasing maternal age compared with expectant management.

  • Neonatal outcomes were improved with IOL compared with expectant management.

Keywords

induction of labor - obstetrics - age - cesarean delivery

Note

All authors were involved in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the data reported in this study.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 02 February 2022

Accepted: 15 November 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 November 2022

Article published online:
31 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wagner SM, Sandoval G, Grobman WA. et al. Labor induction at 39 weeks compared with expectant management in low-risk parous women. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (05) 519-525
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grobman WA, Caughey AB. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (04) 304-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Cheng YW, Lyell DJ, Washington AE. Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (03) 700-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ. et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2009; Mar (176) 1-257
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ. et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 252-263, W53–63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW. et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (04) 761-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical Guidance for Integration of the Findings of the ARRIVE Trial: Labor Induction Versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2022, at: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2018/08/clinical-guidance-for-integration-of-the-findings-of-the-arrive-trial
    PubMed
  • 9 Fonseca MJ, Santos F, Afreixo V, Silva IS, Almeida MDC. Does induction of labor at term increase the risk of cesarean section in advanced maternal age? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 253: 213-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Berger BO, Wolfson C, Reid LD, Strobino DM. Adverse birth outcomes among women of advanced maternal age with and without health conditions in Maryland. Womens Health Issues 2021; 31 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sheen J-J, Wright JD, Goffman D. et al. Maternal age and risk for adverse outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (04) 390.e1-390.e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How Does CDC Identify Severe Maternal Morbidity? 2019. Accessed January 1, 2022, at: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/smm/severe-morbidity-ICD.htm
    PubMed
  • 13 Main EK, Abreo A, McNulty J. et al. Measuring severe maternal morbidity: validation of potential measures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (05) 643.e1-643.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hersh AR, Skeith AE, Sargent JA, Caughey AB. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (06) 590.e1-590.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nicholson JM, Caughey AB, Stenson MH. et al. The active management of risk in multiparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (03) 250.e1-250.e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wherry LR, Fabi R, Schickedanz A, Saloner B. State and federal coverage for pregnant immigrants: prenatal care increased, no change detected for infant health. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36 (04) 607-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar