Systematic Review: Elective Induction of Labor Versus Expectant Management of Pregnancy
Open Access
- 18 August 2009
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 151 (4) , 252-263
Abstract
The rates of induction of labor and elective induction of labor are increasing. Whether elective induction of labor improves outcomes or simply leads to greater complications and health care costs is commonly debated in the literature. To compare the benefits and harms of elective induction of labor and expectant management of pregnancy. MEDLINE (through February 2009), Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through March 2009), bibliographies of included studies, and previous systematic reviews. Experimental and observational studies of elective induction of labor reported in English. Two authors abstracted study design; patient characteristics; quality criteria; and outcomes, including cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Of 6117 potentially relevant articles, 36 met inclusion criteria: 11 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 observational studies. Overall, expectant management of pregnancy was associated with a higher odds ratio (OR) of cesarean delivery than was elective induction of labor (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.39]; absolute risk difference, 1.9 percentage points [CI, 0.2 to 3.7 percentage points]) in 9 RCTs. Women at or beyond 41 completed weeks of gestation who were managed expectantly had a higher risk for cesarean delivery (OR, 1.21 [CI, 1.01 to 1.46]), but this difference was not statistically significant in women at less than 41 completed weeks of gestation (OR, 1.73 [CI, 0.67 to 4.5]). Women who were expectantly managed were more likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid than those who were electively induced (OR, 2.04 [CI, 1.34 to 3.09]). There were no recent RCTs of elective induction of labor at less than 41 weeks of gestation. The 2 studies conducted at less than 41 weeks of gestation were of poor quality and were not generalizable to current practice. RCTs suggest that elective induction of labor at 41 weeks of gestation and beyond is associated with a decreased risk for cesarean delivery and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. There are concerns about the translation of these findings into actual practice; thus, future studies should examine elective induction of labor in settings where most obstetric care is provided.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational ageAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2006
- Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable cervical scoresEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2005
- Neonatal complications of term pregnancy: Rates by gestational age increase in a continuous, not threshold, fashionAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005
- Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effectAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductionsAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1999
- Elective Induction Versus Spontaneous Labor: A Case-Control Analysis of Safety and EfficacyObstetrics & Gynecology, 1998
- A clinical trial of induction of labor versus expectant management in postterm pregnancyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1994
- Breast-feeding following spontaneous and induced labourEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 1988
- Management of prolonged pregnancy: Induction of labor versus antepartum fetal testingAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1987