+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials



Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials



Bjog 123(9): 1501-1508



To evaluate caesarean section and adverse neonatal outcome rates after induction of labour or expectant management in women with an unripe cervix at or near term. Secondary analysis of data from two randomised clinical trials. Data were collected in two nationwide Dutch trials. Women with hypertensive disease (HYPITAT trial) or suspected fetal growth restriction (DIGITAT trial) and a Bishop score ≤6. Comparison of outcomes after induction of labour and expectant management. Rates of caesarean section and adverse neonatal outcome, defined as 5-minute Apgar score ≤6 and/or arterial umbilical cord pH <7.05 and/or neonatal intensive care unit admission and/or seizures and/or perinatal death. Of 1172 included women with an unripe cervix, 572 had induction of labour and 600 had expectant management. We found no significant difference in the overall caesarean rate (difference -1.1%, 95% CI -5.4 to 3.2). Induction of labour did not increase caesarean rates in women with Bishop scores from 3 to 6 (difference -2.7%, 95% CI -7.6 to 2.2) or adverse neonatal outcome rates (difference -1.5%, 95% CI -4.3 to 1.3). However, there was a significant difference in the rates of arterial umbilical cord pH <7.05 favouring induction (difference -3.2%, 95% CI -5.6 to -0.9). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of umbilical arterial pH <7.05 was 32. We found no evidence that induction of labour increases the caesarean rate or compromises neonatal outcome as compared with expectant management. Concerns over increased risk of failed induction in women with a Bishop score from 3 to 6 seem unwarranted. Induction of labour at low Bishop scores does not increase caesarean section rate or poor neonatal outcome.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057341631

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27173131

DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14028


Related references

Caesarean Section Rates and Adverse Neonatal Outcomes After Induction of Labour Versus Expectant Management in Women With an Unripe Cervix. Obstetric and Gynecologic Survey 71(12): 691-692, 2016

For pregnant women near full term with intrauterine growth restriction, induction of labour does not affect risk of adverse neonatal outcome or caesarean section compared with expectant management. Evidence-Based Nursing 14(3): 85-86, 2011

Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring in women with pregnancy induced hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term: the HYPITAT trial. Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth 7: 14, 2007

An economic analysis of induction of labour and expectant monitoring in women with gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia at term (HYPITAT trial). Bjog 118(6): 763; Author Reply 764, 2011

An economic analysis of induction of labour and expectant monitoring in women with gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia at term (HYPITAT trial). Bjog 117(13): 1575-1576, 2010

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial). European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 170(2): 358-363, 2013

Maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women undergoing non-medically indicated induction of labour or expectant management at 38-41 weeks gestation. Evidence-BasedMedicine20(3):114, 2015

Impact of timing of delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes for women after three previous caesarean deliveries; a secondary analysis of the caesarean section registry. Bjog 126(8): 1008-1013, 2019

Does routine induction of labour at 41 weeks really reduce the rate of caesarean section compared with expectant management?. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 31(7): 621-626, 2009

Improving induction of labour - a quality improvement project addressing Caesarean section rates and length of process in women undergoing induction of labour. Bmj Quality Improvement Reports 4(1):, 2015

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014(12): Cd004906, 2014

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012(5): Cd004906, 2012

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7: Cd004906, 2017

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006(4): Cd004906, 2006

Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. Bjog 121(6): 674-85; Discussion 685, 2014