Misguided guidelines for managing labor

Abstract

In a recent review we expressed concerns about new guidelines for the assessment and management of labor recommended jointly by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). These guidelines are based heavily on a new concept of how cervical dilatation and fetal descent progress, derived from the work of Zhang et al. In their Viewpoint article they have addressed, but not allayed, the concerns we described in our review. We assert that the dilatation curve promulgated by Zhang et al cannot be reconciled with direct clinical observation. Even if they were correct, however, it still does not follow that the ACOG/SMFM guidelines should recommend replacing the coherent system of identifying and managing labor aberrations described by Friedman. That system is grounded in well-established clinical principles based on decades of use and the objectively documented association of some labor abnormalities with poor fetal and maternal outcomes. Recommendations for new clinical management protocols should require the demonstration of superior outcomes through extensive, preferably prospective, assessment. Using untested guidelines for the management of labor may adversely affect women and children. Even if those guidelines were to reduce the currently excessive cesarean delivery rate, the price of that benefit is likely to be a trade-off in harm to parturients and their offspring. The nature and degree of that harm needs to be documented before considering adoption of the guidelines.

Keywords: labor assessment; labor curve; obstetric guidelines; partogram.