Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Dec 11;19(1):493.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2602-2.

Induction of labor compared to expectant management in term nulliparas with a latent phase of labor of more than 8 hours: a randomized trial

Patrick Naveen Sargunam  1 , Lindy Li Mei Bak  1 , Peng Chiong Tan  2 , Narayanan Vallikkannu  1 , Mat Adenan Noor Azmi  1 , Syeda Nureena Zaidi  1 , Sandar Tin Win  1 , Siti Zawiah Omar  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Induction of labor compared to expectant management in term nulliparas with a latent phase of labor of more than 8 hours: a randomized trial

Patrick Naveen Sargunam et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: Prolonged latent phase of labor is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Preliminary data indicate that labor induction for prolonged latent phase may reduce cesarean delivery. We performed a study powered to Cesarean delivery to evaluate labor induction compared to expectant management in full term nulliparas hospitalized for persistent contractions but non-progressive to established labor after an overnight stay.

Methods: From 2015 and 2017, nulliparas, ≥ 39 weeks' gestation with prolonged latent phase of labor (persistent contractions after overnight hospitalization > 8 h), cervical dilation ≤3 cm, intact membranes and reassuring cardiotocogram were recruited. Participants were randomized to immediate induction of labor (with vaginal dinoprostone or amniotomy or oxytocin as appropriate) or expectant management (await labor for at least 24 h unless indicated intervention as directed by care provider). Primary outcome measure was Cesarean delivery.

Results: Three hundred eighteen women were randomized (159 to each arm). Data from 308 participants were analyzed. Cesarean delivery rate was 24.2% (36/149) vs. 23.3%, (37/159) RR 1.0 95% CI 0.7-1.6; P = 0.96 in induction of labor vs. expectant arms. Interval from intervention to delivery was 17.1 ± 9.9 vs. 40.1 ± 19.8 h; P < 0.001, intervention to active labor 9.6 ± 10.2 vs. 29.6 ± 18.5 h; P < 0.001, active labor to delivery 7.6 ± 3.6 vs. 10.5 ± 7.2 h; P < 0.001, intervention to hospital discharge 2.4 ± 1.2 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 days; P < 0.001 and dinoprostone use was 19.5% (29/149) vs. 8.2% (13/159) RR 2.4 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.01 in IOL compared with expectant arms respectively. Intrapartum oxytocin use, epidural analgesia and uterine hyperstimulation syndrome, postpartum hemorrhage, patient satisfaction on allocated intervention, during labor and delivery and baby outcome were not significantly different across trial arms.

Conclusions: Induction of labor did not reduce Cesarean delivery rates but intervention to delivery and to hospital discharge durations are shorter. Patient satisfaction scores were similar. Induction of labor for prolonged latent phase of labor can be performed without apparent detriment to expedite delivery.

Trial registration: Registered in Malaysia National Medical Research Register (NMRR-15-16-23,886) on 6 January 2015 and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, registration number ISRCTN14099170 on 5 Nov 2015.

Keywords: Cesarean; Expectant management; Induction of labor; Latent phase of labor; Nullipara; Patient satisfaction; Term; Vaginal delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment flow chart into a randomized trial of induction of labor compared to expectant management in term nulliparas with a latent phase of labor of more than 8 hours
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1972;48(6):842–858. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NICE . Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. 2014.
    1. Gross MM, Hecker H, Matterne A, Guenter HH, Keirse MJ. Does the way that women experience the onset of labour influence the duration of labour? BJOG. 2006;113(3):289–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00817.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tilden Ellen L., Phillippi Julia C., Ahlberg Mia, King Tekoa L., Dissanayake Mekhala, Lee Christopher S., Snowden Jonathan M., Caughey Aaron B. Describing latent phase duration and associated characteristics among 1281 low‐risk women in spontaneous labor. Birth. 2019;46(4):592–601. doi: 10.1111/birt.12428. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Angeby K, Wilde-Larsson B, Hildingsson I, Sandin-Bojo AK. Prevalence of prolonged latent phase and labor outcomes: review of birth records in a Swedish population. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018;63(1):33–44. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12704. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types