Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
CMAJ. 2014 Jun 10;186(9):665-73. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.130925. Epub 2014 Apr 28.

Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Homerton Hospital University Trust (Mishanina); Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Rogozinska, Khan), Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; School of Medicine (Thatthi), University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya; Barts Health NHS Trust (Uddin-Khan), London, UK; Health Economics Research Group (Meads), Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK.
2
Homerton Hospital University Trust (Mishanina); Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Rogozinska, Khan), Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; School of Medicine (Thatthi), University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya; Barts Health NHS Trust (Uddin-Khan), London, UK; Health Economics Research Group (Meads), Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK k.s.khan@qmul.ac.uk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Induction of labour is common, and cesarean delivery is regarded as its major complication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether the risk of cesarean delivery is higher or lower following labour induction compared with expectant management.

METHODS:

We searched 6 electronic databases for relevant articles published through April 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which labour induction was compared with placebo or expectant management among women with a viable singleton pregnancy. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on rates of cesarean delivery. We used regression analysis techniques to explore the effect of patient characteristics, induction methods and study quality on risk of cesarean delivery.

RESULTS:

We identified 157 eligible RCTs (n = 31,085). Overall, the risk of cesarean delivery was 12% lower with labour induction than with expectant management (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.93; I(2) = 0%). The effect was significant in term and post-term gestations but not in preterm gestations. Meta-regression analysis showed that initial cervical score, indication for induction and method of induction did not alter the main result. There was a reduced risk of fetal death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.99; I(2) = 0%) and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.94), and no impact on maternal death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10-9.57; I(2) = 0%) with labour induction.

INTERPRETATION:

The risk of cesarean delivery was lower among women whose labour was induced than among those managed expectantly in term and post-term gestations. There were benefits for the fetus and no increased risk of maternal death.

PMID:
24778358
PMCID:
PMC4049989
DOI:
10.1503/cmaj.130925
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center